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.

You're right, you can remove them.  But if you do that, you remove the Paladin's core mechanics, the thing that makes being a Paladin a Paladin and not a commoner with a fancy horse an an unusual dedication to a particular philosophy. 

Did you even read the article?  Because it did not, in any way, indicate that alignment would be optional for the Paladin without significant houseruling.  Sure, I can just ignore the rules completely, and play my own game.  But it ceases to be D&D if I make it up completely on my own.

Here's a direct quote, in case you didn't read the article:

"The paladin's unique abilities, and the true source of the class's power, come from the power a paladin gains by swearing allegiance to a specific alignment."

I'm not sure how you can just wave the "but it's optional!" wand with a rather clear quote like that.  I'll repeat, bolded for emphasis:  true source of the class's power

Now, I'll grant you that the last line, "The paladin you create might mix and match some of these abilities, depending on your character's alignment and ethos" gives some hope that I may be overreacting.  I for one hope I am.