• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Which classes in 5E should retain alignment restrictions?

  • Assassin

    Votes: 51 31.9%
  • Bard

    Votes: 10 6.3%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 27 16.9%
  • Druid

    Votes: 32 20.0%
  • Monk

    Votes: 35 21.9%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 15 9.4%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 67 41.9%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 19 11.9%
  • All classes should have alignment restrictions

    Votes: 6 3.8%
  • No classes should have alignment restrictions

    Votes: 88 55.0%
  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 9 5.6%

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


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.

log in or register to remove this ad


First Post
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.


First Post
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.]
Last edited:

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.

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.


First Post
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.

Infiniti2000 said:
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.


First Post
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.



Remove ads