Attention Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Druid and Other Players!

[steeldragons]

Well, that's where you-as-DM need to pull out the kitbash tools and rethink said restrictions. I did, a long time ago, and came up with this (original limits in brackets where-if I remember them):

Rangers [must be G] can be any
Cavaliers [not sure] must have a good or lawful component
Bards [must have a N component] can be any
Monks [must be L] must be lawful
Thieves [cannot be LG] cannot be good (in play, this is slowly weakening)
Druids [must be N] can be any as determined by deity followed (they are "Nature Clerics" here)
Assassins [not sure, it varied] must be evil
Necromancers [new class] cannot be good
Paladins [must be LG] must be lawful good

Lan-"chaotic-something, depending on my mood"-efan

Great list [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].
Here's my game's alignment "restrictions" if you want to call them that...they're not "bugs" they're "FEATURES"! lol. Anywho...

Fighters: Any
Barbarians: [must be chaotic] Must be Non-Lawful. (But Barbarians in my game are also solely human tribes of a certain region.)
Rangers: [must be Good] Must be Chaotic ("Bad" guys can know the wilderness and conduct guerilla warfare as easily as "Good" guys.).
Paladins: [must be Lawful Good] Must be Lawful Good (or Lawful Evil, anti-paladins do exist. But since I am not inclined to run "evil" campaigns, the PCs are more likely to encounter one than be one.)

Clerics: Any
Druid: [must be True Neutral] Must be True Neutral only! (members of a world-wide organization from time immemorial here)
Shamans: [homebrewed class] Must be some Neutral (NG, NE, LN, CN or TN) depending on society they coming from.

Mages: Any
Specialist mages: Any, though trends for certain schools apply. Necromancers are almost solely Lawful and/or Evil, though they are restricted to being "non-Good." Diviners are almost solely bound to Neutrality (though a particularly "righteous" or "diabolical" individual slips in there from time to time)...for example.

Thieves: [any non-good] Any non-Lawful. (Even evil creatures don't like their stuff being stolen. You've gotta "break the law" to steal stuff.)
Assassins: [must be evil]: Any non-lawful and non-good. (a faltering bishop of an LG deity could, if he so chose, hire a Neutral or CN assassin...not wanting to associate with blatantly evil persons...for his own nefarious plots...or an assassin seeking to redeem his immortal soul might offer his 'talents' to a "good" church/person/cause.)
Acrobats: same as Thieves, any non-Lawful.

Monks: [must be lawful] Must be Lawful.

Psionicists ("Initiates of the Emerald Tear" in my world): very rare, but any alignment is possible...though Neutrality does overwhelm the Order.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Why not. The farmgirl Jeanne D'Arc had no desire to be a warrior- she thought herself mad before she realized that the voice in her head was God. Going back further, the young shepherd David was specifically chosen by God to lead the Israelites, not just as a ruler, but as a warrior.*

Anyone can volunteer- or even be volunteered- for joining the priesthood. Only a precious few people in legend actually have their god speak to them and give them a mission.

Ah, see, I don't look to historical or legendary figures to get an image of what a class does. I look at its abilities. Looking outside of the game to understand a class' place is an alien concept to me; hence my surprise at your comment in Lanefan's thread which sparked this thread.

I mean, I know that most D&D classes were inspired by various literature; I still remember how each class section of the 2e PHB began with a mention of certain popular characters. But at the same time, D&D classes are clearly not those characters. So defining classes using those narrow selections of characters seems very arbitrary and limiting.

I hope that didn't sound snarky or anything; I'm trying to express how I'm coming at this situation.

* hmmm...perhaps Paladin is actually a PrCl for Commoners?

Didn't 3e UA present the paladin as a PrC?

Ok...we seem to be at an odds of perspective again....

???
--SD

You and me both.

I was replying to your assertion that an alignment restriction is comparable to the restriction of having a d4 HD. Which it isn't, IMO. The latter is a balanching factor; the former is just...there.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Well, that's where you-as-DM need to pull out the kitbash tools and rethink said restrictions. I did, a long time ago, and came up with this (original limits in brackets where-if I remember them):

My kitbash is: There are no restrictions.

It's simple, and it's consistent, which I consider a win-win.

 

[steeldragons]

You and me both.

I was replying to your assertion that an alignment restriction is comparable to the restriction of having a d4 HD. Which it isn't, IMO. The latter is a balanching factor; the former is just...there.

Ok. Fair enough.

See, I do think it is comparable.

A "restriction" to a class is, specifically, a mechanical one (which was part of the argument in here somewhere, wasn't it?)...whether it's a HD, a code of conduct, an alignment restriction, a lack of this or that kind of armor or this or that kind of weapon...they're all mechanical restrictions.

They do not impact the RP at all!

They effect what can be accomplished/actioned in play (including living, in the case of low HD) via "the numbers". But the fact that "I must adhere to this code of conduct" or "I can't use metal weapons" are just part of the character. The role-playing is what you bring to/make of that character within the parameters of your "numbers."

Personally, I think one can have phenomenal characters with all kinds of mechanical restrictions. Paladins included....no charge.

--SD

 

[Quickleaf]

G
Paladins: [must be Lawful Good] Must be Lawful Good (or Lawful Evil, anti-paladins do exist. But since I am not inclined to run "evil" campaigns, the PCs are more likely to encounter one than be one.)

Assassins: [must be evil]: Any non-lawful and non-good. (a faltering bishop of an LG deity could, if he so chose, hire a Neutral or CN assassin...not wanting to associate with blatantly evil persons...for his own nefarious plots...or an assassin seeking to redeem his immortal soul might offer his 'talents' to a "good" church/person/cause.).

Paladin starts a holy war costing hundreds of lives to change policy. Assassin takes out a couple power players to change policy. Is the assassin evil?

It's a hackneyed dilemma I know, but this is just the sort of question that comes up when playing a class with a code. Almost inevitably someone (the DM) must interpret if and how "good" and "evil" are defined. If everyone is onboard with that definition great, but if a player and a DM disagree then... is the answer for that player to avoided playing a class with a code in that DM's campaign?

 

[prosfilaes]

The mechanical penalies would need to distinguish between this sort of situation - possibly conflicting elements within the code itself - and a situation where the paladin kills someone unprovoked for their magic sword.

I think it can be more fun if it doesn't, if the rules are starkly clear and completely unbending, forcing characters into do I do the righteous thing (for which I won't get punished) or do I follow my code. I like the fantastic, religious feel of clear, somewhat arbitrary rules, and they're easier to adjudicate than general principles. I think that's a minority taste of mine.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Depending on edition...

I'm not talking about edition, I'm talking about the mythological/legendary inspiration for the class.

Ah, see, I don't look to historical or legendary figures to get an image of what a class does. I look at its abilities.

Yeah, but without looking at the class' inspiration- at least in the case of this particular class- you don't get the understanding of why the class does what it does.

I hope that didn't sound snarky or anything; I'm trying to express how I'm coming at this situation.

Nah- I got your vibe!

Didn't 3e UA present the paladin as a PrC?

It did, but I was thinking specifically of having a prereq of Commoner 1, since so many of the exemplars I keep putting up are actual farmboys and farmgirls before becoming Swords of Gods.

 

[steeldragons]

Paladin starts a holy war costing hundreds of lives to change policy. Assassin takes out a couple power players to change policy. Is the assassin evil?

Yes. Next question?

Ok. That was glib. Apologies. In the case of my own game world, as sited above, the assassin might be Neutral in alignment. Did her engage in an evil act(s)? Yes.

It's a hackneyed dilemma I know, but this is just the sort of question that comes up when playing a class with a code. Almost inevitably someone (the DM) must interpret if and how "good" and "evil" are defined.

Yes. They must...and should before play starts...and share that with the players before dice hit the table to make characters. Thus, noone takes on an "alignment specific" class without knowing what they're getting into.

If everyone is onboard with that definition great, but if a player and a DM disagree then... is the answer for that player to avoided playing a class with a code in that DM's campaign?

Um...well...Yes.


--SD

 

[Wiseblood]

I went with the most strict option. I would love to see it in action as a player. As a DM I would have more of an issue implementing it. go figure.
I suppose in each situation as long as the DM is clear and up front about his interpretation there should be no problem.

 

[Pentius]

Ok. Fair enough.

See, I do think it is comparable.

A "restriction" to a class is, specifically, a mechanical one (which was part of the argument in here somewhere, wasn't it?)...whether it's a HD, a code of conduct, an alignment restriction, a lack of this or that kind of armor or this or that kind of weapon...they're all mechanical restrictions.

I don't think a behavior restriction, like a paladin's code(hereafter called a roleplaying restriction) is comparable to a purely numbers restriction, such as a d4 hit die(hereafter referred to as a mechanical description). Here's why.

The d4 hit die, the lack of armor, these are pretty much going to always be a drawback. Rare indeed is the D&D campaign that features no element of mortal peril.

The paladin's code, though? How much of a drawback that is depends wildly on the campaign, the adventure and the DM himself. It isn't hard to imagine a session, an adventure, or even a campaign where things are straight forward do-good, save the day, and the paladin's player is never even really tempted to break his code. Maybe the DM is lenient about the code, or maybe he just isn't putting anything other than stark black and white decisions on the board. But if the paladin's code never gets in the way of what the player wanted to do anyway, it isn't really restricting him, is it? In which case it is not balancing him against anything. Inherent in the idea of the restrictions as balance is that the player is going to want to do certain things, but abstain, for his code(the character might not want to, but the player might). On the other end of the spectrum, a DM who is so inclined can pretty much make a paladin fall at will.

The amount by which a d4 is a drawback is fairly predictable, but a roleplaying restriction? Not so much.

Yes. Next question?

Ok. That was glib. Apologies. In the case of my own game world, as sited above, the assassin might be Neutral in alignment. Did her engage in an evil act(s)? Yes.

Ah, but by assassinating the few key figures in order to get policy changed, the assassin has, in effect, saved hundreds of lives. Both the paladin and the assassin had the same goal, but the assassin put aside his pride, and achieved it with minimal loss of life. The paladin, on the other hand, gets hundreds or thousands of young men killed in a holy war. He leaves hundred of families to grieve over sons that will never return home. He exposes thousands of innocent people to the horror of war. And for what? His own honor and pride? How selfish.