Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6315320" data-attributes="member: 23484">I'm not sure you have: though the wording of the play test materials could be clearer, the individual oaths are framed in terms of strict alignment choices: Devotion LG; Vengeance N or LN.Now I admit the wording could be stronger, but there are alignment restrictions implied for the class already. They haven't spelled out the consequences of alignment change, which also affects monks ("most" are lawful) or clerics (one step of the divinity's alignment, though that falls apart if you worship a whole pantheon), but it is there. As [MENTION=61050]LFK[/MENTION] notes, this is not a paladin-only argument, until  someone starts telling me the way I need to play LG. As is usual, a lot of separate issues get confused:(1) the social contract at the gaming table, and what you are there for.  (2) the relative absence of rp solutions in favour of mechanical ones(3) talking about any character's alignment in the context of gods who are known to exist and who operate by an alignment system(4) the LG paladin as a "special case"1. I'm not going to continue to game with players like the ones [MENTION=6776483]DDNFan[/MENTION] describes. That's not worth my time, and bad gaming is not better than no gaming. So let them have their fun; it is a problem I get to avoid.2. In my situation, changing alignment is something that can be negotiated. Patterns of behaviour, experienced over the course of a session or two, reveal alignment in a way any single act does not. There should be rp in play, though I understand that can be pretty minimal in a dungeon-crawl context. All fine, though -- the rules allow a range of views. 3. Falling Icicle 's point about how much the gods care about individual believers is a good one There does need to be a stick for some sort of (negotiated) alignment change, but it doesn't need to be a "fall" for a single act.* a cleric more than one step from her god maybe doesn't get spells, or needs to find a new god. * a non-lawful monk maybe doesn't get ki points. * a lawful barbarian maybe doesn't get rages.* a paladin who goes beyond their oath (or violates alignment) maybe doesn't get spells, or needs to choose another oath. If reading these makes you think the penalty's too harsh, a more moderate form in each case would be:* the character can no longer advance in levels in that class.Within the context of a healthy table dynamic (negotiated alignment), none of these are especially punitive, I feel. If they were to happen, it would be because the player has chosen that outcome. 4. So, finally, is there anything special about the LG Paladin? Within the context of 5e, it's a particular oath, and I've just suggested that moderate solutions exist on par with alignment restrictions in other classes. Frankly, I wish there *were* something special about LG paladins, but it's not there right now -- apart from the 8th-level ability to turn fiends and some spell availability, there is no real distinction between one paladin and another, or between paladins and other classes. In the past, I've outlined my proposed fix (basically, granting the level 6 ability, Aura of Protection, only to LG/Oath of Devotion paladins, and having alternative powers for other Oaths), but I'm not holding my breath.The current iteration does not make paladins more powerful than other classes, and does not say there's anything particularly special about the Oath of Devotion, and that's fine. It is not a case that needs special treatment.</blockquote>

Verification