Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Incenjucar" data-source="post: 5861114" data-attributes="member: 6182">Yes, some people support horribly restrictive rules which will irritate a significant portion of the audience.Inclusive rules structures are important for the survival of the brand. Only so many people play D&D for the sake of being shackled to a narrow view forged in the days when bellbottoms weren't just a Halloween costume, and D&D was associated with Satanism.You can apply those shackles very easily through a module, without detracting from the broader availability of the rules. Alignment is infamously contentious, and that contention ensures that any implementation is going to be hideously flawed for a significant portion of that audience, making it a terrible choice for something that important rules - such as a popular character class - are locked into.Alignment shackles need to be kept out of core. They're toxic to a lot of players, and the game doesn't need another reason for division. You can add alignment shackles back in, call it the "True Paladin" or something, as optional rules, with special benefits that tie strictly into a Lawful Good True Paladin concept, without breaking the wider concept of the class that has made it so much more popular in recent years.</blockquote>