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

[Cyberzombie]

If you are going to have the paladin and monk as they have been done in the past, they have to be LG and lawful respectively. It's part of what they are. Monk would be easier to change, but if you make a paladin that isn't LG, it's not really a paladin any more. A holy warrior class is arguably more useful than a paladin, but it's not a paladin any more.

The alignment restriction on assassins is dumb and hypocritical, though. What is the main thing adventurers do? Kill people and steal their stuff. Often for a bounty, which is morally EXACTLY what assassins do. And assassins are usually a lot more discriminating in who they kill than adventurers are. So if anyone is the bad guy here...

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Lord no. Why on earth can't the paladin represent the neutral and evil versions of its archetype too?

Because their are no neutral and evil versions of paladins. I'm not opposed to every alignment having some sort of champion, but it ain't a paladin.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I guess the question then is whether it makes sense to have a "paladin" class or a knight/champion/holy warrior and call the LG version a paladin.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

The default should be no restricted alignments. But if you do want alignment restrictions in your campaign just click here to purchase the package!

 

[Trolls]

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

I understand harlokin's point, even if it is an exaggeration.

Alignment restrictions stop some people from playing the character they want to play, it's a simple as that. If you're imposing your view on how certain classes should behave on other people, you're dictating to them that only certain archetypes are available, and are not in fact limited only by your imagination.

Granted, you're not exactly making people's characters for them, but if someone comes to your table with a great idea for a drunken master monk who clearly has nothing to do with discipline and you tell him to pick another character because monks must be lawful, it's very close to the same thing.

There's nothing wrong with providing alignment suggestions. As you say, many of them make a certain amount of sense. In fact that's probably a good thing, particularly for new players. But as soon as you start enforcing those suggestions you're cutting off perfectly valid character ideas for no good reason.

 

[Traken]

Why not throw some other restrictions on class?

Elves can't be fighters. Dwarves can't be druids. All wizards must be tall and British. All assassins must kill a child every week. Paladins must give away all their stuff to good-aligned people. Halflings can't wear shoes and must smoke pipes. Only male players may play a barbarian character.

These make about as much sense as having alignment restrictions on class. If you are hung up on "Paladins must be good" then I suppose we can change the name of the class.

We now have the crusader/holy warrior/templar class. Take that, throw one of those new-fangled themes on it depending on your deity or cause. Then call your character whatever you want.

 

[LurkAway]

Can someone kindly explain the reason(s) for why playing a non-lawful Paladin? Is it because you disagree with the story of a Paladin that is a paragon of honor and cannot fluff/customize a Cleric to match your vision of a holy warrior, or you're playing the Paladin for mechanical/tactical reasons and don't want story-based constraints, or you fully intend to play the Paladin lawfully in the story but are worried about the mechanical instrusion of Law alignment rules, or something else?

 

[harlokin]

Can someone kindly explain the reason(s) for why playing a non-lawful Paladin? Is it because you disagree with the story of a Paladin that is a paragon of honor and cannot fluff/customize a Cleric to match your vision of a holy warrior,

Basically this.

A Paladin for many players is seen as a holy Warrior, who is (commonly) independent of religious authorities. The Sir Galahad version is perfectly valid to those players, but it is not the only way they conceive of Paladins.

Clerics are subtly different, and often don't quite hit the right spot; more of a Caster.

Hope this makes some sense.

 

[Traken]

Can someone kindly explain the reason(s) for why playing a non-lawful Paladin? Is it because you disagree with the story of a Paladin that is a paragon of honor and cannot fluff/customize a Cleric to match your vision of a holy warrior, or you're playing the Paladin for mechanical/tactical reasons and don't want story-based constraints, or you fully intend to play the Paladin lawfully in the story but are worried about the mechanical instrusion of Law alignment rules, or something else?

Can you explain the reason(s) people are against having non-lawful-good Paladins? To me, it just doesn't make sense for either the story or the mechanics to be tied to a single alignment.

The idea behind the (3.5, at least) Paladin is a holy knight that derives his power from his deity or his cause. He adheres to a strict code set forth by his deity or cause or else he loses his powers. These powers typically include being able to hunt down (detect evil), fend off (divine grace), and destroy (smite evil, turn undead) enemies of his deity or cause. There is also some facility to heal their allies (lay on hands). Oh, they also usually wear really heavy armor and for some reason learn to ride animals really well.

Is there really anything in there that can't be easily generalized so that anyone of any alignment, deity, or cause can use this class?

 

[LurkAway]

A Paladin for many players is seen as a holy Warrior, who is (commonly) independent of religious authorities. The Sir Galahad version is perfectly valid to those players, but it is not the only way they conceive of Paladins.

Clerics are subtly different, and often don't quite hit the right spot; more of a Caster.

Hope this makes some sense.

Yes, that makes sense.

What I find interesting is that the core classes are very generic and flexible and don't have a lot of conceptual baggage. If you pick a fighter, there aren't a lot of players who would complain that you're not a fighter.

The advanced classes start to pigeonhole character concepts, and that's when you run into trouble, with paladins, assassins, etc. when two guys with different concepts of a paladin don't see eye to eye.

I think that when previous editions put an alignment restriction on a class, it was using mechanics to draw a line in the sand and state "This is what this class concept means". The disadvantage is that it's inflexible. The advantange is that it puts everyone on the same page.

Kinda like saying: This is a vampire class. Your skin does not sparkle in the sunlight. If you want a sparkling vampire, get the Twilight module. (I don't mean to be cheeky, I'm just picking an example of a vampire meaning different things to different people and having to pick one concept over another).

I think it's very important to put everyone on the same page, by either defining what is the paladin and why it has a Lawful alignment restriction, or forget the alignment restriction and loosen up the character concept so that everyone can read Paladin and see 2+ ways of defining it. And right now, with all the editions, we don't have that.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

The 5e DMG can bring the guidelines and suggestions, I'll bring the 1e style restrictions.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Can someone kindly explain the reason(s) for why playing a non-lawful Paladin? Is it because you disagree with the story of a Paladin that is a paragon of honor and cannot fluff/customize a Cleric to match your vision of a holy warrior, or you're playing the Paladin for mechanical/tactical reasons and don't want story-based constraints, or you fully intend to play the Paladin lawfully in the story but are worried about the mechanical instrusion of Law alignment rules, or something else?

Perhaps because you want to be a champion of good, but not be tied down by a code of conduct. Maybe you want to be a freedom fighter. Maybe you're a DM and you want a blackguard. The word "paladin" is associated with goodness, but the mechanics of the class don't need to be. Thus, I suggest a broader themed divine champion class. Either that, or you need a bunch of different "paladins" for other alignments, which is wasteful.

 

[harlokin]

Perhaps because you want to be a champion of good, but not be tied down by a code of conduct. Maybe you want to be a freedom fighter. Maybe you're a DM and you want a blackguard. The word "paladin" is associated with goodness, but the mechanics of the class don't need to be. Thus, I suggest a broader themed divine champion class. Either that, or you need a bunch of different "paladins" for other alignments, which is wasteful.

Your explanation is better than mine

 

[Ainamacar]

Most alignment restrictions seem doubly pointless to me. In games where the notion of Paladin as "good-hearted defender of the weak, etc." is taken with grave seriousness, an alignment restriction is unnecessary. In games where it isn't, the alignment restriction is either ignored (explicitly or implicitly) or abused to the point where it may as well have been ignored.

In both cases the alignment restriction can also throw up roadblocks in front of perfectly reasonable character ideas. For example, the evil infiltrator of a good deity's forces, who by the dark blessing of his god is given abilities essentially identical to the classic paladin in order to fool all his enemies.

I also think the other basic mechanical attributes of the classic D&D paladin (auras, lay on hands, high Charisma, etc.) have so many promising applications beyond the LG paladin that they should be explored. A Champion base class with different subclasses, one of which is "Paladin", sounds great to me.

Plus, having such a base class means that if a champion falls, there are always other abilities it can (eventually) fall to without major mechanical upheaval. The notion of lay on hands, for example, has so many possibilities. Classic healing ability, filling someone with hate (rage?), filling someone with desire (suggestion?), or filling someone with knowledge (visions of the past/future or even magical insight?). Corruption and redemption are classic themes for the paladin, and supporting multiple subclasses with basic paladin-like competencies makes supporting those archetypes easier for starting play, but also for keeping a robust continuity when changes occur. After all, the scariest thing about a paladin fallen to anti-paladin status isn't usually how different he is from his old self, but just how eerily similar he remains: virtue and its dark reflection are often a matter of the knife's edge.

 

[Remathilis]

Is there really anything in there that can't be easily generalized so that anyone of any alignment, deity, or cause can use this class?

How about "paladins fight evil using holy power, ergo they need to be good themselves."

A paladin isn't just a fighter who worships a god, he's a servant of goodness. He's Superman and Captain America. He holds himself to a strict moral code and lifestyle (affecting his posessions, material wealth, associates, and code of conduct) and in return he is rewarded with divine aptitude: repelling undead, healing by touch, sensing hostile creatures, calling a mighty steed, resistance and immunity to evil attacks, and raw holy power channeled through his weapon that shears evil and unnatural beings.

Why would a neutral deity, or an evil one especially, grant paladins ANYTHING resembling that? Neutrality rarely needs its own champions (and when it does, it calls them druids) and evil has scores of dark champions (starting with an entire monster-manual of them). Need more? Add a blackguard class.

I'm all for loosening alignment restrictions (bard doesn't need one, druids can live being part neutral, and paladins can serve good, not just Lawful Good). But some need to stick. An adventuring party with a LE paladin, a LG assassin, a CN monk and a LN barbarian sounds more like an Order of the Stick joke than a legit D&D party...

 

[LurkAway]

The word "paladin" is associated with goodness, but the mechanics of the class don't need to be. Thus, I suggest a broader themed divine champion class. Either that, or you need a bunch of different "paladins" for other alignments, which is wasteful.

That's fine with me theoretically (did you see my post #30?). OTOH, I could pick any class, divine or non-divine, fluff the character as having zealotry towards a deity or cause, and have him/her call herself a champion (self-styled or not). Don't need class mechanics at all. It would be great to see a divine champion class that feels like it deserves to be its own class, doesn't overlap with other classes, but I think a theme would be quite appropriate. (There's also the DDXP rumor I thought i heard that a Priest is a divine caster, and a Cleric is a divine warrior, and if true, I still don't know what a 5E Paladin is).

 

[Remathilis]

(There's also the DDXP rumor I thought i heard that a Priest is a divine caster, and a Cleric is a divine warrior, and if true, I still don't know what a 5E Paladin is).

I wagering it will be less of two separate classes and more "trade your cleric's armor and such for deity-linked domains or such, showing a closer association to your god".

 

[Ahnehnois]

An adventuring party with a LE paladin, a LG assassin, a CN monk and a LN barbarian sounds more like an Order of the Stick joke than a legit D&D party...

A treacherous divine warrior whose faith is lip service, an agent of the crown sworn to slay its enemies, an anarchist hermit plucked from isolation for a great quest, and an honorable warrior seeking vengeance for a monstrous injustice? Sign me up!

 

[Traken]

A paladin isn't just a fighter who worships a god, he's a servant of goodness. He's Superman and Captain America. He holds himself to a strict moral code and lifestyle (affecting his posessions, material wealth, associates, and code of conduct) and in return he is rewarded with divine aptitude: repelling undead, healing by touch, sensing hostile creatures, calling a mighty steed, resistance and immunity to evil attacks, and raw holy power channeled through his weapon that shears evil and unnatural beings.

A blackguard isn't just a fighter who worships a god, he's a servant of evilness. He's Lex Luthor and Red Skull. He holds himself to a strict amoral code and lifestyle (affecting his possessions, maternal wealth, associates, and code of conduct) and in return he is rewarded with divine aptitude: repelling celestials, healing by touch, sensing hostile creatures, calling a mighty steed, resistance and immunity to good attacks, and raw vile power channeled through his weapon that shears good and natural beings.

My resistance against restricting a paladin to "purely good" or even "non-evil" is three-fold. The first is that alignments are just silly, but that's more an opinion that will never be settled. Having two classes that mechanically work exactly the same is horribly inefficient. Not only does it take up space (and thus money), but it means that for every paladin option (that makes sense) there must be an equivalent blackguard option.

The third, and more important one, is that you are restricting how others can play the game. This goes against one of the cornerstones of the new edition. If you or your group decides the class must have an alignment restriction, that's great.

However, there's that one guy in the world that wants to play something a little bit different. He asks his DM if he can make an evil Paladin (assuming no blackguard class exists). The DM looks at the book, sees the restriction for Lawful Good and says no, even though he doesn't care one way or the other. By putting that in the book, you are making the assumption for everyone.

This is one of those rare cases in RPGs where less is more as it allows everyone to play how they want. If you don't want the books to associate "Paladin" with "non-Paladin" people, I can understand that. However, as a base class, there should not be a default restriction. There can be all sorts of restrictions of themes, feats, prestige classes, or whatever else. But not a base class.

 

[Remathilis]

A blackguard isn't just a fighter who worships a god, he's a servant of evilness. He's Lex Luthor and Red Skull. He holds himself to a strict amoral code and lifestyle (affecting his possessions, maternal wealth, associates, and code of conduct) and in return he is rewarded with divine aptitude: repelling celestials, healing by touch, sensing hostile creatures, calling a mighty steed, resistance and immunity to good attacks, and raw vile power channeled through his weapon that shears good and natural beings.

Good, we both agree that what you just defined is NOT a paladin, but an entirely new class or optional class build.

My resistance against restricting a paladin to "purely good" or even "non-evil" is three-fold. The first is that alignments are just silly, but that's more an opinion that will never be settled. Having two classes that mechanically work exactly the same is horribly inefficient. Not only does it take up space (and thus money), but it means that for every paladin option (that makes sense) there must be an equivalent blackguard option.

1.) Alignments are D&D. Feel free to ignore them, but they're going to be in the book. Whie your ignoring them, ignore the alignment restriction on paladin too.
2.) Check out the anti-paladin class in Pathfinder. It fills three pages of the Advanced Player's Guide (a 200 page book). Hardly a waste. Most of the paladin feats and such end up working for anti-paladins as well. Those that don't are because they are for slaying evil being and stuff.

The third, and more important one, is that you are restricting how others can play the game. This goes against one of the cornerstones of the new edition. If you or your group decides the class must have an alignment restriction, that's great.

I'd rather paladin's have a thematic core. If a paladin is going to have all those cool holy powers, I want them to make sense. Does it make sense for a champion of evil to heal with a touch? To call a faithful steed? There's more to an anti-paladin than "replace the word good with evil and vice versa"

However, there's that one guy in the world that wants to play something a little bit different. He asks his DM if he can make an evil Paladin (assuming no blackguard class exists). The DM looks at the book, sees the restriction for Lawful Good and says no, even though he doesn't care one way or the other. By putting that in the book, you are making the assumption for everyone.

There's also that one guy who wants to play a vampire. Should THAT be in the PHB? What about the guy who wants to be a ninja? A winged elf? A dragon? Should THOSE options be supported out the gate as well?

As it stands, evil-curious PCs have two dark-themed classes (warlock, assassin) and two evil-tainted races (half-orc, tiefling). Good has... paladin. Maybe. Wanna be evil? don't be a paladin.

This is one of those rare cases in RPGs where less is more as it allows everyone to play how they want. If you don't want the books to associate "Paladin" with "non-Paladin" people, I can understand that. However, as a base class, there should not be a default restriction. There can be all sorts of restrictions of themes, feats, prestige classes, or whatever else. But not a base class.

A player interested in playing an evil servant of a god will have cleric and priest already. Let paladin stand as the sole Good-themed class.