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

[LurkAway]

(still catching up on the rest of the thread...)

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?

Firstly, I don't really understand (or just forgot) what a Chaotic god is (vs an Unaligned god, which is what I think they should be). I think I got confused when CE primordials want to rearrange the world, the CE demons want to destroy the world, some CE entities want to annihilate existence itself (whatever that means) and so the Chaotic niche seems oversaturated and not sure what a chaotic god is.

I suppose the Lawful priest strictly abides by a rigid code of conduct AND does so faithfully as a matter of principle, whereas the Chaotic priest has looser scriptures, may chafe under any code of conduct, but does so relunctantly. The lawful one finds purpose in following the code, the chaotic one just hopes the end justifies the means.

This would be overly simplistic in the real world, but D&D isn't real, it only has to be true in the D&D world (mostly if you accept the D&D Alignment system as overt cosmological/moral principles).

That said, it still grates me (a lot) with the frequent corner cases, like the 4E archon, which is supposedly Chaotic Evil, yet has a very rigid hierarchical soldier behavior IIRC. I always thought D&D cosmology would feel less forced and contrived and more organic if they didn't try to cram everything into the alignment box.

Of course, you could call me hypocritical regardling labelling the paladin with an alignment restriction, but I'm just brainstorming, and I don't have strong views on the paladin one way or another, so don't expect me to be consistent!

I'm only struggling to understand the soul of the paladin, and historically, the paladin was defined within context of the alignment system. It's most important to me that any class has a compelling distinct core identity; otherwise, it should be decoupled into a class theme (as per the Paladin thread).

 

[LurkAway]

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.

I was thinking of this yesterday. The Paladin might be rebooted as a Radiant Knight (a knight in shining armor, literally!). Then in the flavor, describe the radiant powers as a boon from a god, being favored as a divine or moral champion, due to lawful dedication to certain codes and cause (or perhaps it's just a secular Law of the Universe that Radiance comes automatically to those who champion a certain code/cause).

It would then be rare but possible to have an Evil Radiant Knight, and the apparently conflict/oxymoron is what makes this character a walking blasphemy and anti-paladin (sort of like a falling angel I guess)

 

[pemerton]

I'm only struggling to understand the soul of the paladin, and historically, the paladin was defined within context of the alignment system. It's most important to me that any class has a compelling distinct core identity; otherwise, it should be decoupled into a class theme (as per the Paladin thread).

I think the number of contemporary RPGers who have read the Poul Anderson stories would be few. I think the paladin gets its currency from the continued power of the "knight in shining armour" as a cultural motif. Sir Lancelot, King Arthur, even Aragorn in the climactic battle on Dagorlad in the LotR movies.

So I think the class needs to be associated with heavy arms and armour, and some sort of code/honour/devotion. I think the alignment thing is just one way of doing this (and not really my preferred way - I mean, why can't the rulebook just say "these guys are code-bound knights" without setting up a mechanic for what that means?).

 

[LurkAway]

So I think the class needs to be associated with heavy arms and armour, and some sort of code/honour/devotion. I think the alignment thing is just one way of doing this (and not really my preferred way - I mean, why can't the rulebook just say "these guys are code-bound knights" without setting up a mechanic for what that means?).

But for me, that in itself is not enough to justify a paladin as a separate class. Any fighter can put on heavy arms and armour, follow some code/honor/devotion, and doesn't necessarily have any magic to show for it. In another thread, I thought that the classes are best defined by how they fight, not why or what they fight. You usually don't require mechanics to model an honorable fighter, just roleplay it.

 

[Hassassin]

But for me, that in itself is not enough to justify a paladin as a separate class. Any fighter can put on heavy arms and armour, follow some code/honor/devotion, and doesn't necessarily have any magic to show for it. In another thread, I thought that the classes are best defined by how they fight, not why or what they fight. You usually don't require mechanics to model an honorable fighter, just roleplay it.

So person in shiny armor = fighter class, person with code of honor = paladin theme?

 

[LurkAway]

So person in shiny armor = fighter class, person with code of honor = paladin theme?

I think it's possible, a simple nuanced way to give everyone what they want (but maybe not the way they expected).

Fighter class defines how you fight, paladin theme defines why you fight. Like the way a gladiator or mercenary could be a theme and not a class.

I'm not sure how a Paladin theme would layer on top of the class, ie does it add Radiance damage or something like that? If you wanted to put alignment guidelines (if not actual restrictions) on the theme, you could so so.

I don't think that 5E is taking that route, but if they don't, then for Paladin's sake, please define or rebrand them in a way that justifies a distinct class that doesn't overlap with knights as honorable fighters or clerics as holy warriors.

EDIT: Or, you could have both: A champion/knight class (somehow distinguished from fighter or cleric) and then add a paladin theme if you want to do the Lawful Good paladin with Radiance damage.

2nd EDIT: And if the PC loses paladinhood by failing the code of conduct, he/she swaps the Paladin theme but for another, like Fallen Paladin and gets Unholy or Shadow damage instead of Radiant. The beauty of this is that the class mechanics remain intact.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Mike Mearls appears to see alignment as one of those traits that define D&D, together with the six ability scores, classes and levels. In my opinion, an element is not defining your game when it has no mechanical relevance, and that's why I believe that alignments should again be relevant mechanically in D&DN.

That said, how can alignments be relevant to the game mechanically? To me, one of the ways of doing that is placing alignment restrictions in character classes. As someone else pointed in another thread, a good multiclass system will probably be enough to make your fighter/rogue into a lawful good assassin or your fighter/cleric into a chaotic evil holy warrior. When I see the paladin and the assassin in the core game, I see a clear message about the kind of thing that each alignment has to show:

- Good is about healing and protecting people, crushing evil and becoming empowered for face to face honorable combat.
-Evil is about the murder: fast, easy and clean, through dirty tricks and stealth.
- Chaos is about losing control and delivering the necessary blow, and no feature in the game is more representative of this than barbarian rage.
- Law, on the other hand, is about controlling. And you see that most of the monk features are developed around the idea of perfect self-control.

For anyone familiar with the MtG card game, think in terms of different colors gaining different things, and you start to see where I'm going. I know that some of you hate alignment, and I respect that, but alignment has been a part of D&D for a long time now, and will probably stay. Detect evil and protection from evil are part of D&D as much as detect magic and mage armor. 4E tried to get rid of those various "D&Disms" instead of embracing them for a better game and now we are discussing D&DNext.

For myself, I really hope that the designers manage to create a system where alignment is relevant without becoming a punishment for player characters whenever the demon enters the scene and casts a blasphemy. One of the things I support, though, is using the various character classes to show the kind of weapon that the different alignments use to drive their goals.

Cheers,

 

[Rampant]

I don't like alignment as a general rule, whether that's because it's been implemented poorly in past editions or because I'm a contrarian philosopher by nature is up for debate.

However I'm pretty sure it has no place in the base classes. One of the issues facing DnD is class glut. In 3e we had several classes such as the samurai and the swashbuckler based around a too specific idea that didn't support multiple archetypes. Furthermore we had the knight, favored soul, cleric, paladin, and fighter all as different classes.

Pathfinder learned its lesson somewhat and tends to create alternate class features rather than whipping up whole new classes on the spot.

If the good gods or the lawful gods or the whichever gods get a special class that only their dedicants can take, then it only makes sense that the other gods would whip up their own champions. Now you have to go through the hassle of coming up with a champion type class for each of the alignments.

So wouldn't the smart thing be to create a basic champion class for any alignment and then make Paladin one of the options for the class progression. Now the paladin can be alignment restricted, without closing off the divine combat champion archetype to the other alignments, or having to make 3-9 separate classes.

 

[harlokin]

Just please no Detect Evil spam......

 

[Dead Scribe]

I don't care if there's alignment in the game, as long as I don't have to use it or care about it. No alignment restrictions on classes. No alignment-based effects. No "Smite Evil" or "Detect Evil." I don't like alignment-based metaphysical underpinnings to the cosmology either, but I'm guessing that's a lost cause.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.




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?



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?

For me it is a big flavor thing with paladins I have been playing since 1E and paladins scream lawful good to me. To me it is very much a part of what makes DnD well DnD. I would like to see rules for holy warriors of different alignments in the players handbook.

If they don't put in the alignment restriction it will be something I house rule in. already house rule all clerics must match their god's alignment.

If they make holy warriors of different alignments they have better chance of pleasing everybody those who want paladins to be lawful good like they always have and yet give options for those who don''t want the restrictions.

There is a huge difference between the way a paladin kills something and an assassin does. A paladin confronts his enemy openly and engages in honorable combat taking the chance of losing his life in the process. An assassin kills by trying to not give the enemy a chance to fight back. He has no issue with poisoning a bottle of wine or slicing someone throat as they sleep. Those are not good acts ever.

I don't know how you run your games but in mine there is a difference between defending your self and murder. Killing an unarmed person who is not trying to kill you is considered murder.

 

[Rampant]

On the other hand Paladins go to war. Assassins end their conflicts, or at least try to, on a small scale. That knight in shining armor can easily end up causing or ordering the death of hundreds or thousands while an assassin might solve the same problem with a few murders, some intimidation, and a liberal dose of blackmail.

The assassin may or may not be evil, but he's probably caused less pain and suffering than the pally.

 

[Nivenus]

To be entirely fair to assassins, The Book of Exalted Deeds, the book on playing good characters, more or less defines killing under any circumstance as bad. It just happens to be one of the sins that most good characters can routinely get away with because, compared to some of the other stuff, it's relatively minor (and let's face it, you couldn't have an RPG where killing was verboten for all good-aligned characters).

On a personal note, I do see a difference between killing a person in open combat and killing a defenseless one, even if both are equally poor examples of humanity. However, I'd also agree there is a difference between killing a single person - even a defenseless one - to resolve a conflict quickly and playing the honorable card and inadvertently starting a war that kills many more.

In my ideal alignment system, the first conflict (killing a person in combat vs. killing a defenseless person) might be an example of good vs. evil but the latter (good of the one vs. good of the many) would be an example of law vs. chaos.

 

[pemerton]

There is a huge difference between the way a paladin kills something and an assassin does. A paladin confronts his enemy openly and engages in honorable combat taking the chance of losing his life in the process. An assassin kills by trying to not give the enemy a chance to fight back.

<snip>

there is a difference between defending your self and murder.

Well yes, but not all a paladin's killing is self defence. It is possible to confront someone openly and engage in honourable combat, and yet to be an aggressor.

On the other hand Paladins go to war. Assassins end their conflicts, or at least try to, on a small scale. That knight in shining armor can easily end up causing or ordering the death of hundreds or thousands

<snip>

The assassin may or may not be evil, but he's probably caused less pain and suffering than the pally.

Well, in at least one moral tradition, this is what the doctrine of double effect is for. Although perhaps even that doctrine is not needed, given that the suffering caused by war depends upon the free agency of all those other people.

you couldn't have an RPG where killing was verboten for all good-aligned characters

I assume we're talking here only about RPGs of fantasy heroism. I agree it would be hard to have an RPG without conflict, without protagonists and antagonists, but fighting is not the only means of conflict resolution - even in fiction - and killing is not the only way of resolving a fight.

 

[Rampant]

You'd be amazed what you can do with laxatives and obscure senate bylaws.

 

[Nivenus]

I assume we're talking here only about RPGs of fantasy heroism. I agree it would be hard to have an RPG without conflict, without protagonists and antagonists, but fighting is not the only means of conflict resolution - even in fiction - and killing is not the only way of resolving a fight.

Okay, sure, but I think you're stating what was the obvious for no particular reason.

Yeah, of course I was talking about heroic fantasy RPGs. That goes without saying. We're talking about D&D.

 

[Elf Witch]

On the other hand Paladins go to war. Assassins end their conflicts, or at least try to, on a small scale. That knight in shining armor can easily end up causing or ordering the death of hundreds or thousands while an assassin might solve the same problem with a few murders, some intimidation, and a liberal dose of blackmail.

The assassin may or may not be evil, but he's probably caused less pain and suffering than the pally.

I think this is nit picking I really do. Yes paladins may end up killing more people in a war then an assassin does in his life but it still not the same as sneaking around and killing someone who is helpless and can't fight back.

The killing may be a legitimate order from the ruler of the land but it is still a form of state sanctioned murder. It begs the question why the person was not brought in for trial. Usually because it is more expedient to just get rid of the person.

I know there is a fine line here a wizard firing an area spell at the enemies from a distance or a ranger acting as a sniper is similar to what assassin do.

But paladins are usually held to a higher standard of what they can and can't do. Which is one of the challenges of playing one.

 

[pemerton]

Okay, sure, but I think you're stating what was the obvious for no particular reason.

Didn't mean to. It's just that the topic was the morality of killing.

And I think it goes back to what people want D&D alignments to do. The 1st ed AD&D books define good and evil in roughly contemporary liberal (although non-utilitarian) terms. But the character tropes are all drawn from pre-modern, pre-liberal heroic fantasy (as found either in pre-modern sources or writers, like Tolkien, who deliberately echoed such sources, or in non-liberal modernist writing like a lot of the pulps).

This is a mix that I think is bound to cause trouble in play. I mean, it's not an accident that alignment (and related issues, like whether or not people are playing their clerics and paladins properly) has been just about the most vexed table issue in the history of D&D.

 

[Nivenus]

Maybe it's because I don't ever require players to stay a single alignment the entire game and allow them to shift based on their playstyle, but I don't see alignment arguments as being a problem. Not really.

I mean, when it comes down to it, has there ever been a non-controversial way of measuring morality, fictional or non-fictional? The fact that people argue about alignment I think has more to do with the way humans think about morality generally than the D&D alignments themselves, which, insofar as their definitions are concerned anyway, are generally more flexible than most moral systems (for better or worse).

 

[Dausuul]

I think this is nit picking I really do. Yes paladins may end up killing more people in a war then an assassin does in his life but it still not the same as sneaking around and killing someone who is helpless and can't fight back.

I don't see how being able to fight back is relevant to whether the killing is good or evil. A prisoner on the scaffold, bound and hooded, has no way to fight back, but most paladins have no problem with executions. You might be able to argue that assassins are intrinsically chaotic, as their approach subverts the rule of law*; but IMO, if you can justify the killing at all, then you should be looking for the most reliable way to accomplish the goal with minimal harm to anybody else.

Suppose you're dealing with an evil general leading a horde of monsters. The paladin rallies an army to face the general. Result: A bunch of innocent people die fighting the horde in order to get the paladin to where she can deliver the killing stroke. Alternatively, an assassin sneaks into the enemy camp, kills the general in his sleep, and glides out again, putting no one else at risk.

How is the paladin's approach more defensible, morally, than the assassin's? Or, in the immortal words of Tywin Lannister: "Explain to me how it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner." The assassin can quite legitimately argue that the paladin is being cowardly and selfish by putting others in danger, when there is a way to get the job done alone.

And this, by the way, is why I detest alignment-driven mechanics.

[size=-2]*Note that I am not endorsing the "assassins are intrinsically chaotic" argument, merely pointing out that it is a reasonable one. The Law/Chaos axis makes Good/Evil look like an exemplar of clarity and precision.[/size]