jonesy
A Wicked Kendragon
As has been pointed out already that's not really a valid argument. They weren't 'lawful good' in the real world. They were just human. Some of them were really terrible people, just mostly not to their own.
Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions
- Thread starter Endur
- Start date
Lord Zack
Explorer
By that argument wizards would not be able to cast magic. In this this context the "real world" includes folklore, myths, legends, etc.
jonesy
A Wicked Kendragon
You need to read some Arthurian myths.
Let's discuss what we're actual doing at the table, roleplay versus gameplay.
Roleplaying is what is individual to each group. It is the process of creating interesting fantasy characters and having them adventure within a greater world.
The game framework is what gives structure to the game of pretend that we are all playing, allows a fair system of checks and balances on characters (you can't make Uber McSuper who is good at everything) and gives guidelines for resolving events.
You can't conflate rules on how to resolve events with rules on how to roleplay your character. Rules on how to roleplay your character are the antithesis of any system. It's saying "No, you are playing pretend wrong! If you want to play pretend with the D&D logo, you must do it the right way!"
There is a difference between rules that say "If you want to jump across a 10 ft chasm this is how to determine if you succeed and fail" and rules that say "If you want to play a halfling barbarian TAKE YOUR MONEY ELSEWHERE YOU FOOLISH PERSON, FOR D&D DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT"
Don't conflate the two.
Savage Wombat
Hero
If you don't support alignment rules at all, don't tell the people who like alignment rules how they should use them. To those who support alignment, they are not just "how I roleplay my character." There are game mechanics that are dependant on alignment after all.
Lord Zack
Explorer
Did I mention Arthurian myths? No. If I did I'd refer to specific characters like Galahad. More relevant would be the Paladins of Charlemagne. Sure the Saracens would have seen them as villains and being medieval knights they were probably jerks, but in say, the Song of Roland they're presented as heroes of Christendom.
Ah! So a paladin must be a Christian hero. Got it. If Christianity doesn't exist in the campaign world, nobody can be a paladin.
*checks off Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and pretty much every other published setting ever as "places where you can't be a paladin"*
But this is exactly what I do. As I said, I have no problem with you or anyone else making all sorts of alignment rules. If you want to say all Wizards must be evil because power corrupts, fine! If you want to say that all Barbarians must be chaotic, fine! If you want to say that all Rogues are non-lawful, fine! Go for it!
You have your campaign setting, I have mine. I would never tell you how to make alignment rules for your character, or tell you that you have to make your Paladin Chaotic.
You're the one trying to tell me that I have to make my Paladin Lawful Good. I am telling you NOTHING about how you should play the game.
I will say that there are no such thing as alignment dependent mechanics, and I like it that way. If they introduce them, I'd be quite angry.
Savage Wombat
Hero
But you are telling me how to play the game. You're saying that your description of the paladin, who can be any alignment, should be the one supported in the core rules.
If we say that paladins have to be LG, then the paladin can have alignment-targetting powers. Like Smite Evil. Or Detect Evil. Alignment-dependant mechanics, btw. It no longer becomes an issue of whether a CE Paladin should have Lay on Hands abilities.
Now, one could build a class your way, and maybe players would like it. Or maybe they wouldn't. But it's not an issue of "GreyICE isn't telling you how to play your character." It's a matter of what core assumptions go into building the class.
If we say that paladins have to be LG, then the paladin can have alignment-targetting powers. Like Smite Evil. Or Detect Evil. Alignment-dependant mechanics, btw. It no longer becomes an issue of whether a CE Paladin should have Lay on Hands abilities.
Now, one could build a class your way, and maybe players would like it. Or maybe they wouldn't. But it's not an issue of "GreyICE isn't telling you how to play your character." It's a matter of what core assumptions go into building the class.
Incenjucar
Legend
The main problem with paladin alignment, aside from the possibility of the character builder screwing with you, is that they might BALANCE the class around alignment. That just doesn't work out well in the long run, since people will be constantly playing them against their required alignment, and either losing access to the character and getting upset, or being more powerful than they should be.
If they also build alignment into the class features, that also shuts down the class for non-alignment players. No class should be built around alignment, but you can certainly be comfortable placing alignment-oriented alternative class options in the Big Book of Alignment.
If they also build alignment into the class features, that also shuts down the class for non-alignment players. No class should be built around alignment, but you can certainly be comfortable placing alignment-oriented alternative class options in the Big Book of Alignment.
Similar Threads
