Community

Nov 25, 2012 -- 10:13PM, Maxperson wrote:

Nov 25, 2012 -- 9:08PM, Mand12 wrote:

How many times do we have to tell you that a not-insignificant portion of the D&D population does not want alignment mechanics in any form?

You cannot make this mandatory, not if you believe the in the fundamental principles of inclusiveness that is the true core to Next.

Since alignment is optional, there are no alignment mechanics that you have to use........ever.   

No, just telling us to not play a Paladin isn't sufficient.

I didn't see where he said that.  It does appear like alignment mechanics are heavily tied to the paladin, but from what I read it doesn't say that you cannot remove them and play a paladin without alignment mechanics.

Hard to see how alignment is optional with a class when it's abilities focus around it. HOWEVER! I also see where there is room for this to not be alignment "restriction". What if they have different abilities for each alignment? Some for good? some for Neutral? etc, and you gain certain abilities depending on the combination you choose. Nothing they said "states" restriction

Nov 25, 2012 -- 9:08PM, Mand12 wrote:

How many times do we have to tell you that a not-insignificant portion of the D&D population does not want alignment mechanics in any form?

You cannot make this mandatory, not if you believe the in the fundamental principles of inclusiveness that is the true core to Next.

No, just telling us to not play a Paladin isn't sufficient.  We liked the 4e paladin, and its focus on serving the deity, not serving the alignment.  You weren't a champion of Lawful Good, you were a champion of Bahamut.  There's a difference.  That difference should be allowed to exist.

Even some of us who like alignment and believe it can serve an important role in a campaign do not believe that any class should have ingrained, irreversible reliance on alignment mechanics. 

Do.  Not.  Want.

I don't think, at least from what I read, that the paladin requires an alignment; it's powers are just organized by the alignment system.  My understanding gave me the impression that a player could take a LG power, some NG powers and a few CE powers to create their own paladin.  That doesn't seem that "offensive" to me.

Nov 25, 2012 -- 10:38PM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

Nov 25, 2012 -- 10:34PM, abanathie wrote:

I don't think, at least from what I read, that the paladin requires an alignment; it's powers are just organized by the alignment system.  My understanding gave me the impression that a player could take a LG power, some NG powers and a few CE powers to create their own paladin.

Let's assume for a moment that you're right. Why, then, should organizing these powers in such a confusing manner be preferable to organizing them some other less confusing way? Again, like Honor, Freedom, Tyranny, Slaughter, Valor, Justice, and so on.

Maybe they are using both (LG - Valor, LE - Tyranny, etc...), but want to keep an alignment reference for fans of the older editions.  It's not the end of the world. 

Nov 25, 2012 -- 10:46PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

I just want to say that i feel sorry for the Fighter. He once had a cool unique ability. Then  it got scouped by all other Martial Classes. Now everyone will be able to buy it out. Poor fellas 

Expertise is too good an idea, too flexible and versatile with so much potential, to restrict to one class. It would be a complete waste not to use it to its fullest. It's okay, we can give the Fighter something else to make it unique.