D&D 5E Should classes retain traditional alignment restrictions in 5E?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Inspired by FireLance's thread on Paladins -- Should classes in 5E retain traditional alignment* restrictions?

Examples:

Assassin: Any evil
Barbarian: Non-lawful
Bard: non-Lawful
Druid: Any neutral
Monk: Any lawful
Ranger: Any good
Paladin: Lawful good

My personal opinion: there are a few classes who are essentially defined by alignment (Assassin, Paladin), but drop alignment retrictions for all the rest.

*assuming, of course, that 5E retains alignment. IMO it could be an optional module itself.

 

[harlokin]

No surprise here, but please no.

The new edition should enable a variety of play styles, not force everybody to conform to a a historically pure vision of what DnD should be.

 

[Transformer]

Lord no. Why on earth can't the paladin represent the neutral and evil versions of its archetype too? And why on earth can't an assassin who hunts down bad guys be neutral or even good? And why on earth can't we let people play what they want?

 

[Infiniti2000]

No alignments at all. Period.

 

[Oni]

I voted only for one class, that being the Paladin, but I want to add a caveat to that. I think the default Paladin presented in the PHB should retain the alignment restriction that has been historically tied with it through out most of the history of the game as a sort of appeasement to those who feel strongly about it, it is my impression that they are quite high in number. However I think there there should be a sidebar as to the making of Paladins (i.e. champions) of other alignments. Something along the lines of, "if you want to do this, then here is a good way to go about it, if you want to play a Paladin of another alignment then speak to you DM about whether they have a place in his or her campaign world or not, much like the default Paladin their inclusion is ultimately up to the DM."


[Edit: Or a simpler way might be to write the class without alignment restriction, include a note that says, "some DM's may restrict this class to certain alignments," give a couple example codes, and be done with it.]

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

This is something that would make me don't play 5e, no alignments based restrictions please, I would preferred no alignments at all but alignments with no mechanical effects are ok.

 

[Argyle King]

I think paladins should have an alignment which is compatible with the alignment of the deity they serve.

 

[Li Shenron]

A very few concepts like tha Paladin are really built around alignment.

I would like next edition to give alignment suggestions rather than restrictions, with a concise explanation on why e.g. Monks are normally Lawful. Then maybe remind the readers that DMs are entitled to make them become real restriction if they prefer.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm never a fan of alignment restrictions.

The paladin I'd like to see as an archetype or the like for a more generic class. The assassin suggests but does not necessitate an alignment, as many of these classes do. I think the druid has the strongest case, historically and conceptually, as a champion of balance in all things, but I think druids should be able to embody the full variety of alignments.

So no, no restrictions. Suggestions yes, restrictions no.

No alignments at all. Period.

I wouldn't mind the entire concept of alignment being optional, as in d20M. It's obviously a part of classic D&D and hard to do away with, but many people ignore it or find it to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[malkav666]

The only things on the list that I think should NOT have alignment restrictions are the bard and the ranger.

The other ones make sense to me:
You should be be evil if you kill for reward (assassin)

Barbarians should be non lawful. The very definition of the word barbarian includes words like savage, primitive, uncivilized, etc... Being non lawful does not mean that have no honor or that their people have no customs.

Warlocks make pacts with DEMONS. Alignment restriction does not bother me in this case.

I think they should make it like they always have, put the restrictions in and your group doesn't want to use them then don't. Roleplaying alignment change can be very rewarding for both the player and the DM, I think alignment restrictions are great for helping newer players define a character. If you are an advanced player and you NEED to have a classic archetype of a differing alignment it shouldn't be that hard to sell your DM on it. I know my players have done so in the past.

love,

malkav

 

[Hassassin]

As long as alignments are in the game, I'd like to see Evil Assassins and LG Paladins.

That doesn't mean you can't be an LE Antipaladin or whatever. Offering alternative names for the paladin class depending on alignment is fine.

 

[harlokin]

The only things on the list that I think should NOT have alignment restrictions are the bard and the ranger.

The other ones make sense to me:
You should be be evil if you kill for reward (assassin)

Barbarians should be non lawful. The very definition of the word barbarian includes words like savage, primitive, uncivilized, etc... Being non lawful does not mean that have no honor or that their people have no customs.

Warlocks make pacts with DEMONS. Alignment restriction does not bother me in this case.

I think they should make it like they always have, put the restrictions in and your group doesn't want to use them then don't. Roleplaying alignment change can be very rewarding for both the player and the DM, I think alignment restrictions are great for helping newer players define a character. If you are an advanced player and you NEED to have a classic archetype of a differing alignment it shouldn't be that hard to sell your DM on it. I know my players have done so in the past.

love,

malkav

Sounds like you want to make people's characters for them.

Why not go the whole-hog and go back to Rangers having to be Good aligned.

 

[Remathilis]

Assuming they go back to the 9 alignment grid...

Assassins should be non-good.
Barbarians non-lawful.
Paladins non-evil. (make an evil version later)
Warlocks non-good
Druids part neutral
Monks non-chaotic.

I like the idea of some archetypes having enforced moral codes or ethical viewpoints. Keep them broad, but fixed.

Remathilis "What is the world coming to with your LG assassins and NE paladins?" Ooi

 

[delericho]

I voted for "Paladin" and also "No Classes". I should have voted "Assassin" too, but hit submit in haste.

Anyway, let me explain:

I really dislike 4e's Paladins. For me, the defining characteristic of that class is the behaviour restrictions, and removing those kills the class stone dead. And it's not enough to say "well, you can play your character that way if you want..."; without the restriction it just doesn't work.

So, if Paladins are included in the game, then so too should the alignment system be included, and the Paladin should be LG-only.

If alignment is not part of the game, the Paladin should likewise be removed from the game.

And if, as would actually be my ideal, alignment was an optional module, then the Paladin should be presented as part of that same module, and should be LG-only.

(With Assassins, it's slightly looser. If Assassins are in the game and alignment is in the game, then Assassins should be Evil-only. But the Assassin, unlike the Paladin, still works even without alignment being part of the game. And for any other class, I'm quite happy to see the alignment restrictions go.)

All of this is IMO, of course.

 

[avin]

Just guidelines, suggestions, no restrictions.

Even for an Assassin.

 

[malkav666]

Sounds like you want to make people's characters for them.

Why not go the whole-hog and go back to Rangers having to be Good aligned.

Alignment is just one piece of character creation, and it can interpreted many different ways. I think the restrictions are good guidelines. But I do disagree with your statement about my intention to make other folks' toons for them. I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

I said in short:The alignment restrictions seem to make sense to me. I would like to see them stay.

And you read: You just want to make peoples characters for them.

I don't get your reply. If you don't agree with the position I have offered thats cool. Then we could have a discussion, if you will. But you don't need to make false assertions of my intentions to have this discussion. But if thats what gets your rocks off then go right ahead.

love,

malkav

 

[DEFCON 1]

No restrictions. Suggestions and recommendations only.

The reason being... people are going to ignore the restrictions anyway. We've always done it, and always will do it. So why bother putting in a hard and fast "rule"?

In this day and age... many people want to play paladins for ALL the deities in whatever pantheon they are using. So restricting them to LG-only (even for gods that aren't LG) I think is silly. We're going to ignore the so-called restriction they write in regardless. So just acknowledge how people play the game and say "The paladin is the exemplar of the holy knight. Normally they are Lawful Good as representation of that ideal, however, a paladin can also be the representation of whichever deity or concept they follow, and when that occurs, they will usually match the alignment of that deity/concept or be one step away."

That way... those who feel the paladin should be LG only can do so... but the other folks who don't feel that limitation is necessary don't have to.

It's the same reason why there's no reason to put level limits on demi-human characters, or ability score limits on females (both of which have occurred in the past). All they do is put restrictions on things that many of us have realized aren't actually necessary. DMs already put restrictions in their own games as part of campaign-building... there's no real reason for the game to do it too.

 

[steeldragons]

Clerics/Priests: Any
Bards: Any
Fighters/Warriors: Any
Mages/Wizards: Any

Barbarians: any Chaotic
Monks: any Lawful
Paladins: any Lawful
Rangers: any Chaotic
Warlords: any Lawful

Druids: True Neutral only

Thieves/Rouges: any non-Lawful

Assassins: any non-Good
Warlocks: any non-Good

--SD

 

[Bobbum Man]

For some reason, I've never thought of Paladins as being particularly tied to any organized religion the way Clerics or Avengers would be. I always saw Paladins as serving ideals rather than gods. Sort of like free agentrs roaming the land like Qwai Chang Kane, righting wrongs and dispensing frontier justice.

Then again, I guess there's no historical precedent for that. I just think the wandering ronin archetype is cooler than the goody two-shoes, dudley do right, lawful stupid image paladins usually get.

 

[Dragonhelm]

How about non-chaotic psions (psionicists)?

Honestly, I would rather we drop the alignment restrictions altogether. I can see saying that certain classes tend to be a certain alignment. For example, an assassin typically isn't good. However, I can envision the exception to the rule, where the assassin is working for his country to save it from evil.

I also like the idea of the paladin as a champion of his deity. I like the idea of a monk who is the chaotic drunken master.

Alignment may be more appropriate for prestige classes/paragon paths/themes (or whatever the mechanic will be).

So my vote would be to say that certain classes tend to lean towards certain alignments, but that there are no hard set rules. After all, people will always find the exception to the rule.