Paladins with alignment restrictions: YES.

699 posts / 0 new
Last post
u mad?

I'm not.  Class looks awesome.
I wouldn't say mad, but I'm definitely not happy with the return of one of the things I was most pleased to see given the boot when 4e was released.

I'll be houseruling that away.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Yeah, I'm gonna pass on alignment restrictions.

Some people out there (like Danline and Goldomark) like alignment restriction.  I'd hazard a guess they are in the minority.  A very small minority.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
I share Salla's sentiment.  I'm just thankful that it's easy to hourserule this restriction away.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Considering they took out the whole mechanical falling part out, I could care less. It honestly doesn't matter, since nothing happens (mechanically) if the Sacadin decides to be CE 5 min into the session. 
Considering they took out the whole mechanical falling part out, I could care less. It honestly doesn't matter, since nothing happens (mechanically) if the Sacadin decides to be CE 5 min into the session. 


Right, this.  As far as I'm concerned, it's not a problem - it's just bloody pointless.  Which I guess is better than "No, you play your character like this, or you don't play him at all," but still, I'd rather they not waste the space.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Considering they took out the whole mechanical falling part out, I could care less. It honestly doesn't matter, since nothing happens (mechanically) if the Sacadin decides to be CE 5 min into the session. 



That's very true.  It's also one of the bright spots about this as it makes the alignment restriction easier to houserule out.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

u mad?

I'm not.  Class looks awesome.



Oh, I think it's a wonderful idea right up there with race based level limits and save or die spells, and rerolling a new character (and none of this namby pamby 4d6 drop the lowest....we go OLD SKOOL with 3d6 in the order that you roll them).

Yes, it's finally time that Mearls and Co are getting DnD back to a true "man's game".

.....

RALF!  This reflects a huge part of what's wrong with the new Essentials Push.  The bad old ideas were bad and discarded for a reason and alignment restrictions on explicit character classes were right near the top of the list.

-Polaris
I wouldn't mind alignment-ish restrictions if done well. But, as alignments in 4e are simply awful (e.g. Lawful Good = Super Good), any restrictions flowing from them are similarly awful.
I really wouldn't want to play an alignment-restricted paladin. On a separate note, I really wouldn't want to play a paladin, period, and I really don't care if anyone else at the game table plays one, AR or not. 

So it's all good. 
"Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” ~Mark Twain
I wouldn't mind alignment-ish restrictions if done well. But, as alignments in 4e are simply awful (e.g. Lawful Good = Super Good), any restrictions flowing from them are similarly awful.



That's the problem right there with writing alignment restrictions into the mechanical DNA of the game.  It was removed in 4E for very good reasons and the devs even in 2000 with 3E wanted to remove it (and nearly did).

Too often those that write in the "alignment restrictions" wouldn't understand the difference between the various alignments or what they represented even if the concepts poleaxed them between the eyes.

Lawful-Good, for example, even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Good".  It's been something quite different.  Likewise Chaotic Evil even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Evil". 

Asking our current crop of designers to write alignment restrictions when they clearly don't understand their own alignment system makes as much sense as asking Bozo the Clown to fix your car.

-Polaris

Lawful-Good, for example, even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Good".  It's been something quite different.  Likewise Chaotic Evil even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Evil". 


I can't agree with you there. There are really only two aspects discussed in the 4e PHB regarding good and lawful good. A good character may be called to risk his life, while the lawful good may be called to sacrifice his life. A good character may "feel compelled" to stop tyranny, while the lawful good is "morally bound" to stop tyranny. The way the description is written, lawful good is good turned up to 11. Same thing with chaotic evil, as chaotic evil is granted the possibility of being even more abhorrent than just regular evil, but is at least as abhorrent.

Alignment in 4e really is just a single axis affair, which is why I find it so repulsive.
I join the OP with enthusiasm for the return of a Lawful Good Paladin.  It's nice to have the game reflect the fiction that inspires it, rather than succumb to "but I want the stuff without the sacrifice" players.

Lawful-Good, for example, even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Good".  It's been something quite different.  Likewise Chaotic Evil even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Evil". 


I can't agree with you there. There are really only two aspects discussed in the 4e PHB regarding good and lawful good. A good character may be called to risk his life, while the lawful good may be called to sacrifice his life. A good character may "feel compelled" to stop tyranny, while the lawful good is "morally bound" to stop tyranny. The way the description is written, lawful good is good turned up to 11. Same thing with chaotic evil, as chaotic evil is granted the possibility of being even more abhorrent than just regular evil, but is at least as abhorrent.

Alignment in 4e really is just a single axis affair, which is why I find it so repulsive.

First of all, there is a reason it's single axis. Law and Chaos are two sides of the same coin. Arguing the difference between them is impossible because all you have to do is turn one over to find the other.

Anyways. Going back to your example of Chaotic Evil. No, actually the Evil alignment is far more evil than Chaotic Evil, which just embodies mindless destruction. The original intent was for Lawful Good to embody a specific subset of Good where one felt the civilization was the best means to the end. However, the developers have over time twisted the meanings of the alignments to please old schoolers. (See Virtue of Sacrifice and some Demon Lords).
I join the OP with enthusiasm for the return of a Lawful Good Paladin.  It's nice to have the game reflect the fiction that inspires it, rather than succumb to "but I want the stuff without the sacrifice" players.

You should be aware that DnD is and has been it's own beast for a long time now.
I join the OP with enthusiasm for the return of a Lawful Good Paladin.  It's nice to have the game reflect the fiction that inspires it, rather than succumb to "but I want the stuff without the sacrifice" players.



You always could play LG paladins, and the game always could reflect the fiction that inspired it.  Allowing alignment to interfere with a player's class instead of expanding their options is (IMO) a bad idea.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

So it's how many things you can't have if you don't want to be Lawful Good?
I join the OP with enthusiasm for the return of a Lawful Good Paladin.  It's nice to have the game reflect the fiction that inspires it, rather than succumb to "but I want the stuff without the sacrifice" players.



But why should the system prevent me from playing something that goes against the norm? Or should all Paladins be the same, ever?

Lawful-Good, for example, even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Good".  It's been something quite different.  Likewise Chaotic Evil even in 4E is not and never has been "Super Evil". 


I can't agree with you there. There are really only two aspects discussed in the 4e PHB regarding good and lawful good. A good character may be called to risk his life, while the lawful good may be called to sacrifice his life. A good character may "feel compelled" to stop tyranny, while the lawful good is "morally bound" to stop tyranny. The way the description is written, lawful good is good turned up to 11. Same thing with chaotic evil, as chaotic evil is granted the possibility of being even more abhorrent than just regular evil, but is at least as abhorrent.

Alignment in 4e really is just a single axis affair, which is why I find it so repulsive.



That isn't true.  Oh it looks at first blush like a single-axis system, but it's not.  Read the alignment descriptions on pages 19 to 20 of the PHB.  Both Good and Lawful Good will sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.  Whether or not they feel it's a moral imperative merely depends on how strongly they hold to their good or lawful good alignment.

However, LAWFUL Good, even in 4E (read page 19) also requires respect for authority, social codes, ect and they believe that such codes promote and enhance the greater good.  "Good" characters don't necessarily agree.  Both are still capable of sacrifice.

A similiar difference (not uniform axis) exists between Evil and Chaotic Evil.  Both are vile and both work against the weal of their fellow man.  In the case of "Evil", it's a brutal application of the "zero sum game".  In the case of Chaotic Evil, it's far more chilling Nihilism that goes far beyond personal self interest.  Chaotic Evil creatures often don't care about anything....sometimes not even themselves which makes them quite different from Evil.

All this is right in the PHB if the Devs would bother to read it.

-Polaris
Honestly, if you want alignment strictures, make them part of something legitimately optional like a theme.  VoS and VoV work better as divine class themes anyway (IMO).

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Honestly, if you want alignment strictures, make them part of something legitimately optional like a theme.  VoS and VoV work better as divine class themes anyway (IMO).



Agreed.  This is why I never minded the god/alignment rules for Paladins and Clerics in pre-essentials 4E.  It was a flavor detail that made no real difference.  Don't like the god?  Pick a different one.  Lots to pick from and even changing your mind later had no mechanical consequence (except for a very few and very understandable exceptions that were explicitly linked to specific gods/religions).

-Polaris
First of all, there is a reason it's single axis. Law and Chaos are two sides of the same coin. Arguing the difference between them is impossible because all you have to do is turn one over to find the other.


Yes, I cannot see the difference between a bunch of apples spaced equidistantly from each other in a grid formation, and a bunch of apples thrown randomly in a room.

That law and choas always coexist is different than saying that there is no difference. You might as well say the same about good and evil.

So, if you want no axis (alignmentless), fine. But a single axis that collapses good and evil with law and chaos is misguided.

Anyways. Going back to your example of Chaotic Evil. No, actually the Evil alignment is far more evil than Chaotic Evil, which just embodies mindless destruction.

It might have embodied mindless destruction in previous editions, but there is definately a mind behind chaotic evil in 4e, as chaotic evil individuals still believe that something "matters" and they have "interests." Mindless destruction has no need of such things.

That's in the PHB. It did not get twisted later.
I wouldn't say mad, but I'm definitely not happy with the return of one of the things I was most pleased to see given the boot when 4e was released.

I'll be houseruling that away.



Cool. I was house ruling the old 9 alignments anyway, instead of the stupid 5 and the uber stupid Unaligned.

Anyway, why ruin the fun of those who liked alignments? You could always houserule the old alignment system.



And you could always house rule them back in. I cant stand alignment in general, since its rare for people to have the same viewpoint. A system where one person has the other's class powers by the short hairs if the views differ is just begging for trouble.

Essentials - 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

I'm looking around for Paula Abdul and a cartoon cat...
Honestly, if you want alignment strictures, make them part of something legitimately optional like a theme.  VoS and VoV work better as divine class themes anyway (IMO).



Agreed.  This is why I never minded the god/alignment rules for Paladins and Clerics in pre-essentials 4E.  It was a flavor detail that made no real difference.  Don't like the god?  Pick a different one.  Lots to pick from and even changing your mind later had no mechanical consequence (except for a very few and very understandable exceptions that were explicitly linked to specific gods/religions).

-Polaris



Technically domain feats are based on your god. Since paladins had to match their god's alignment, it was hard to be good and get the power of tyranny feat, for example. generally though, you could find a god with an alignment that matched your desired play, and access to an appropriate feat. 
@CrowScape: Actually it doesn't matter how they're spaced. As complex forms of matter Apples on inherently lawful. At the same time, as complex forms of matter who's elements are not arranged in perfect symmetry, Apples are inherently chaotic.

In addition, you have your facts completely backwards. Chaotic Evil was not mindless destruction in previous editions, as shown by the Demon Lords and Succubi. It only recently became defined as that, and then was later defiled (like Lawful Good) be later supplements written by people who have no idea what they were talking about, or who were too beholden to old interpretations. 
Honestly, if you want alignment strictures, make them part of something legitimately optional like a theme.  VoS and VoV work better as divine class themes anyway (IMO).



Agreed.  This is why I never minded the god/alignment rules for Paladins and Clerics in pre-essentials 4E.  It was a flavor detail that made no real difference.  Don't like the god?  Pick a different one.  Lots to pick from and even changing your mind later had no mechanical consequence (except for a very few and very understandable exceptions that were explicitly linked to specific gods/religions).

-Polaris



Technically domain feats are based on your god. Since paladins had to match their god's alignment, it was hard to be good and get the power of tyranny feat, for example.



While that's true, feats and classes are different animals.  Classes give a character their baseline abilities.  Feats are they to augment and provide more options.  If an option is not available to everyone it is less of an impediment than something that interferes with your baseline abilities.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


However, LAWFUL Good, even in 4E (read page 19) also requires respect for authority, social codes, ect and they believe that such codes promote and enhance the greater good.  "Good" characters don't necessarily agree.  Both are still capable of sacrifice.


And you are good, you just may respect the laws, or you may not. So, there is no difference between a good character that respects the law, and a lawful good character. Similarly, Lawful good characters can still rebel violently against a tyrant. It's just not their first choice. So, there's no difference between a good character rebelling, and a lawful good character rebelling, except...

Lawful good place MORE emphasis on helping the weak and oppressed (which has nothing to do with being lawful)
Lawful good are MORE likely to sacrifice themselves (which, again, has nothing to do with being lawful)

That is the sum difference between the two.

A similiar difference (not uniform axis) exists between Evil and Chaotic Evil.  Both are vile and both work against the weal of their fellow man.  In the case of "Evil", it's a brutal application of the "zero sum game".  In the case of Chaotic Evil, it's far more chilling Nihilism that goes far beyond personal self interest.  Chaotic Evil creatures often don't care about anything....sometimes not even themselves which makes them quite different from Evil.

All this is right in the PHB if the Devs would bother to read it.


Except, it's not. Nothing in the description of chaotic evil on page 20 speaks to nihilism or something beyond personal self interest. In fact, it emphasis personal self interest: "Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power."

Your description of chaotic evil is not found in 4e's PHB. It is a single-axis system.
One thing that nobody is mentioning is that this puts the thumbscrews more to LFR players than the average D&D gamer. Some folks CAN'T, for whatever reason, get into a home game, and are stuck with playing in a scenario where they HAVE to use every errata function that hits the books. Any "houserule" flag on a character sheet can be cause for you being unable to play the character, and the new murkiness of the alignment restriction issue can allow grognard leaning DMs to 'interpret' things much differently than you did upon character creation.

All said, sure, you can play a different option. But the freedom of 4e was that you could do ANYTHING you wanted with ANY class, and it was legal and supported. Any movement away from that starts to give me P.E.S.D (Post-Edition Stress Disorder, a Class Feature gained when exposed to situations from older editions that aren't optimal, in my view. Sort of like the Taint mechanic from Heroes of Horror!)

Having played D&D from 1e onward, I find any hint of alignment restriction pretty irritating. Not going to affect my house game, but sure foreshadows affecting my 'sanctioned' gaming.
So many PCs, so little time...
@CrowScape: Actually it doesn't matter how they're spaced. As complex forms of matter Apples on inherently lawful. At the same time, as complex forms of matter who's elements are not arranged in perfect symmetry, Apples are inherently chaotic.


As I said, there is a difference between saying that order and choas coexist, and saying that there is no difference. If there is a difference, there can be an axis. The fact that you have distinguished between order and chaos in your example shows that you recognize a difference, and so an axis can be formed.
In addition, you have your facts completely backwards. Chaotic Evil was not mindless destruction in previous editions, as shown by the Demon Lords and Succubi. It only recently became defined as that, and then was later defiled (like Lawful Good) be later supplements written by people who have no idea what they were talking about, or who were too beholden to old interpretations. 


I issued no fact on what chaotic evil was in previous additions (as, unfortunately, my three core rule books for 2e have been on walkabout for six years... but if you want something from the Wizard's Handbook, I can help you out there), only a possibility. The fact that I did state was that the "mindlessness" you attribute to chaotic evil is not found in 4e. The PHB states that chaotic evil beings have values and interests. That's not mindless. If mindlessness was added to chaotic evil in 4e, it must have happened after the PHB.
@CrowScape

Just because a concept exists does not mean it can be applied to humans in any meaningful way. A person can be no more meaningfully lawful or chaotic than they can be meaningfully gravity or light. e.e

Screw this.  Good redeems its own, and Evil devours itself.  There is no law or chaos, and paladins are no longer welcome.  I'm sick of this crap. Yell
@CrowScape

Just because a concept exists does not mean it can be applied to humans in any meaningful way. A person can be no more meaningfully lawful or chaotic than they can be meaningfully gravity or light. e.e



In other words, people can't weigh more or less, or be lighter or darker? :P
@CrowScape

Just because a concept exists does not mean it can be applied to humans in any meaningful way. A person can be no more meaningfully lawful or chaotic than they can be meaningfully gravity or light. e.e



In other words, people can't weigh more or less, or be lighter or darker? :P

Are their gods that only accept people of certain weight and colours? Is that what you're suggesting we support?

@CrowScape

Just because a concept exists does not mean it can be applied to humans in any meaningful way. A person can be no more meaningfully lawful or chaotic than they can be meaningfully gravity or light. e.e



In other words, people can't weigh more or less, or be lighter or darker? :P

Are their gods that only accept people of certain weight and colours? Is that what you're suggesting we support?



Yes. The gods are racists.

*drops whatever she was holding*

*is stunned(save ends).*

*Font of Life, make saving throw at beginning of turn*

*rolls an 8*

*free action, augmented adepts insight, +1d4+1 to saving throw*

*+3. Total 11.*

*double move: run*
haha the op was really into it
Considering they took out the whole mechanical falling part out, I could care less. It honestly doesn't matter, since nothing happens (mechanically) if the Sacadin decides to be CE 5 min into the session. 


If that happened, he'd lose his paladin powers until he atoned.  At least in my games.  He could also opt to become a fighter instead.
Considering they took out the whole mechanical falling part out, I could care less. It honestly doesn't matter, since nothing happens (mechanically) if the Sacadin decides to be CE 5 min into the session. 


If that happened, he'd lose his paladin powers until he atoned.  At least in my games.  He could also opt to become a fighter instead.



Not according to the cavalier.  The cavalier has no mechanical impact for changing alignment.  Thankfully.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

At least in my games.  He could also opt to become a fighter instead.

In my games, no matter the edition, I encourage players to use alignment as a tool to help shape their character's personality... so I like alignment restrictions.

It's one more way in which "Guy wearing heavy armor, and wielding a weapon and shield, fighting on the front lines to protect his allies," doesn't mean Fighter, and I think that is a good thing.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

In my games, no matter the edition, I encourage players to use alignment as a tool to help shape their character's personality... so I like alignment restrictions.



I totally agree.

Alignment is a tool to be used and misused like any other.

But it is a tool that I like.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Sign In to post comments