Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

I'm confused. Your game has no alignments; you'd be fine with a "just G paladin" type character in your game, and you say that your game is better for it.
Yes.

But that same concept isn't acceptable in D&D?
Not to me.

That's one doozy of a double standard! Is this one of those "Because Dave and Gary thought it was cool" things?
It's because when I play D&D, I want to model D&D. I don't want generic fiction where I can fit whatever I want in. I expect Good and Chaos and Evil and Law all to be real forces. I expect LG-Paladins, and L-Monks. I expect conveniently color-coated dragons (and sometimes giants).

D&D is a particular genre. It's the arbitrary-kitchen-sink-style game, with classes and alignment and a host of other baggage. When I want that type of game, I want D&D (and I'll be picking up my old 3.5 campaign for a small arc, after over a year away).

I'm also curious why you went to all the trouble to write your own game rather than play D&D?
My own game is very, very different from D&D, but to be fair, it did start out as a modification. It's classless, which means everything has a point cost (save for equipment, though purchasing starting money/status does have a cost). It has no alignment, or assumed setting (planes, gods, demon/devil/angel divide, etc.).

It's all about player options for character concepts. If you have a concept, the system will probably handle it. Yes, there are restrictions, especially since magic in my system (new magic system) is much different, and much more "reigned in" than 3.5.

Now, why didn't I just play D&D and say "no alignment restrictions?" Because I felt it was bad at modeling most things besides D&D. Long distance teleports, scrying, and the like all contributed to problems with other fantasy genres in most moderate-to-low-powered books (things like Wheel of Time and the Riftwar Saga being higher-powered), and my system needed to handle either.

So, now I could line by line get rid of spells, feats, abilities, and the like. I could try to fix multiclassing. I could try to fix pre-reqs. I could keep houseruling on making the system more gritty, so a level 5 isn't nearly immune to level 1's. Or, I could make my own system. And, I did.

I just copy and pasted a lot, then modified (greatly changed) basically everything:
[sblock]
  1. Classless: I made everything classless, which lets things scale much easier when you decide to invest in something new (which is 3.X's multiclassing). Everything had a point cost, and you got points through leveling up, and you could spend them every session for incremental gain, rather than jumps at "level-up" time.
  2. Attribute Checks: Attribute checks are 1d6+attribute, rather than 1d20. This is the big exception to the "roll a d20+modifier to resolve" rule. DCs were set up as a guideline for those abilities.
  3. Character Creation: I made the default rolling for stats, or choose an array (you can choose after rolling) to set a minimum threshold. I also set up character traits/flaws/complications as base, but you don't need to take any.
  4. Character Advancement: Again, everything costs points, but you still have a hit die (basically level). Certain DCs scale based on hit die, and many abilities are capped at hit die +1 (such as base attack, defense bonus, etc.), so it is important to track. Additionally, I added "background" charts, so you can roll to look at events that have affected you during the leveling process (if you make a high level character).
  5. Skills: I combined some skills into one, changed and/or added uses to all of them, completely revised a couple from scratch, and added eight new skills.
  6. Feats: I completely revised pre-req's (now they're much easier to get), added brand new feats, adjusted feats to my system, and the like. Also, you can use a skill to get "virtual" combat feats, and so those were specified by being broken into different feat groups (melee combat, protective, etc.).
  7. Special Abilities: I created a system (well, multiple) for making up special abilities. You can use or give rerolls, get check bonuses, deal extra damage, inflict status effects, use spell-like abilities, and the like here.
  8. Traits: You can buy traits inherent to the character, such as blindsense, damage reduction, or telepathy. I have rules on improving many of them, and how they work here. They use ranks, like skills do, to determine effectiveness (though some don't have an associated attribute modifier).
  9. Magic: Magic was completely removed, and a new system added. You can use different "threads" of magic (20 of them, in fact), which are kind of like schools, and combine them by adding up the effect. A level 1 spell gets you up to 19 "strands", and by adding the effect up, you can use anything at 19 or less. A level 2 gets you up to 29 strands, a level 3 up to 39 strands, etc. You can combine threads, get Specialization or Lost levels of threads for more powerful effects, and even overchannel so you can use magic at will.
  10. Equipment: Everything gives you something, and I completely stripped away the "economy" of D&D. Prices are based on complexity, size, and quality, of which there are five grades (poor, regular, masterwork, masterpiece, and mastercraft), with each grade above regular granting additional features. Formulas for creating objects are here (weapons, armor, misc. objects, structures/vehicles, and inventions), as well as examples of features you can add.
  11. Combat: I changed how melee attacking works (opposed my ACvM [armor class vs. melee]) so you can potentially hit your attacker, which necessitated an "ACvR" (armor class vs range). I added a Hit Chart for combat to produce effects (you gain a bonus, he takes a penalty, you hit his arm, etc.) (4 pages). I made two HP pools (regular and temporary) to represent wounds and fatigue/skill (HP heals slowly, THP heals quickly). I divorced saves from automatically adding attributes (but also divorced attributes from spell save DCs). I changed rounds to 10 seconds each, and made more move actions into free actions. I simplified and revised combat maneuvers and unified them, added new options (exert effort, take hostage, knockout strike), and changed mechanics (two-weapon fighting doesn't give extra attacks). I added grappling maneuvers (1 page), pressure point attacks (1 page), riding maneuvers (2 pages), and a stance/maneuver system for warriors (11 pages). I added rules on fighting huge creatures (climbing them, harrying them, etc.) (1 page). I added rules on mass combat (8 pages), and a system for "zooming in" to deal with threats, and battle charts that might set it off mid-battle. Minor other changes (two-handing a weapon doesn't give Str+½, etc.). I reduced the rest of the rules (27 pages in 3.5) down to 12 pages.
  12. Adventuring: I added rules on running a business, running a territory, torture, magical land, and the like. Things like poison, disease, forced march, environmental dangers, etc. have all been revised.
  13. Running a Game: I added a 50 page chapter on how to run a game, for tips for my players if they ever want to take a swing at it. I even included quick NPC stats via a chart ("hit die 13, professionally skilled at attacking, he gets +13 on attacks") so they can run stuff on the fly easily, as well as rules to help judge success or failure, create events on the fly, etc.
  14. Misc.: Changed rules left and right (multiple attacks getting reduced down to two trailblazer-style, attacks/skill bonuses being cut in half to aid the 20 hit die spread with d20 mechanics, revised DCs, etc.).
[/sblock]
In the end, it was much easier to make my own system than just "modify" D&D and be happy. And I felt like I wanted a better "generic fantasy" system, which D&D was nowhere close to giving me (way too many built-in assumptions). I wanted a system where we could play Wheel of Time or Song of Ice and Fire with very little house rules. Sorry for the very, very long description. Anyways, that's why I just opted to make my own system. As always, play what you like :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Not providing one is one way.
There should probably be some simple example codes and causes for paladins and other similar classes to follow, general love and violence and healing and death.

The other way is to provide extensive rules about how to create it and not just suggestions (but that would probably better for a splatbook)
True, but there's a high risk of telling people how to make a Code instead of teaching them. Ya know, the whole give a man a fish problem.
 




I hate to break this to you, but Alignment Is Going To be In 5E. So either do not let the screen door hit you on your way out, or you are going to have to do what you did in every other edition of D&D and find a way to make your game fit how you want to play.

I write this with no mendacity or malice in intent, though I fully acknowledge the bluntness of the post.

After reading this thread and seeing the vitriol that alignment creates I think the 5E chapter on alignment should be burnt, sealed in a lead box and dropped in Challenger Deep.

Far from being a system that simply signifies certain moral preferences an actor possesses, alignment seems to always become a system where arguments develop as to what moral choices a PC must take/ what playstyles are legitimate, etc. Alignment adds so little to D&D and creates so much needless dissension.
 

It's because when I play D&D, I want to model D&D. I don't want generic fiction where I can fit whatever I want in. I expect Good and Chaos and Evil and Law all to be real forces. I expect LG-Paladins, and L-Monks. I expect conveniently color-coated dragons (and sometimes giants).

D&D is a particular genre. It's the arbitrary-kitchen-sink-style game, with classes and alignment and a host of other baggage. When I want that type of game, I want D&D (and I'll be picking up my old 3.5 campaign for a small arc, after over a year away).
*shrug* Well I don't understand why you'd give up the fun freedom of your personalized game to hold yourself hostage to traditionalist baggage. But I don't get many opportunities to game. Maybe you're luckier, and you have the time and energy for periodic nostalgia campaigns just for the lolz?

I'm also confused about alignment restrictions being part of a kitchen-sink game. I mean the more restrictions you have, the less kitchen sink you have.
 

And this is why I try and avoid saying things like well most people fill in the blank kind posts. Everyone's gaming experience is a little different.
That's some creative grammar there, in your first phrase. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, so I'll just agree with your second sentence.

Personally I don't think it is the internet or lack there of that causes rigid DMs. I think it is more a self confidence issue they worry that they don't have the experience or the game design knowledge to allow changes. I think they are afraid of breaking the game.
I'm sure that confidence plays a part; maybe a big part. In any case, I'm sure a few other factors are involved too.
 

After reading this thread and seeing the vitriol that alignment creates I think the 5E chapter on alignment should be burnt, sealed in a lead box and dropped in Challenger Deep.

Far from being a system that simply signifies certain moral preferences an actor possesses, alignment seems to always become a system where arguments develop as to what moral choices a PC must take/ what playstyles are legitimate, etc. Alignment adds so little to D&D and creates so much needless dissension.

If you feel that way then vancian magic, wizards and fighters should also be dropped in Challenger Deep. Because they also cause a lot of dissension.
 

My problem with alignment in D&D has always been that in D&D it is a state of being, whereas I see it as a goal. Lawful Good should be what the character aspires to because he revels in acts of benevolence. Requiring a character to be LG before he becomes a paladin reeks to me of metagaming. You could be someone vile having a crisis of consciousness who wants to redeem himself, so he joins the elite to become something better. He reaches towards the ideal he wants to achieve. But in D&D the order of the paladins takes a look at you with Detect Evil, and says "Nope, you aren't what we are looking for. We want someone who's never been bad." If that's how it is, why are any of them taking vows? You don't need vows if you're already LG, and you have a magic way of detecting it.
 

Remove ads

Top