Just Curious: Alignment Restrictions and Game Balance

[delericho]

As we know, the multiclassing restrictions on Paladins and Monks exist because playtesters felt they gave better flavour to the classes, rather than any actual game-balance issues.

I am curious as to whether the alignment restrictions on Paladins, Monks, Druids, Bards and Barbarians are similarly for purely flavour reasons, or whether these have game balance implications? For example, would it affect my game significantly if I allowed a CE paladin without any changes in the class features? (That's purely hypothetical - I know it doesn't make any sense to actually allow a CE Paladin without some changes to the class features. But I'm interested in the theoretical impact on balance, rather than any other issues.)

As far as I can see, the main issues are around multiclassing (in that a Paladin/Barbarian could smite while in rage, gaining a relatively huge bonus on attack rolls, for example). The handling of the Blackguard with respect to ex-Paladin levels would also need changed.

So, any thoughts?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I've been running a CE tiefling monk NPC and he isn't broken.

Purely flavor as far as I'm concerned. I don't think a Paladin/Barbarian is any more powerful than a Fighter/Barbarian. In fact, its less powerful.

 

[Crothian]

alignment is pure flavor

 

[DragonLancer]

I've left the alignment restrictions in place because they make sense to me, but I did remove the multiclassing restriction/penalty applied to those classes because that didn't.

 

[Voadam]

significantly affect the flavor and flexibility of choices, not the mechanical balance.

A CE demon cult champion who can detect and smite both devils and competing demons and their followers is not a bad character class concept.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

Always pure flavor to me. I've changed some of them on occasion simply because it doesn't make sense in my game world.

Even considering my DMs and PCs call me a balance-Nazi, I've never seen a problem in it. Alignment is flavor for classes.

 

[Shemeska]

You should play a character, not an alignment.

And for the record, I find alignment restrictions on player classes to be silly. I have no problem with a lawful bard. I have no problem with a chaotic monk (some githzerai come to mind...).

Often, but not always, I find alignment restrictions on classes to be as arbitrary and ill founded as level caps and class restrictions on races back before I started playing the game.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

You should play a character, not an alignment. ... I find alignment restrictions on player classes to be silly.

I totally agree. I’ve never used alignment, and I haven’t noticed any balance problems for not having it.

IMO, alignment is an unrealistic substitute for morality (besides which it’s always just seemed hokey).

ironregime

 

[DamionW]

Me Personally, I just don't like compromises in flavor/sensibility. I wouldn't want to allow a monk/barbarian because the two lifestyles are diametrically opposed as I see it. How is one to achieve the zen-like state that allows a monk to use his wisdom bonuses for AC when he's flying into crazed rages all of the time? Other players/DMs might see it differently, but I just don't like that kind of concept.

 

[Xombie Master]

As far as Lawful being required for monk. That's just plain poo. How are you gonna have those Lawful School vs Chaotic School confrontations you see in movies, without the occasional crazy chaotic monk.