Rolzup said:
Idle musings, occasioned by a long walk on a very hot day....
Is it really necessary to have alignment restrictions on character classes? At all?
Strictly mechanically? No. Flavor-wise? Definately.
Rolzup said:
I find it difficult to see that any of the current restrictions are really called for, and that they do anything more than eliminate some interesting character concepts.
The Bard? Least defensible here, I think. Especially if you use the bard as a military leader, inspiring his men and driving them into battle. Or a religious bard, who gives his companions strength by preaching to them.
The Bard as a military leader doesn't fill out his class abilities - you know, things like Bardic Knoweledge and the arcane spellcasting? You're looking for, say, the Marshall class for that. Also... who says a military leader must be Lawful? Neutral works on that axis rather well. As for the religious bard.... what's stopping you? Seriously? Perform(Oratory) is perfectly viable. Oh, wait, you're looking for a lawful diety - still no problem; one step off is permissible. Okay, you can't have such a bard of a lawful-neutral diety and be a cleric, but we're not talking a Cleric, we're talking a Bard.... who doesn't actually need to match alignments with his diety. And you can still do a lawful bard, keeping all bardic class abilities; you can just no longer advance as a bard.
Rolzup said:
The Barbarian? Probably the best case, but even so.... The barbarian's rage is a controlled fury; he determines when it begins and (generally) when it stops. I've always liked the idea of playing a multiclassed monk/barbarian, who's mastered and tamed his own inner anger. (I'd drop the illiteracy as well, by the way.)
The illiteracy goes away as soon as you pick up a level in another class. And a Barbarian is permitted to become Lawful; he just can't rage or advance in the Barbarian class anymore. He still keeps little things, like the DR, d12 hit dice, full BAB, weapon and armor proficiencies, skills.....
Rolzup said:
The Druid? I've never understood this one. Ou can be Neutral Good, or Chaotic Neutral, but not Chaotic Good? Not much of a restriction in any case, but I still don't see the point.
It's the cleric's restriction in disguise. All unmodified animals are listed as True Neutral. Nature, thus, is True Neutral. A Druid, as a Cleric of Nature, must be within one step of the diety - Nature - and thus may only be one step away from True Neutral. But that's flavor, not mechanics.
Rolzup said:
The Monk? The Drunken Master PrC is an obviously chaotic archetype, but even leaving that aside I can think of a number of chaotic martial artists from fiction. Hell, Jackie Chan roles alone!
There's Disipline in all martial arts. You want a CG monk-like? Play a Fighter, pick up Improved Unarmed Strike and the two-weapon fighting chain. The Dodge tree and Combat Expertise are also useful. Okay, so you're skipping out on the highly specialized abilities (Stunning Fist, for instance, Diamond Soul, and Abundant step are examples) but those would come out of super-disipline, by the flavor.
Rolzup said:
The Paladin. There's been plenty of debate about paladins of non LG faiths; I hardly need to rehash them. But considering the matter has me liking the idea of playing a truly Neutral palasin, devoted to maintaining the "balance" of the world.
Feel free to make, or dig up your own, variants; but the LG requirements actually came from early playtesting - the players felt it was needed, not the original devs....
Rolzup said:
To throw a non-core class out there, how about the Warlock? Saw a great idea here a while back about playing a lawful good Warlock in Eberron, with his powers manifesting in a manner similar to that of the Silver Flame.
Umm.... there's a note or two in the class write-up about adapting it to other sorts of outsider sources.... but if you look at the Angels and the Demons, you'll note that for the most part, at-will spell-likes are the Demon's schtick, and prepared spellcasting is the Angel's schtick....
Rolzup said:
And as a PrC I suppose that it doesn't really count, but not even the assassin really has to be evil. I've played an assassin who, in a campaign that used alignments, would likely have been classified as chaotic good. Yes, he used poison, and yes, he was a killer...but he killed rats, by god! Assassin was the best possible class choice for a ratcatcher, I think.
The class is designed to represent a murderer for hire. Mechanically, you find it suitable for representing something else, but the Roleplaying aspects don't mesh. Fine; make a variant.
Rolzup said:
(Edouard Finké, in the CITY campaign referenced in my sig. And yes, I really need to get back to working on that Story Hour....)
Obviously, opinions may vary. But, outside of setting specific reasons, do you think that the alignment restrictions are necessary to the game somehow?
They aren't mechanically necessary. They are flavor. Without flavor, we have much less of a game....
