Paladins: Lawful Good only and other restrictions

[Endur]

Suppose instead of an alignment restriction to lawful good, Paladin's had a knight's code of honor. The code of honor might include the various 1e restrictions, or perhaps something similar to the 3e Knight or some of the vows from the book of exalted deeds.

Does it make a difference if the Paladin does not have an alignment restriction, but has a code of honor for which a lawful good alignment would be the best fit?

 

[Incenjucar]

Codes should be their own thing. Just like how we have druids that love nature and druids that turn nature into a horrible mockery. If you force them into a narrower niche you just wasted a lot of potential.

 

[Endur]

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.

In AD&D, the Paladin required Chr 17. Chr was usually a dump stat in AD&D, since it didn't affect combat at all ... unlike current chr which is actually useful in combat.

So the Paladin's requirement for a high chr balanced out the Paladin's benefits beyond what a fighter received. (since if someone was playing a fighter instead, they could presumably move that 17 into a more valuable stat like str, con, dex, etc.).

I don't think the alignment restrictions were meant to be a game play balance. Instead, I think the alignmetn restrictions were meant to be a source of story-telling. Think of the angst that Lancelot goes through as he tries to follow his ideals, but suffers for his love. Breaking his vows to free her. etc.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think the alignment restrictions were meant to be a game play balance. Instead, I think the alignmetn restrictions were meant to be a source of story-telling. Think of the angst that Lancelot goes through as he tries to follow his ideals, but suffers for his love. Breaking his vows to free her. etc.

Exactly, and provided the player sticks to whatever their alignment is(which is a challenge all in itsself no matter if it's a requirement or not), letting the player choose their own alignment and play their own character is much more interesting than having someone play Lawful Stupid.

 

[Incenjucar]

Any player that needs a code to angst over can give it to themselves or base it on the deity they serve.

 

[Endur]

letting the player choose their own alignment and play their own character is much more interesting than having someone play Lawful Stupid.

I'm a bit confused by your comment.

Nobody is saying that the player can't choose their own alignment. Nobody is saying that they can't play their own character. Nor is anyone saying that Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid. (The Lawful Stupid players I've seen were not Lawful Good).

Under AD&D rules, a paladin that wasn't LG, was a fighter. Only if the paladin was LG, did that paladin have extra holy powers. Regardless of alignment, you could still control your player and you could still choose your alignment. So you lost lay on hands? Powers don't make the character.

The problems with alignment-restrictions that I have seen (which gave rise to lawful stupid) were usually problems with bad GMs, and not really player caused issues. The same GMs that would warp wishes to do the opposite of the plain meaning of the wish would often warp alignment restrictions for paladins (and druids and monks and other classes with alignment restrictions).

 

[GreyICE]

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.

How is telling you that 'you can play any paladin you want, including LG' telling you how to play the game? I am literally doing the opposite. I am telling you to play the game however you want.

I am simply saying that the core rules should support playing the game multiple ways over playing the game one single way.

P.S. I know previous editions had junk like Detect Evil. I consider the idea that "good" and "evil" can be "detected" with a simple spell as a completely role-play destroying concept. I'd happily replace it with a spell to detect Demons/Devils/Undead, which makes mechanical and in-game sense, but saying that you can look at another human being (or elf, dwarf, whatever) and say that they're evil just removes tons of roleplay.

I'd actively hope no mechanics are tied to alignment, and that they restrict mechanics to targeting classes like 'Abyssal creatures and undead.' If they have to, they can add those spells in a module, but I'd deeply hope they're not part of the core game.

 

[Savage Wombat]

How is telling you that 'you can play any paladin you want, including LG' telling you how to play the game? I am literally doing the opposite. I am telling you to play the game however you want.

No, you're not. You're giving me permission to change the rules, which I already have. But you want the rules to support only your version of the paladin, and not the one that is focussed on an alignment mechanic. If your view is in the minority, then you are preventing the majority from playing their character.

Reiterating your statement doesn't show that you've understood my point.

 

[GreyICE]

No, you're not. You're giving me permission to change the rules, which I already have. But you want the rules to support only your version of the paladin, and not the one that is focussed on an alignment mechanic. If your view is in the minority, then you are preventing the majority from playing their character.

Reiterating your statement doesn't show that you've understood my point.

Religious/political comments removed by moderator. ~Umbran

In an alignment unrestricted model, you would have EXACTLY the same ability to play a restricted Paladin following a code of honor. Other people would simply have the ability to play Paladins differently.

You are literally raging just because other people would have the option to do things differently than you, and your only justification is that you want terrible alignment mechanics added to Next, so that you can tell whether someone is an evil murderer or an innocent falsely accused by casting one spell.

 

[Savage Wombat]

You are literally raging just because other people would have the option to do things differently than you, and your only justification is that you want terrible alignment mechanics added to Next, so that you can tell whether someone is an evil murderer or an innocent falsely accused by casting one spell.

That was an awfully hostile response, and I'm not raging against anything. You have demonstrated in multiple threads a tendency to make blanket statements of points that are, in reality, subject to debate. I merely point out where you are in error.

Example: you describe aligment mechanics as "terrible", simply because your favored version of the game doesn't support them. Others disagree with you.

All you need to do is admit that some people support a version of the Paladin that is exclusively LG, and that (as a result) they would consider a non-LG version to be "not a paladin". And that they have a right to discuss their views.

You don't seem willing to go that far - on any point, really.