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

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Rangers?

Problem is, Rangers are half-casters and only really use WIS for their spellcasting. (And Survival checks, I know, but everyone uses WIS for Survival.)

 

[Incenjucar]

Problem is, Rangers are half-casters and only really use WIS for their spellcasting. (And Survival checks, I know, but everyone uses WIS for Survival.)

In 4E, wisdom is used for (and makes sense for):

Perception (Tracking)
Healing (Self-Sufficiency)
Insight (Urban Ranger)
Nature (Woodsy Ranger)
Dungeoneering (You Know Who Ranger)

Food for thought.

 

[delericho]

But, in practice, the "restriction" only "works" because it is a licence for the GM to interfere with the player's decision-making for his/her PC.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When I said it "didn't work", I didn't mean mechanically. Mechanically, the 4e Paladin is absolutely fine.

The problem is that (again, IMO) without the alignment restriction, it doesn't feel like a Paladin.

Which, is, in turn, a recipe for balance-of-power issues and conflict at the table (witness the endless aligment threads, which culminate - or, if you prefer, reach their nadir - with debates about paladins).

Actually, I generally enjoy alignment threads.

If players want to play a PC who is bound by a code, they can do so without themselves needing to be bound by the GM.

In my experience, if a player sets out to play a character with a code, but it isn't mechanically reinforced, then the instant the code becomes inconvenient, it gets cast aside. In effect, it's the morality of "what I was going to do anyway".

Restrict the Paladin to LG alignment, and a huge amount of that automatically disappears, even if the DM never once mentions alignment.

Or are envisaging the "restrictions" as a buffer between the player and the other players, who otherwise won't put up with the paladin player's roleplaying? That strikes me as a sad and sorry table, but is it a real issue for some paladin players?

It probably is an issue for some players, but that wasn't what I meant. It was about fulfilling the archetype, which for the Paladin is the "knight in shining armour" (with the most recognisable example probably being Superman these days). That is, they're the guys who always do right (or at least try) without bending their principles or compromising their honour.

My experience is that if you remove the alignment restriction you lose that archetype. The paladin just becomes a divinely-empowered warrior, no different from any other class. It is the alignment restriction that makes the class.

 

[pemerton]

The nine-alignment system was never meant to represent a real-world code of ethics - that would have been far too controversial and subjective. It's meant to represent a spectrum as well as the kind of cosmic conflicts common to many mythologies. Good vs. evil, per the Abrahamic faiths, and law vs. chaos, which was more common to many of the polytheistic faiths of antiquity such as Babylonian or Norse mythology.

I don't want to violate any board rules in disagreeing with this claim, but I will say that I've read a lot of moral philosophy, including by more-or-less contemporary Catholic philosophers like Anscombe and Tony Coady, and by classical thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, and I can tell you that D&D alignment, both as written in the rulebooks and (at least in my experience) as it comes out in play, bears no relationship to their writings.

And Gygax in AD&D himself defines Good by reference to the political values specified in the Declaration of Independence and comparable enlightenment-derived accounts of "the rights of man"/human rights. So I'm not entirely sure that he agrees with you.

And lets look at a well-known literary treatment of Norse myth - Wagner's Ring Cycle. As the story unfolds, Wotan repeatedly finds himself constrained by the pacts that he has entered into, and is caught in the paradox of trying to create a free man who can liberate him from them. In the end, the free man - Siegfried - arises in spite of Wotan's attempt to prevent it happening, shatters Wotan's staff despite Wotan's attempts to dissaude him, and together with Brunhilde precipitates the events that usher in the new world - which will be a place of wonderful rather than oprressive beauty and order. Is Wotan Lawful? Neutral? Neutral Good (which, from memory, is how DDG labels him)? Chaotic - because in the end, he would rather the world end than that it continue in its unsatisfactory condition?

The narrative of order vs chaos is obviously a hugely engaging one, but in my view you don't get that engagement in your game by labelling things lawful and chaotic. You get that engagement by setting up compelling situations - as (in my view, at least) Wagner does, and then reflecting on them or - in the case of an RPG - engaging with them via play.

Honor is a part of D&D "law," not its sole sum

Saying that all paladins must be lawful doesn't necessarily define what is the Lawful outlook.

Maybe not, but I was suggesting that this could be a useful thing - if alignments are defined less by abstract notions and more by reference to the PC archetypes they are associated with, alignment could perhaps be turned into a useful set of guidelines for characterisation (which is how I see it in 4e and Basic) than as a morality hammer for the GM to wield against players (which is how I see it in AD&D).

The Lawful restriction doesn't necessarily have to define what the code of conduct is. The default fluff for the code might be chivalry, honor, etc. and the default cause might be good, but you might change the code to something else like your Raven Queen code.

Yes, I followed that.

Conversely, being laissez-faire or egalitarian will not reward you with paladin status.

I could go with this, and I think that it is implicit in the 4e paladin class, but I suspect that this is controversial among a wide range of players, who want Chaotic champions, paladins of Tritherion and the like.

So if there are any alignment restrictions, I don't see it as a limitation on the player, but as helping to define the essence of why and how the class operates.

In this case, alignment adjudication would have to be taken out of the GM's hands - it would be like (for example) default racial personalities, which are (at least at most tables, I would think) a matter of group consensus and negotiation, with each player having ultimate say over his/her PC. Personally, I don't expect 5e to go this way - I am getting a pretty backwards-looking vibe, especially when it comes to the way story elements are to be established and adjudicated - but maybe I'm wrong.

D&D has always provided default flavor, whether it's a full-fledged campaign settings or the default character class description or whatnot, and for years and years, many DMs and players have used this fluff as simulationist reference points which helps to create cohesion at the table.

But you don't need alignment restrictions for this, I don't think - artwork and example PCs can go a long way here, can't they? I mean, in AD&D a dwarf PC and an elf PC can both be of any alignment, but nevertheless we all know that dwarves are dour and methodical whereas elves are witty and flighty.

 

[pemerton]

In my experience, if a player sets out to play a character with a code, but it isn't mechanically reinforced, then the instant the code becomes inconvenient, it gets cast aside.

Interesting. I've never had this experience. When my players play paladins, they genrally expect me to throw situations there way that will give rise to interesting "paladin problems" and I expect them to do something interesting with those problems. But alignment restrictions or other personality mechanics aren't needed for that - if they didn't want to RP those sorts of situations, they wouldn't play a paladin.

The most dramatic one I can remember happened many years ago in an RM game. A lot of combat in RM ends with fighters exhausted or maimed rather than dead, and so it wasn't until the paladin PC was 7th level or so that he first killed a fellow person (rolling 00 on the crit table with his two-handed sword). He went deep into remorse, and headed out into the wilderness to pray. I rolled for a random encounter, and - as it happened - got a low level demon. I had the demon come up to the meditating paladin and start taunting him for breaking his moral code. Now my expectation for the encounter was that the player would reason thus: Demons are creatuers of falsehood; so if the demon is saying I broke my code, than I didn't; I'll kill the demon, and return fortified and encouraged to my friends. But in fact what happened was this: the player (as his PC) assumed that the demon had been sent by his god as a punishment, and therefore offered no resistance as the demon proceeded to beat him senseless, before then wandering away to find something more interesting to do than deal with the boring paladin who wouldn't put up a fight.

Certainly since that occasion, I've always taken for granted that if my players no I'm not going to play "alignment gotcha games" with them, then if they want to play paladins they will regardless of alignment rules, and if they don't then they won't regardless of alignment rules.

And, conversely, in a game in which the pressures of expedience are so great that a player feels there is no room to play his/her paladin as such, then I'm not sure I even want the paladin as a class. There are no paladin PCs in Conan or Lankhamar, are there?

 

[steeldragons]

Random, off-topic thought: If Fighters are the INT warriors, and Barbarians are the CHA warriors... who are the WIS warriors?

For my two coppers, the Wis-warrior is the Paladin. Always has been.

The Barbarian, to my mind is the CON-warrior, not the Cha-warrior.

If anything/one is a Cha-warrior, I would say it is/becomes the Warlord (for their leadership/tactical speciality)

and leave the Fighter their roots, arguably they need not by an Int-warrior, per se, but a STR-warrior before anything else...then if they're smart, Int is secondary. If they're fast and skilled, a Dex-warrior. If they're tough Con, etc. But Str. first.

But that's then getting into "class dependent/restricted by" Abilities and away from Alignment distinctions, which is a whole 'nother thread.
--SD

 

[Ferrous]

I think the problem is that a word actually means something!

f the Paladin class was called Templar or Crusader then alignment would not be an issue. I for one would have no issue if the Paladin was a LG Crusader. However why is it necessary to call your Chaotic Evil Drow Poison using a worshipper of a dark god a Paladin?

Now originally the term Paladin actually was entirely secular and referred to the guards on Palatine hill in Rome, which is the root word for palace and palatial etc. But after Roland et al it hs come to mean a Holy warrior knight and it is used that way historically in D&D and in every RPG and MPORG that has been inspired by it, which is rather a lot.

So the term "Paladin" has a real word meaning, just like the term "Door"has and that meaning has expectactions attached. Now you can say that "in my world Door means a type of cheese" but really what do you gain from this?

 

[Trolls]

It has been awhile since I played in Eberron and my books are not readily available but I seem to remember that it supports playing paladins of the Silver Flame in just the way you described. Eberron allows you to have evil clerics of technically good gods.

But that doesn't fit most worlds where the gods are not distant.

I know, but why can't it be the default option anyway? I'm not saying that you then have to have distant gods. Far from it. I'm saying that your group is then free to decide how it wants to portray its gods (and hence its divine characters), and doesn't have to cross out a line in the PHB to do it.

I feel that paladins if designed the way they always have should be lawful good. If you look at their powers it screams lawful good.

And if I think that those powers which scream lawful good to you also fit my idea for a chaotic good or lawful neutral character, what's the harm in me picking the class as written?

I think Assassins should either be neutral or evil usually they are not doing the killing openly or as form of self defense so I just don't see the good alignment. But I can see assassins who work for the crown and country so they should have a way not to be just evil.

Is it less evil to kill something quickly and painlessly, or to stab it repeatedly with a big bit of sharp metal until it dies?

If a paladin can be good and kill things, I see no reason why an assassin can't be good too. Do you really have to kill things while people are watching to be considered good?

 

[steeldragons]

The arguments here (and popping up in other threads) are battles being fought on two fronts. Namely:
1) The semantic baggage of Class names.
2) The need/role/use of Alignments.

and I suppose the teriary argument/philosophies of:
a) playing an archetype on type, define/fluff them as I believe they should be/always have been and enjoying the role-play challenges and restrictions thereof and/or
b) I want all the bells and whistles of playing an X with none of the restrictions ("cake", meet "eating it, too"), define/fluff them how I see fit and who are you to tell me how to play?

The first is fairly straight forward and easily adjusted, as I posed in one of the class threads around here some place.

1) Rebrand "Assassin" as "Avenger." You can be good, neutral or evil, murdering for king & country, temple/religion, greed or just plain blood-thirst/sociopathy. You want to play "Assassin's Creed" or "Dexter" or morally/politically/socially/religiously justified vigilante (a.k.a. Batman), organizational hitman or "cold-blooded psychopathic murderer" knock yourself out.

2) Rebrand/lump in "Paladin" as "Champion" or 'Exemplar". Align or not as wanted, season with powers to taste. Present a "holy/unholy champion" for Paladins and atni-paladin types and the non-religious champion, for those who want cavaliers, knights, etc. Hack, even Warlords could be lumped in here...who live by a code but not "divinely"-powered.

And/or, for the Alignment issue:
Optional system 1: 9-point "traditional" D&D scale.
Optional system 2: 3-point "original" scale, a la Basic, "Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic" or use "Good/Neutral/Evil" for those who like a more defined "forces of good/neutral/evil" in their setting/game.
Optional system 3: 5-point, which I believe is the 4e scale? Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic Evil.
Optional system 4: Don't use Alignment at all.

Presenting these things/elements like this should itch everyone's scratch and keep everyone, moderately, happy...I hope.

My own setting/world has Paladins. They must be Lawful and must be tied to a temple/god for their continued powers. There are 2 LG gods who have paladinic orders, 1 LN (goddess of "justice" and "the law") whose paladins are roving lawmen, "soldiers of the court" (talking judicial courts there, not noble/political ones), and 1 LE god of "dominion and power [through force]" for the anti-pally itch. This last one is basically for BBEG's and NPCs as I d not run "evil" campaigns...but the point is, they are there, present, in the world.

Yes, alignment matters and veering from them for any length of time will result in changes and/or loss of powers. "With great power comes great responsibility" and all of that...There are also 'knightly warriors" who are valorous and try to live a certain way or noble-youth born into a "knightly" household, but they lack the "conviction" or "exemplary" levels thereof to be chosen as a "warrior of the faith"...and if you are not a warrior of the faith, then you're just not a "paladin" or "justicar" or "blackguard." It's that simple. The deities aren't devoting some of their cosmic power unto you cuz "Well, he's close to what I want" or "She's trying really hard."

As for Chaotic Barbarians and Neutral Druids, they are just there/accepted as fact/necessary.

Barbarians are both race (human) and class in my setting and their cultural make-up is not "Lawful" in the grand scheme of cosmos and/or compared to "civilized folk".

Doesn't mean your Neutral druid can't be CN sometimes and NG others...or, what would appear on the surface tro be LN or NE, but Druids are concerned (in my games/setting) with "the Balance" (which entails not just "Nature" itself but "nature v. civilization", "good v. evil" and "law v. chaos") and continued/consistent actions in any particular direction will result in warnings and eventual loss of alignment and powers at some point, so swaying back to the "middle" alignment-wise is always the best/most prudent way to go.

But that's my world and I LIKE Alignment and the 9-points both as a "force/make up of the [game] universe" and as an aid for players (new and old) to use in their character's personality, and I want my players' PCs to have an ethical/moral set of beliefs and incorporated in their role-play. However loosely defined or adhered to by the character. Changes in moral/ethical views are a normal part of personal developement...paladins and druids are, kinda, above/beyond or "stuck" within, in exchange for or because of, depending on your view, extraordinary powers and abilities beyond the ken of "normal" folk.

If that sort of thing does not interest you or your DM or your group as a whole, then just leave it out. But with the "modular"/"optional"/"Lego-like Build Yer Own 'Perfect' DnD:TNG" you can not really argue Alignment just shouldn't be there at all or (if it is there) shouldn't matter for classes.

Good morning and happy Monday, all.
--SD

 

[Hassassin]

Say you have a cleric of a chaotic deity. This cleric must follow the deity's instructions and ethics or risk losing their powers. Do you label this cleric as Lawful for following the rules or Chaotic for the actions they take?

IMC, I sidestep this issue by saying chaotic deities don't have rigid codes. Rather than ten commandment type "you can't do this" code, theirs is more like "promote and protect this", which lets the worshipers freely choose their approach. Some of them may have neutral churches with a somewhat more rigid take on the faith, of course.

 

[Hassassin]

The question isn't whether or not the PC should be bound. The question is whether or not the player should be bound - and, in particular, bound to the GM as the arbiter of alignment at the table (which is the standard D&D approach).

Ah, I think this again comes down to play style.

I have the impression that your style is more storyteller type narrativist, while mine is first person narrativist and simulationist, where everything outside the player's character is in the DM's control. Nothing wrong with either approach, of course.

I think the question is if it's easier to add mechanics for how PCs are bound to their deities or remove them. As you say, having them is the standard D&D approach.

 

[pemerton]

I LIKE Alignment and the 9-points both as a "force/make up of the [game] universe" and as an aid for players (new and old) to use in their character's personality, and I want my players' PCs to have an ethical/moral set of beliefs and incorporated in their role-play.

<snip>

If that sort of thing does not interest you or your DM or your group as a whole, then just leave it out.

I enjoy it when my players have their PC's express moral beliefs. Of the PCs in my current game, one is a paladin of the Raven Queen, one a ranger-cleric of the Raven Queen, one a warpriest of Moradin, one a divine philosopher and wizard serving Erathis, Ioun, Vecna and (formerly) the Raven Queen, and one is a sorcerer demonskin adept who is also part of a drow-elf crossover cult devoted to Corellon and to undoing the sundering of the elves.

But I don't need an alignment system to make this stuff part of the game. If anything, I find I get more of this stuff in my game when I make space for the players to take the lead themselves.

Ah, I think this again comes down to play style.

I have the impression that your style is more storyteller type narrativist,

Not "storyteller" - at least, I associate that word with GM power over the story. But you are right that I like player-led narrativism which isn't necessarily confined to the players sticking to a first person approach.

 

[Hassassin]

Not "storyteller" - at least, I associate that word with GM power over the story. But you are right that I like player-led narrativism which isn't necessarily confined to the players sticking to a first person approach.

Yes, that's what I meant. My game analysis terminology may suck.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I hate alignment restrictions on classes. Only LG gods have paladins? Only evil people can be assassins? Only good people can be rangers? One cannot be a lawful barbarian (one who keeps his word and honors the traditions of his tribe, both traits of lawful alignments and both common aspects of "barbarians" in both real life and literature/movies)?

Ridiculous. 4e did a great service by removing alignment restrictions from classes and all of the crap like detect/smite alignment. I will be extremely disappointed if that progress is regressed in the new edition.

 

[Hassassin]

I hate alignment restrictions on classes. Only LG gods have paladins?

Again, LN, NG and some other gods also have paladins. Should a CE god of destruction have them?

4e did a great service by removing alignment restrictions from classes and all of the crap like detect/smite alignment.

I don't really like detect evil, but I think smite should be there. Maybe as smite fiends and undead, so that it would depend on creature type instead of alignment? Detect could do the same I suppose.

 

[Electronic]

I think alignment should be removed from the game, so no, classes should not have alignment restrictions.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Again, LN, NG and some other gods also have paladins. Should a CE god of destruction have them?

Yes.

I see "paladins" as divine champions, the knight-templar-esque classic Paladin being only one of many variations thereof. I see no reason why only L/G gods would have them in their service.

I don't really like detect evil, but I think smite should be there. Maybe as smite fiends and undead, so that it would depend on creature type instead of alignment? Detect could do the same I suppose.

I'm fine with smites that work based on things like creature type. Smite fiends, smite undead, magic circle against elementals, those things are fine with me. Paladins running around spamming detect evil, on the other hand, are not.

 

[pemerton]

Is it less evil to kill something quickly and painlessly, or to stab it repeatedly with a big bit of sharp metal until it dies?

If a paladin can be good and kill things, I see no reason why an assassin can't be good too. Do you really have to kill things while people are watching to be considered good?

Well, this would be a question of what moral standards you want your game to reflect. My understanding of pre-Christian Norse law codes is that murder meant killing someone by treachery, in their sleep, in the dark, etc. So those codes answer "yes" to your second question.

I also think this exposes an issue with alignment. The game tries to define "good" by reference to modern (enlightenment-inspired) political values, but is set in a period, and includes archetypes (like the knight, and the monk) that are inspired by pre-modern values, including dignity and honour.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really like detect evil, but I think smite should be there. Maybe as smite fiends and undead, so that it would depend on creature type instead of alignment? Detect could do the same I suppose.

On the smite front, 4e handles this by giving paladins access to melee radiant attacks, which is de facto smite undead because nearly all undead are vulnerable to radiant damage. (Not demons or devils, though.) So damage types is another way of achieving "smite" without alignment.

 

[Hassassin]

On the smite front, 4e handles this by giving paladins access to melee radiant attacks, which is de facto smite undead because nearly all undead are vulnerable to radiant damage. (Not demons or devils, though.) So damage types is another way of achieving "smite" without alignment.

Make it holy damage and it sounds fine. There was a poll somewhere about whether radiant and holy damage both are needed and I really don't see the benefit.