Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6116742">3.x was so horribly balanced to begin with that there's really nothing "outside the need for balance", and as 4e proved, you don't need it at all.  About you saying one thing and doing another.If you RP your character properly, there's no need for an in-game stick to punish you.  I don't really think the game needs to punish players for poor RP, the group can do that just fine.  When it becomes clear that the social stigma of breaking your RP is a bad thing, the amount of people doing it will shrink.  It'll never be prevented though, but if your goal is to prevent bad RP entirely, then every class should have alignment restrictions.  If in your opinion everythingThen why not have EVERY class offer it?  Make rogues LE?  Make Clerics match their god, have Druids TN, have rangers be CG, have fighters be LN.  Because a morality story can be experienced by any player, of any class, in any game.  You don't need to FORCE people to experience a morality story for it to happen, and I'm willing to bet MORE people will want to experience a morality story if the quality of their play is enhanced not reduced by that experience.That was not the point to my example.  Rare is it that a Paladin or their player experiences true moral conflict.  Hence the rise of "lawful stupid" where Paladins simply do whatever lets them keep their powers.  My example, which you clearly didn't understand, was to illustrate that anyone can experience moral challenges, even if they don't risk losing the entirety of their class features over making the wrong choice.  They can still struggle with balancing doing good and evil, they can still experience emotional turmoil, and they can still work to redeem themselves.It just requires good RP.  What the LG mandate created in the existence of Lawful Stupid was not good RP, in fact it generated bad RP because of it.If your assumption is both good players and good DMs, then alignment restrictions are even further unnecessary.  Good players will stick to their character concepts and good DMs will not punish inordinately and the alignment restriction is unnecessary.  The alignment restriction EXISTS solely for bad players and operates under the expectation that players will break their RP, and it is a tool for the DM to punish that behavior.  If your assumption is that players are good and DMs are good, then a tool to punish players when they are bad is meaningless.So we should accept bad design and accept that WOTC won't put good thought into interesting concepts because there's a sidebar that says "just ignore it if you don't like it."  That's horrid!  If something is a bad design it should be left out.  If WOTC doesn't want to put the effort into making something good it should be LEFT OUT.  Slapping an alignment restriction on the paladin doesn't improve the experience and if you argue it does then logically all classes should have alignment restrictions.</blockquote>

Verification