Sacred Steak: The Arguement For Alignment Restrictions.


 It is somewhat interesting to see the various arguements regarding monks, alignments and warlords on the forums. I feed on the tears of pubbie pain;) Ten bux* if you get that reference.

 Anyway the new monk has to be lawful. I have my doubts about the monk and its not based on alignment although it looks better than the 3.5 and Pathfinder monk from a mechanical PoV.

 IN D&D alignment has traditionaly been very important to the extent the D&D multiverse was defined by the Great Wheel. Some campaign settings like Darksun were different of course but D&D core has more or less been about good vs evil and law vs chaos as they are cosmic forces of existence. This is probably from the influence Michael Moorcocks work had on D&D in the 70's as his world  was defined by the conflict between law and chaos. Elric the Eternal champion more or less defined the anti hero/doomed champion archtype.

In D&D at least tradition is important IMHO. You may have a different opinion but consider the backlash against 4th ed and the rise of Pathfinder as proof. 4th ed was in trouble by some accounts as early as 2010. Pathfinder has gone from strength to strength and now supports various 3rd party publishers, minis and a novel line. Things that D&D used to have until the great sundering of 2008. Around about now some people will be rolling their eyes and thinking yay another edition wars thread which I will deal with below in regards to the warlord. But anyway first things first I will deal with why alignment restrictions are inportant using the Paladin as an example. Here is how I define the D&D Paladin. In essence what makes it tick or do its thing. I would argue that the Paladin in all editions of the game with the exception of 4th is.

1. Has to be LG.
2. Casts divine spells.
3. Can lay on hands
4. Can turn undead.
5. Can summon a mount.
6. Has a saving throw bonus

 The 4th ed Paladin took a different approach and it did not have alot of these abilities and it was not required to be Lawful Good either. In Pathfinder their Paladin ticks all of those boxes but they added things to it. For example you can smite evil more often and it ignores DR and you can now smite at range (archer paladins). Lay on hands is now a swift action and you can summon a mount or have a bounded weapon which grants abilities such as keen to a weapon you wield. For the most part the Pathfinder Paladin is an additive while 4th ed one subtracts although to be fair it was mostly just different. However different in D&D is also bad. Another post has made a point a new edition of D&D is like trying to sell a car to the Amish.

 Tradition is important in D&D. I'll concede that 4th ed is mechanically superior than 3.5 and Pathfinder, at the start of this year after DDI an out we switched to Pathfinder despite it being mechanically inferior. A large part of that decision was tradition, Golarion and the adventures paths AKA support.

 Now I will deal with the percieved edition wars part of my thread.

 4th ed upset alot of people by killing off the sacred cows. I don't think my Paladin example alone would have done so but it is safe to say that 4th ed was very different than 3.5 and previous editions. Vancian casting for example love it or loath it has been a part of every other version of D&D since day 1. By now we all know the about the backlash and ediiton wars. However on these very forums for the last few days it has been about the monk, warlord and alignments. I'm not sure what has caused all the Warlord threads but I suspect it was Mearls comments in the video that they may rename the class. Arguements have been made the Warlord made the sin of appearing in 4th ed and that  it was a great success story of 4th ed.

 For the most part I would agree with comments like that. I like the Warlord as a class more than say the Barbarian and the Monk both of which have had a weak core presence in D&D. The barbarian was only in the core books in 3rd ed, the monk in 1st and 3rd ed. Personally I would like to have the Warlord in D&DN even if the class is a direct port of the 4th ed one with the numbers tweaked and a variation of the powers that would probably be less space intensive of 4th eds list.

 Here is the irony. The 4th ed players argueing for the Warlord are more or less arguing for the sake of tradition even if it is dresed up in a different skin. They do not like that the 4th ed warlord could be facing oblivion even as a name. This is the same thing that 3.5 players felt back in 2008 where the 4th ed PHB cut 5 classes from the 3.5 book and added 2 new ones. That why tradition is important as any IP that lasts a few decades has a certain feel/taste. One may not like that taste but one has other options. Think of things like brand identity such as Coke, Star Wars and James Bond. One expects the force in Star Wars and spaceships, James Bond has gadgets, cars and beautiful women.

 In D&DN I want 4th ed players to have their warlord but I want my LG Paladin in the core book because thats what I think of when someone says Paladin. Its the Jedi of the D&D world. I have no problem with Paladin varients of other alignments. If one doesn't like the LG Paladin there will be 13 other classes to play, the DM can houserule the alignment restriction away and it won't be to far before anti-paladins or something similar turn up anyway in a splat book or Dragon magazine if one wants an official varient. Keep the Warlords name the same, it seems to be important to the people who like 4th ed and adding a new class to D&D is usually never a bad thing. Even the silly classes like Mystic, Dragon Shaman and Seeker**.

 Tradition its important. People form an emotional attachment to it whether its church rituals, the superbowl, ceremonies on national public holidays. Traditions define cultures as well. Some tradiitons may seem silly or useless to you, but they are important to the people who care. Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, ANZAC Day, Bastille Day, Oktoberfest are all traditions for example. Vancian magic and alignment may seem silly to you from a mechanical point of view but your opinion is exactly that. We all have a different opinon and most of them are subjective although I am convinced the sky is green, everyone is just color blind.


*Monopoly money, to be paid out in 2314.
** My pet peeves are things like assassin as a class (its an occupation, gj 2nd ed), Samurai (its a fighter with a Katana), and Ninja (occupation, see assassin most likely a Rogue or Fighter Rogue).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I want to put these out here, so everyone who argues that the Monk should be restricted to the Lawful alignment realizes exactly what they are arguing for:



  • Lawful Good (LG):You can be counted on to do the right thing, as expected by society.

  • Lawful Neutral (LN): You act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.

  • Lawful Evil (LE): You methodically take what you want, within the limits of your code of conduct.



"...and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."

These are the definitions of the Lawful Alignments per the DnDNext packets.  Lawful does in fact refer to how they act within the Laws, Traditions and Personal Codes of their society.  It in fact has nothing to do with whether or not they are Dedicated and Disciplined.  And, if you actually go back and read previous edition's alignments, you will see that the focus is on Law and Rules, and how the character acts within them.  Dedication and Determination are not the hallmarks of the Lawful alignment.

The Monk traditions of many cultures often espouse the separation of self from concern for the events and people of the world outside.  They are concerned with their own enlightenment, and perhaps the sharing of that with those around them.  Society and its Laws and Concerns are what they are removing themselves from, in order to achieve a personal goal.  A general Monk character is in no way any more Lawful, and in fact would be likely to do what they believe right despite the Law.
Your definition of the paladin is a list of game mechanics. I would like you to outline a definition of the paladin pertaining to narrative.
Just as an FYI, other alignments, including chaotic ones can have personal codes.
Why should I be bound by your definition of Paladin, which I consider rather narrow? As far as I know, people all over the world have played non LG Paladins for many years. And this must be the reason why WotC finally got rid of the alignment restrictions in the core 4E game. Rightfully so, I say, as this leaves more options for anybody.

Mechanics in the name of "tradition" is a conversation stopper. Looking back is not always a good options. And to play a mechanically inferior game (as you said 3rd is compared to 4E) for tradition's sake is just plain weird to me. In all open mindedness, this is the one thing I cannot wrap my head around.

Also, do not think that people who like 4E a lot want the Warlord as a class because of tradition. They want the class because of what it's capabilities are in 4E. Which rock.
And let's not forget: the argument that some people will be turned off by DNDN if certain traditional elements are not included as a core rule in the game goes both ways: in favor of those who want the game to "feel" like a decade old or older game. But also, especially, in favor of those who are WotC's paying customers at the moment, right now, their source of income, those that financially enable the company to design the new game. I am very sure, WotC will not want to dissapoint this player base.

In order to reach both target groups, WotC have to find a middle ground, I guess. Lawful monks and LG only Paladins in their limiting ways are everything but.
Just as an FYI, other alignments, including chaotic ones can have personal codes.



 And I have no problem with those alignments having their own holy warrior classes or even non LG Paladins in a splat book.


 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Just as an FYI, other alignments, including chaotic ones can have personal codes.



 And I have no problem with those alignments having their own holy warrior classes or even non LG Paladins in a splat book.



Since alignment is an optional module, there is zero reason why non-LG paladins should not be in the PHB.
Just as an FYI, other alignments, including chaotic ones can have personal codes.



 And I have no problem with those alignments having their own holy warrior classes or even non LG Paladins in a splat book.





Exclusion in the core is not acceptable.
I'm fine with optional rules for a non LG Paladin, just the default Paladin should be LG IMHO for reasons stated above. If 4th ed had ditched the LG Paladin I don't think it would have been a major issue by itself. I just used the Paladin as one example. BUt theres limits to the amount of changes the playerbase will tolerate before they vote with their feet/wallets it seems.

 Samrin thats your opinon. It seems the designers have a different opinon at least in regards to alignment and the D&DN Monk.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I will vote with my wallet if the alignment free paladin isn't as equally valid an option as your LG only Paladin in the core rules. It needs to be 100% optional, as is the intended purpose of this edition.

It is extremely immature to not accept other options for people who do not like that rule within the same book. 
I'm fine with optional rules for a non LG Paladin, just the default Paladin should be LG IMHO for reasons stated above. If 4th ed had ditched the LG Paladin I don't think it would have been a major issue by itself. I just used the Paladin as one example. BUt theres limits to the amount of changes the playerbase will tolerate before they vote with their feet/wallets it seems.

 Samrin thats your opinon. It seems the designers have a different opinon at least in regards to alignment and the D&DN Monk.



I don't have an issue with the default being LG, so long as there is that reference to not needing to have alignment at all or to only be LG.  Something similar to the monk language being discussed.
Just as an FYI, other alignments, including chaotic ones can have personal codes.



 And I have no problem with those alignments having their own holy warrior classes or even non LG Paladins in a splat book.





Exclusion in the core is not acceptable.



This.

If YOU want LG only Paladins in YOUR game, then YOU can make that house rule, and the rest of us can play our way, and that way everybody wins.  If Paladins are LG only, then only you win and the rest of us are hosed, which is unacceptable.  Make the game as open and free as possible, and let the individual groups decide if they wish to arbitrarily and nonsensically limit themselves.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
As I said in another thread. If the LG Paladin is the only one that the core game supports, then consider it wallet-repellant for me. I'm fine with it being an option. I am not fine being forced to play your way because you can't handle me wanting to play mine.
Since a narrative description of the idea of the holy knight/paladin has been called for, I will provide one in accordance with a combination of real-world inspiration and literary source material.

The paladin is a champion of creative life. They draw on internal benevolent creative energies for their powers. They do not as a rule serve or worship gods, though a few have been known to. They do not in any way derive their powers from an outside source. They use these energies for destroying beings of death and dark, for healing the sick, binding the broken, inspiring the weary, and giving hope to the despaired. They are shining beacons of light and life amidst the deep dark. Where others bring strength, cunning, knowledge, or faith, the paladin brings The Light.
 My main point is that the US government could say that one has eat pork instead of turkey at thanks giving but the consumers still have the choice of buying turkey. That turkey is pathfinder. D&DN has to at least resemble traditional D&D in the "feel/taste", mechanics do not matter so much. D&D has often been outclassed by other RPGs with better mechanics anyway.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Exclusion in the core is not acceptable.  On any subject.

Even without that, though:

New traditions get started all the time.  Football on Thanksgiving wasn't a tradition, and then it happened and people liked it, and now it's a tradition.

The old traditions don't have a monopoly on traditions, the new traditions have them as well.  And the unaligned Paladin, to me, is now a tradition.

Why are you saying that my tradition isn't as good as yours?  Why is yours the only one to get full official support from the rules?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It will have traditional elements in it, but not everyone wants to be bound by such narrow rules. It needs to be inclusive. I wouldn't even buy it to sit on my shelf if it is anything else but inclusive.
 Yes Salla, I'm the selfish one despite you and your cronies creating thread after thread of demands and outright threatening to boycott D&DN if those demands are not met.

 I might not buy D&DN either but I am willing to give it a go and playtesting it has been fun. I'll wait until I see the final results before making a decision one way or the other.



The only demands being asked is that our playstyle be supported in the game that is supposed to support all playstyles. It isn't too much to ask. I wouldn't pay money for a game that doesn't meet it's intended design goals.
Yes Salla, I'm the selfish one despite you and your cronies creating thread after thread of demands and outright threatening to boycott D&DN if those demands are not met.

 I might not buy D&DN either but I am willing to give it a go and playtesting it has been fun. I'll wait until I see the final results before making a decision one way or the other.

 You are all very good at making strawmen. Personal insults coming out already. You are doing the exact same thing as you are accusing me of.



Actually, we are not. You are saying that only your way should be supported. The game is supposed to be inclusive. You are asking for it to be exclusive. We are asking for them to keep to their design goals, you are asking for them to abandon them and only cater to yourself. No strawmen there. Just your words.
I feel that if you can have a CE cleric who is completely dedicated to his CE god, you can have a non-lawful monk who, similarly, is dedicated and disciplined.

Also, Zardnaar, just because something shows up in the playtest packet doesn't mean the designers think it is the best way to go.  They have said that they like to test things, to push things to the limit in order to see how we, the playtesters, will react.

My assumption is that this is one of those cases.  They put in the restriction to see how we would react.
I specifically said I had no problems with alternate alignment Paladins as an option. I can understand why people can prefer 4th over other D&D edtions. SOme people on these forums at least don't seem to comprehend why 4th failed, Pathfinder is doing well and why some people like tradition. You do not see McDonalds taking the big mac off the menu although every now and then they do offer a Big mac varient.

 They have to sell D&DN to the largest % of gamers as possible. 4th ed tried and failed hence why they seem to be going back in some ways while keeping elements of 4th ed design philosophy.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Yes Salla, I'm the selfish one despite you and your cronies creating thread after thread of demands and outright threatening to boycott D&DN if those demands are not met.


My demand is that both your demands and my demands are met.  Your demand is that only your demands are met. 

The more selfish demand is clear.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I specifically said I had no problems with alternate alignment Paladins as an option.


But you want your preferences enshrined on the dais of Official Support of Right D&Dness.

Sorry, no.  The fundamental principle of Next is that there is no right way to D&D.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
 THye may be able to sell my "demand" though. Your demand has already failed.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 I specifically said I had no problems with alternate alignment Paladins as an option. I can understand why people can prefer 4th over other D&D edtions. SOme people on these forums at least don't seem to comprehend why 4th failed, Pathfinder is doing well and why some people like tradition. You do not see McDonalds taking the big mac off the menu although every now and then they do offer a Big mac varient.



You asked for it in a later book. I'm saying it must be available in the core. What you specifically asked for us the LG only Paladin to be the core rule. I'm asking for it to be one option.

I loathe alignment as it is. If they try shoving it down my throat as the only way in the core book, I will simply not buy it. It has to be optional.
While I would agree that less restrictions is better than more restrictions, some of you guys really just tore into him for no reason. There are many ways to disagree with someone without insulting them or saying they are stupid/selfish. Your opinion is not any more right than his opinion, because they are that..."Opinions". Some of you are just jerks :P
My two copper.
 THye may be able to sell my "demand" though. Your demand has already failed.


Ah, here we go.  Direct attack on 4th edition.  Guess what?  1e, 2e, and 3e have all failed too.  Now what do you do?

So, this whole thread is to start another battle in the edition war.  You are a waste of time, have a nice day.

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
While I would agree that less restrictions is better than more restrictions, some of you guys really just tore into him for no reason. There are many ways to disagree with someone without insulting them or saying they are stupid/selfish. Your opinion is not any more right than his opinion, because they are that..."Opinions". Some of you are just jerks :P



Valuing your own opinion and asking for others to be disregarded is selfish. I'm asking that both be catered to.

The Warlord comparison is also apples to oranges. We just want the Warlord present as its own class, as it is justifiable as a class. We also want the Paladin as a class. We just don't want to be locked into one way of playing said class. We want the freedom to play it as we envision it to be supported by the core rules.

I'm saying that I'm fine if the core rules support your way, as long as my way is also an equally viable option. He seems to be against that. 
A system that supports multiple playstyles is objectively better than one that supports only one.  This is not a matter of opinion.

And I've been going around with Zard and his fact-resistant skull for months.  I have plenty of reasons to tear into him.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
All that's needed is a text block somewhere, clearly marked as 'optional', that mentions alignment restrictions for classes like cleric, druid, monk and paladin. Then everyone can have their steak cooked as they like it.

Heck, I could settle for those classes having "suggested alignments" in their descriptions, with PCs outside them being described as unusual or mavericks, but still perfectly legitimate.

I loathe alignment as it is. If they try shoving it down my throat as the only way in the core book, I will simply not buy it. It has to be optional.



And I dont think not buying D&D is what they meant by optional modules...
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 THye may be able to sell my "demand" though. Your demand has already failed.


Ah, here we go.  Direct attack on 4th edition.  Guess what?  1e, 2e, and 3e have all failed too.  Now what do you do?

So, this whole thread is to start another battle in the edition war.  You are a waste of time, have a nice day.




But, your badwrongfun doesn't belong in the core rules. :P

All that's needed is a text block somewhere, clearly marked as 'optional', that mentions alignment restrictions for classes like cleric, druid, monk and paladin. Then everyone can have their steak cooked as they like it.

Heck, I could settle for those classes having "suggested alignments" in their descriptions, with PCs outside them being described as unusual or mavericks, but still perfectly legitimate.



I would be fine with this.

I'm quite reasonable when it comes to compromise. I am not reasonable when what many of us are asking for is not considered an equally valid option. I will not accept exclusion.
All that's needed is a text block somewhere, clearly marked as 'optional', that mentions alignment restrictions for classes like cleric, druid, monk and paladin. Then everyone can have their steak cooked as they like it.

Heck, I could settle for those classes having "suggested alignments" in their descriptions, with PCs outside them being described as unusual or mavericks, but still perfectly legitimate.



That being virtually my exact preference.. I dont consider it likely the pro restrictions crowd will like it.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 THye may be able to sell my "demand" though. Your demand has already failed.



I don't think there's any real evidence that his demand has already failed.  I don't think 4e's troubles were caused by having paladins of all alignments.  There were much larger and more fundamental issues that caused 4e's problems.
Some of you guys went straight to personal insults mode, just like the 4vengers have been doing since 2008. In effect a few of you chased people off these boards. I have not thrown around any personal insults at all directed at any of you.

 In the OP I even stated I have no problems with XYZ existing as a optional rule in in core. In alot of ways I am even more liberal than the die hard 3.5 is uber crowd who would not want to give you warlords, no alignment options whatsoever, and nothing at all from 4th ed is allowed.

 If you think I am some sort of 3.5 holdout troll you would be mistaken as I have not played that ediiton in years and I have more recent experiences with 4th ed than 3.5.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

A system that supports multiple playstyles is objectively better than one that supports only one.  This is not a matter of opinion.

And I've been going around with Zard and his fact-resistant skull for months.  I have plenty of reasons to tear into him.



His fact resistant skull is damn good at playtesting this game, at least when it comes to the math. I can respect that. So far, you've been pretty viscious whenever someone even brings up ideas that you don't like or don't agree with. Whenever someone defends those ideas that you don't like or don't agree with, you at absolute best get really, really snarky. I've actually seen Zaardnaar change his mind before when presented with new and compelling evidence. From where I stand, I don't feel like anyone has an overabundance of reason to tear into him. He's cool people.
"optional rule in the core" - Does not exist.

"optional" and "core" are mutually exclusive.

If you really want a useful discussion as to the argument for alignment restrictions, leave the edition war home.  You've demonstrated that your real goal is to emphasize that anything 4e did shouldn't be done, because 4e sucks and failed, rather than any actual discussion of the topic at hand.  Sorry, that's not acceptable.

I'm willing to give you another chance, so here it is.  Get on topic, and stop edition warring.  Stop bashing 4e.  Present your case so that it can stand or fall on its own merit, and not be based solely on what 4e did or didn't do.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I think the best way to deal with classes with alignments is to not hardcode them with specific alignments.  Rather list suggested/appropriate alignments for the class in a small sidenote/sidebar, including some sort of narrative reasoning. This is meant as a modular system after all.
To use the Paladin as an example, you could say that "the LG alignment is the most appropriate for the Paladin, as they are exemplars of their goodly religion. Maintaining and holding up the teachings and dogmas as they protect innocent people from various monsters and other terrors."
Writings a little cumbersome, but I think you get what I'm saying.
Then put me on your Block User list.  That's why it's there.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
 I have not seen several of you post anyhting relevent to D&DN which seems to indicate you are not actually playtesting it. You seem fixated on telling everyone else about how great 4th ed ws but you do not offer any playtest posts that indicate you have at least tried D&DN.

 Fear is the Mind Killer