Book of exalted deed had got some exalted feats, sacred vows.
Paladin is a walking sacred vow. It´s like if he had those exalted feats (that can be lost if he break some rules)
He has be chosen to be defender of justice, law and order. Coherence demands paladin´s behavior can´t be a bad example and acting againts ideals they represents.
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
He has be chosen to be defender of justice, law and order. Coherence demands paladin´s behavior can´t be a bad example and acting againts ideals they represents.
Unless your paladin is one of dozens of variant paladins meant to accomodate other alignments and ideals. I don't want a return to making a separate class for different alignment, whether it be chaotic paladins, evil paladins, chaotic monks, whatever.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Book of exalted deed had got some exalted feats, sacred vows.
Paladin is a walking sacred vow. It´s like if he had those exalted feats (that can be lost if he break some rules)
He has be chosen to be defender of justice, law and order. Coherence demands paladin´s behavior can´t be a bad example and acting againts ideals they represents.
Except once you start playing a Paladin, you aren't roleplaying for fun, you're roleplaying to avoid getting punbished for roleplaying the wrong way. That sounds incredibly unfun to me.
And as I said, I was able to play a Lawful Good Paladin without needing the threat of taking away all my class features in 4e. If someone wants to play a LG Paladin, they'll follow the code, if not, then they're playing a Paladin of another alignment.
I'm really curious where people kepe getting this idea that lifting the alignment restriction is suddenly going to turn every Paladin into a village slaying baby eating monster.
Well, see, in my current home campaign, the gods are either cut off from the material world or are already dead. Does that mean there could no longer exist paladings in my world, because you can't stand it?
Nope, they should still be available, and in fact, the initial group had one paladin with them. A paladin of one of the so-called "Old Gods" whom have not been seen or heared from in a long while, one that is, coincidentially, dead. He was invested with divine power by his order and that's how things work in my campaign.
And you, you have no right whatsoever to tell me that I am doing it wrong. In fact, you are doing it wrong by trying to prohibit me from having my campaign world.
And that's all there is, really. You trying to enforce your limited religious view on other people. Bam. Nothing more and nothing less.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs.
Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!
I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm really curious where people kepe getting this idea that lifting the alignment restriction is suddenly going to turn every Paladin into a village slaying baby eating monster.
Because some people have bad players and don't realize the problem is bad players.
There's also the unfortunate tendency for lots of people to stereotype. Seems like any time I play a rogue, people expect me to lie, cheat and steal from anybody and everybody, regardless of the fact that I NEVER do that, just because there's a certain word on my character sheet. I recall one DM who actually TOLD me how much my rogue stole from another party member when I had no intention of doing so, just because 'you're a rogue, that's what they do'.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I like aligment, and the allegiance system from d20 Modern like a extra guideline help.
But for me the headache is Chaotic Good. Chaotic shouldn´t be anarchy.
I think aligment is how characters´behavior toward people with different allegyance.
For example:
A hassasin is totally loyal to his secret brotherood, like if he were LE but for the rest of the world is CE.
A superstitious barbarian can be honorable and totally obedient to his tribe chief, like LN, but for foreigners is CN.
A drunk bard hafling is totally loyal to elve princess, like LG, but his behavior for folks from other countries, is like CG.
* Spells and powers with aligment key should hurts enemies with identical aligment but different allegiance.
Your problem is that you have a unilateral view of what alignment means, and that it's too restrictive. Loyalty =/= Lawful alignment. Someone can be loyal to an organization, or an individual without being lawful in alignment. Being Chaotic does not mandate some kind of internal anethma to follwing the law, nor does the reverse apply.
Alignment should be a module. That's the only way to prevent them from sneaking alignment-based mechanics into the core.
Too bad. The devs already said that alignment mechanics are going to be a part of the core rules. There are going to be "easy means of removing them" for those that wish to play without them, but the core assumption is alignment mechanics. So...NO. Alignment is not going to be a module. NON-Alignment is going to be a module.
Game mechanic should reward and punish ethical behavior. Clerics and divine spellcasters ought act according to his deities moral values, and some magic items could be more powerful if they are used by a pure soul or heartless.
Ah...no.
The problem is you are almost never going to find a player and DM with exactly the same idea as to what "Lawful Good" is, for example. Players of classes like pre-4e Paladins can and have fallen for doing something the player is certain is LG behavior, but the DM disagrees and takes away your Paladin class features.
Then the problem is that DM, not alignment. The rules say that a paladin only falls when his alignment changes, or when he "knowingly and intentionally commits an evil act". And as far as when alignment changes, the DMG explicitly states that such changes do NOT occur as the result of a single action, they are gradual. So, if a player is geniunely playing his paladin as a LG person, and does what he geniunely believes is right according to his ethos, he should never be losing his powers, because he will not be commiting any outright evil acts. If his actions are starting to show a trend towards a more NG-ish behavior (according to the DM's views), it's the responsibility of the DM to discuss that with the player out of game, so that they can correct the problem by reaching an accord of what constitutes proper behavior.
But let's be honest. Most fallen paladin stories are from situations where either the player has CLEARLY done something to warrant it, or the DM has decided to put the player in a "gotcha" situation, where no matter how hard the paladin tries to do the right thing, the DM takes his power. In both cases, the problem is the people involved, not alignment nor its mechanics.
Speaking for my self, I have never had any problem with alignments. Nor has any one I've played with.
Same here.
And my group has.
I think we've already established that there are those such as yourself that have had problems with aignment. However, the point of saying that I (and other like me) haven't is to show that the problem is not universal.
You'll never convince him, because he believes that his experiences are so vital and universal, that his opinions are objective facts.
Really, that's pretty much all the "alignment sucks!" contingent is asking for.
I've already said it, but I'll say it again. As long as aligmnet does not interact with mechanics in core, I am not against it being there. I know some people would like to kill them altogether but it is not gonna happen in this edition. So instead let's settle for a workable compromise shall we?
Again, too late. Alignment mechanics are going to be in core. HOWEVER, there will be quick and easy means of separating the mechanics of alignment for those that wish it. Why is that so bad? Functionally, it's the same, except that you are denied the satisfaction of "winning" because alignment mechanics are considered the default, which means facing proof that your experiences were, in fact, NOT so vital and universal that they were objective fact.
You will be able to have 5e without alignment mechanics, as a part of the rules. You're just using a modular option to remove it.
I don't know. Some of the alignments never made much sense. I still don't understand the difference between LE and NE.
The law/chaos axis decides how a character observes the law, how they respect legitimate authority and how important they consider things like honour, trustworthiness etc. A lawful character would accept a challenge and engage in honourable combat, while a chaotic character would pretend to accept the challenge then strike below the belt. A neutral character would be somewhere in between...they'll take basic steps to maintain a reputation, but won't go out of their way to do so.
I know you're pro-alignment, but your view is also too narrow. You can't automatically assume that every characetr of a lawful alignment will behave the same way. Sometimes a lawful character is lawful because of a dedication to a personal ethos. Maybe he's just consistent.
Lawful Evil means a character is evil, but still respects the law, authority, and notions of honour and trustworthiness. He never lies and defers to his superiors, but exploits the law for personal gain, not caring who suffers for it. Corrupt politicians, businessmen etc are lawful evil. Adolf Hitler could be described as lawful evil, because while what he did was unmistakeably evil, it was within the boundaries of the law.
Again, lawful does not necessarily reflect a deference to authority. While it might, it is not always the case. And as far as the Hitler example, I agree that he was LE, but keep in mind, that what he did was within the bounds of the law, because he CHANGED the laws to make what he did legal. I'd say he was LE because he was organized and methodical.
So again, in short, Alignment is a Thermometer, not a Straightjacket. It describes what is already going on, it doesn't limit or dictate what the character can or cannot do.
Except when it totally dictates what a character can or cannot do.
Alignment is fine for those who want them. Keep it mechanic-less and it's a peerfect module to include or exclude based on your preference. Alignment mechanics baked into a class is not as the only way to exclude it is to exclude the class entirely.
Except that alignment NEVER dictates what a character can or cannot do. Certain CLASSES include restrictions on activity, but not alignment. Nothing says a monk cannot break a law, just that they must be of lawful alignment. Alignment does not say that a paladin cannot commit an evil act, the paladin class says that IF he knowingly and willingly commits an evil act, he loses his powers. Alignment doesn't restrict a druid from wearing metal armor, his druid ethos does. And you WILL be able to exclude alignment mechanics at your preference. But the core rule will be inclusion of them.
Those alignment restrictions never made sense, anyway. Being lawful doesn't mean you can't play an instrument or lose your temper.
I agree. Bards should be lawful, or at least able to be lawful. Musical ability requires discipline. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice!
I agree with the bards and lawful restriction. However, the Barbarian one makes a bit of sense. Truly having a lawful alignment means having some self-discipline, and a barbarian's rage is meant to reflect giving in to wild impulses, that kind of surrender to rage is not usually compatible with people who can be defined as people with a great deal of self-control.
I do, however, want to point out that discipline is not the only way to aquire musical aptitude. Some people are naturally talented and gifted.
Alignment should be included in the game as a well fleshed out option like all others. I wont throw fits if you ignore it in your game as long as you dont disparage me for using it in mine.
Regrettably, there are several anti-alignment people who will not adopt such a stance. To them, alignment is the source of their issues, and they will not accept that such is not the case. Granted, there are some who can be more open-minded, but a great majority cannot accpet that their view on alignment is just an opinion.
You do not lose Paladin powers because your alignment changed to Evil (well, it does mechanically because thats the only way we have to quantify it), you lose your Paladin powers because you are no longer an upstanding pillar of virtue who puts others before themselves. The Paladin role is very specific in how it has to work because it is an extremely specific archetype. Rather the same way you can't have a Lawful Good catburgler.
And that change can very well happen because you and your DM do not have the same point of view when it comes to morale. Like the thousands of paladin-falling-from-grace stories show quite clearly, as a lot of them are disputed by the player. This stuff does happen and alignment is the cause for it.
You cannot quanity morale for everyone in a game-system. Alignment needs to remain completely mechanics-free in the baseline of the game.
Can you give an honest example that you have seen where the paladin's player truly felt that they were doing the right thing in a situation which was NOT the result of bad DMing? Most every example I have ever seen are the result of a situation that the DM created as a "no-win" scenario. The problems you cite are the result of bad players or bad DMs, not a problem with alignment.
And alignment does not "need" to be mechanics-free in the baseline of the game. That's your opinion on alignment, and your predjudices have no bearing on objective, quantifiable fact. But alignment mechanics are in as the core assumption of DDN. You can remove them, the devs havce said that such removal will be easy. But to please both camps, it's easier to have the inclusion as the core assumption and tell others to just ignore all mention of it as a module, than to have a seperate module address each and every game mechanic seperately to include them.
Im 100% okay with people not using alignment. Just dont steal it from those who use it as a tool. Thats all Im basically lobbying for.
Module. Done.
I'm mostly curious why the best arguments people can come up with for alignmentchanics are examples that don't require alignment in the slightest.
Really? I'm mostly curious why the best examples people can come up with against alignment are actually problems with the people involved, and not alignment, and why those people can't just acknowledge that what they hold as fact is simply their opinion.
I don't see what's wrong with having alignment as a rule, but have a rules sidebar about playing without alignment. Heaven's forbid it, playing Eberron should default to no alignments.
Other way 'round, I'd say.
Start with alignment-mechanics-free game and add it on top as a module. In this case it makes a lot more sense to add it in.
Like I just stated before, it would, in fact, be harder to add in alignment mechanics as a mosule, because every relevant game mechanic would have to be addressed in said module. Contrariwise, if it's included as core, the option to remove it can simply state to ignore said spells/restrictions/effects and not to include them.
It's not that simple. Removing it would require a lot of re-working of certain spells, abilities and item restrictions. Which, in itself,
SImple solution:Don't tie them in that tightly to core spells abilities and items. Make all thsoe in the "Fun with Alignment" module and keep them out of the core game.
Even simpler solution: Mention in the "Fun Without Alignment" module to remove said spells and ignore effects related to alignment. But for those that WANT alignment in the game, there are too many examples and details that would have to be inserted and changed if it was not included in core. But removal would be quite simple. And this is what the devs have said they are going to do. Alignment and alignment mechanics are going to be core. End of story.
Book of exalted deed had got some exalted feats, sacred vows.
Paladin is a walking sacred vow. It´s like if he had those exalted feats (that can be lost if he break some rules)
He has be chosen to be defender of justice, law and order. Coherence demands paladin´s behavior can´t be a bad example and acting againts ideals they represents.
Except once you start playing a Paladin, you aren't roleplaying for fun, you're roleplaying to avoid getting punbished for roleplaying the wrong way. That sounds incredibly unfun to me.
Your statement here makes you just as guilty as those who you accuse of sterotyping. Not everyone plays paladins like that. If that's what your gaming group is like, then your group sounds very unfun to me.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm really curious where people kepe getting this idea that lifting the alignment restriction is suddenly going to turn every Paladin into a village slaying baby eating monster.
Because some people have bad players and don't realize the problem is bad players.
And those same people blame alignment as the cause of those bad scenarios, when bad players (or DMs) are the real cause.
There's also the unfortunate tendency for lots of people to stereotype. Seems like any time I play a rogue, people expect me to lie, cheat and steal from anybody and everybody, regardless of the fact that I NEVER do that, just because there's a certain word on my character sheet. I recall one DM who actually TOLD me how much my rogue stole from another party member when I had no intention of doing so, just because 'you're a rogue, that's what they do'.
And that, right there, is a perfect example of why removing alignment from games won't solve any of the problems people blame alignment for. Your DM didn't say "Well, you're CN, that's what CN people do", it was because you were a rogue. Bad players and Bad DMs will be disruptive, or overbearing with or without alignment. And in the absence of alignment, they will find something else to use. I ran a 3e game for 3 years during college, and the party rogue didn't even have any ranks in Sleight of Hand. His character used to be a scout for his home city. In a lot of ways, he was a lot more like a ranger in the way he behaved. He still had ranks in Open Lock and Disable Device, and he frequently went stealthy and scouted ahead of the party, but he did not steal, and was more comfortable in natural surroundings. Later on in 3.5e's lifetime, that player may have made a scout instead of a rogue, but then again, he liked the rogue's skill list, because his character was a skilled troubleshooter. I like seeing characters that break the mold of stereotype of classes.
As long as Alignment is used in the manner it was always intended (a thermometer, not a straightjacket), I welcome the old system back.
And really, yes, Alignment is a thermometer. It isn't hot outside because the thermometer says its 100 degrees, the thermometer says its 100 degrees because it is hot outside. It sounds like a pointless thing to say in that context, but thats how Alignment is supposed to work in D&D.
You are Evil because you don't respect the rights of others and do whatever you deem necissary to advance your own goals (even at the expense of others), you don't do those things because you are Evil. Its just a handy way to summing up the character's basic outlook on life.
It also does *NOT* mean that an Evil person can't do good things, or that a Good person can't do evil things, or that they would have to have some kind of alignment shift if they did. It just means that, overall, this is how a person acts. Your great grandmother was probably the sweetest little old lady anyone ever met, but she was probably racist as all get out too. Just because she had one trait that would be deemed Evil doesn't mean she was an overall Evil person.
Especially when you realize that Alignment reflects the character's outlooks, not their actions. Someone could be as Evil as they come but have never done anything wrong in their entire lives. They may want to do it, they may wish they could do it, but they never actually did it. They're still Evil because of how they see the world, but they could just be cowardly evil that never follows through with anything.
So again, in short, Alignment is a Thermometer, not a Straightjacket. It describes what is already going on, it doesn't limit or dictate what the character can or cannot do.
Jesus H. Pelor! Edymnion! Long time no see! haven't seen you on the boards in forever! Also, +10 to everythign you've said here.
However, the Barbarian one makes a bit of sense. Truly having a lawful alignment means having some self-discipline, and a barbarian's rage is meant to reflect giving in to wild impulses, that kind of surrender to rage is not usually compatible with people who can be defined as people with a great deal of self-control.
This is somethign else that completely baffles me. Where did the idea come fromt hat it's impossible for Lawful people to get angry? It's entirely possible for them to be completely Lawful outside of combat, giving in to their rage during combat only.
He has be chosen to be defender of justice, law and order. Coherence demands paladin´s behavior can´t be a bad example and acting againts ideals they represents.
Because Paladins of Orcus are all about law and order and goodness.
Your statement here makes you just as guilty as those who you accuse of sterotyping. Not everyone plays paladins like that. If that's what your gaming group is like, then your group sounds very unfun to me.
My gaming group hates alignmentchanic BS. We can roleplay just fine without the threat of losing all our class features for not roleplaying properly.
And those same people blame alignment as the cause of those bad scenarios, when bad players (or DMs) are the real cause.
Because the only solution to a mechanic problem is obviously the players bad DM. Not the fact that it's a terrible mechanic.
I've already said it, but I'll say it again. As long as aligmnet does not interact with mechanics in core, I am not against it being there. I know some people would like to kill them altogether but it is not gonna happen in this edition. So instead let's settle for a workable compromise shall we?
Again, too late. Alignment mechanics are going to be in core. HOWEVER, there will be quick and easy means of separating the mechanics of alignment for those that wish it. Why is that so bad? Functionally, it's the same, except that you are denied the satisfaction of "winning" because alignment mechanics are considered the default, which means facing proof that your experiences were, in fact, NOT so vital and universal that they were objective fact.
You will be able to have 5e without alignment mechanics, as a part of the rules. You're just using a modular option to remove it.
What experience? Where did I state I have some traumatic experience with alignments? Also I did not suggest that aligment mechanics be removed so I can "win", but because I've considered it a workable compromise that could imho satisfy both antagonized groups. Alignments as such would still be core, but they would be easily removable for people who don't like them, without influencing class balance and such. I simply assumed that it's alignments as such that pro-aligners want and mechanics of few spells and abilities could be dropped without much problem. But good job at implying pettines on part of another poster on a slightest excuse.
Can you link where they say that alignments mechanics will be core? I wonder if I could be able to deduct from their words in what way and how much alignment mechanics they plan to keep.
It seems counterintuitive to have a module to take something out. Why not have tactical combat be part of the core and a module to take that out? Shouldn't modules add things?
