It is fine for you to omit it of course...but mechanically as far as the game is concerned you are playing something seperate
I don't think Expatriate Paladin is any different than CG Paladin. This argument is a level of semantics whose utility completely escapes me.
Is the Expatriate Paladin a different and seperate thing from the core class Paladin? Yes. This is necessary because of the definition used to craft the core Paladin class in it's respective edition. This would not be necessary in, for example, 4E because of the umbrella definition used for Paladin (which is seperate from the definition used previously).
It is not a matter of semantics...it is a matter of design. If a Paladin is defined as one thing good design requires that it represent what it is defined as and that anything that does not meet those definining qualities be called something else (EG: Expatriate Paladin).
For instance, in 4E can you create a Paladin that is a woodsman who throws arcane magic based on musical ability that allows them to change shape? Can you do this within the confines of the 4E definition & derived design-work from the Paladin class? The answer is, of course, no because those things described as incongruous with the definition and derived design-work of the class in 4E. If you wanted to make it, or if WOTC wanted to publish it, it would be labeled differently because it would be seperate from the core class. Could it still be refered to as a Marty McFly-Paladin and include the term Paladin? Yes but it would still be a distinct thing seperate from the core class and that is necessary because of it's deviation.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
Where. When you started talking about this hypothetical, yo made no reference to a prior post. This thread is over 250 posts long. It's very confusin if you're going to bring back arguments from earlier in the thread that i didn't even participate in, without at least referencing that you are doing so.
Either way, that is an extremely narrow definiton of what a Paladin might could be — especially compared to the Paladin class of 4e, where any and all gods have Paladins. Which means that it is — in my opinion — unnecessarily hindering, constricting, and confining character concepts. Which makes it a Straitjacket.
Direct quote from swambie only a couple pages back...while you were posting. That you are unfamiliar with the content of the thread you are posting on is fine...but being unfamiliar with that content and insisting I am crafting a strawman is not fine.
Defining a restriction built into a class that a player willfully chooses to take for their character as unnecessarily hindering, constricting and confining is completely ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as saying that a rule that allows a player to trade restrictions for power (for instance, a Vow) is unnecessarily hindering, constricting & confining...it cannot be those things because, as a whole, it is not foisted on a player. It is the players choice to take on the format of the class.
I am decrying that attitude because it is an immature one...it is an attitude that breaks down almost immediately under any amount of scrutiny.
Moreover, since you raised this in response to tectorman's post, if it wasn't Tectorman that had made this point you were raising, then it does in fact seem like a rather passive aggressive manner of using tectorman to take a swipe at someone else's argument. And that's inconsiderate to Tectorman as it totally derails the conversation that Tectroman had raised.
Incorrect. You incorrectly interpreted what I said while I was having an exchange with Tectorman. I clarified a position for him...you then incorrectly read what I wrote and made an assumption on it...that I then clarified...you accused me of making a strawman in that example clarification...and I outright stated that it was not necessarily a strawman because there was actual examples of that attitude in this very thread. So this is degrees seperated from my exchange with Tectorman and hinges on you not comprehending what I was writing and then you accusing me of crafting a strawman.
Or it could be bad design from that person's perspective. Design is also aesthetic. So you should be no more offended by someone thinking something bad design as someone saying they subjectively don't like it. It's the same thing.
Design can also be objective. Game design that does not represent a game definition is objectively poor design because it is not mechanically associated.
Another option is that they would like the game redesigned in the first place.
Which is a different matter entirely.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
Where. When you started talking about this hypothetical, yo made no reference to a prior post. This thread is over 250 posts long. It's very confusin if you're going to bring back arguments from earlier in the thread that i didn't even participate in, without at least referencing that you are doing so.
Either way, that is an extremely narrow definiton of what a Paladin might could be — especially compared to the Paladin class of 4e, where any and all gods have Paladins. Which means that it is — in my opinion — unnecessarily hindering, constricting, and confining character concepts. Which makes it a Straitjacket.
Direct quote from swambie only a couple pages back
Which does not parallel the analogy you made and with which I took issue. To repeat, here is the analogy you made (in post 244):
what if there are abilities like Vows in the game (of poverty/chastity/whatever) that have existed in some editions where the character gains power but at the cost of some personal restriction...is it therefore okay for a character to take one of those Vows and then just ignore the penalties/requirements of the Vow?
Swambie -- in the quote you provided -- did not suggest that a paladin not be bound by the rules. He suggested that the rules not necessarily bind people that way in the first place. If you thought swambie was suggesting such a thing, you are reading words and meaning into swambie's post that does not exist. Which is, at a minimum, inconsiderate.
Moreover, post 244 is solely a response to Tectorman. By quoting tectorman and then making a comment (wihout attirbuting it as such) to swambie's post, you are doing nothing more than confusing and muddling this thread. Again, that's inconsiderate.
I clarified a position for him...
Youdid no such thing. i quoted what you wrote just now. It's not a clarification. It's a complete change of subject. He proposed one hypothetical. you ignored it and substituted a different hypothetical that was reallya passive aggressive attack on what you imagined (incorrectly) swambie had been saying.
I fully understand as I write this that you will refuse to acknowledge what the posting trail above clearly indicates. I'm sorry you refuse to consider how your posting style makes it difficult to have a productive conversation with you.
Another option is that they would like the game redesigned in the first place.
Which is a different matter entirely.
No, it's what swambie was suggesting in the very post you quoted but managed to utterly misread.
I am sorry I got drawn back into this alignment discussion. Based on our recent exchange I had thought we had come to sort of understanding and a new open-mindedness was dawning. I was mistaken.
In all instances the kit applied a different kind of title or name to the Paladin similar to how Archetypes work in Pathfinder. Just like how in Unearthed Arcana there are Paladins Of Tyranny and Paladins of Slaughter, etc etc. They are not just "Paladin" which retains its own distinct identity in those editions.
Those name distinctions are only to avoid confusion "Paladin of Slaughter" It is a title only, I could call myself a Paladin of The Court and toss all my points into Charisma and Inteligence and focus my skills (and feats) into Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Pick up Investigator feat for the Gather Information, Negotiator for +2 Diplomacy/Sense Motive, Skill Focus, Leadership etc, and be a diplomat who never holds a sword. It is
But what you really need to do is check the DMG on the subject of customizing classes to fit your setting, or the player's desired character. It might not be RAW, but it is reasonable for the DM to alter a Paladin class to be a different allignment and there are certainly guidelines for making such class changes, The reason why 3.5 has sooo many classes is because the system was orriginally designed to be customizable and these other classes are just that, a combination. The Prestige classes in the DMG were orriginally juts Examples of what a DM could build. The DMG talks about creating such classes as a Witch and so on.
There is no reason why you couldn't make a CN Paladin of The Laughing Rogue in 3.5 rules, all you need is DM buy in and some common sense. Look at Olidammara's Domain spells, or the bard spell list to get an idea of what would be good spells to swap into the Palaidn's spell pool, Replace Smite Evil with Sneak Attack, draw up a Code fo Conduct and make some class tweaks and there you go.
(1) "Quality of Class Design" and "Enjoyability of Class" are two completely different issues, and one is not necessarily relevant to the other. Is it possible to have Fun with a Poorly Designed Class? Yes. Is it possible to have Fun with a Well Designed Class? Yes. Is it possible to not have fun with either of those? Yes and yes. So whether something is "fun" or not has nothing to do with how well it is or is not designed.
Is the Paladin class fun to play? For some yes, for some no. In 4e, my wife has enjoyed playing Paladins, both in one of it's default Build forms and in its subclasses, and I hate doing so in their "straight" form (which is why when I play "Paladins," I tend to use other classes as a framework upon which to build — such as a Sorcerer|Paladin or a Bard/Paladin). So it's fun for her and not fun for me. That doesn't prevent me from appreciating the quality of the Paladin class in 4e, however.
(2) Whether you call it an Expatriate or an Expatriate Paladin or a CG Paladin or simply just a Paladin, it's still all essentially the same thing. Expatriates, True Paladins, Skyriders, and so on, were all Paladins. They may have different builds, swapped out powers, and the like — but if you consider those things as simply Options — "Do I want Power A or Power B? Do I want Power C or Power D? Do I want Power E or Power F?" and so on — then they are all identical, in form, if not ability.
In fact, we might use a mathematical metaphor, at this point, to say that they are all Topologically identical. In topology, a mug and a donut are identical. If we think in those terms, then any Paladin, no matter the kit or power swap involved, is still a Paladin. Paladins are topologically different than Fighters, Rangers, and all of the other classes. Expatriate Paldins and True Paladins are topologically identical. They represent different expressions of the same archetype — just as spies, diplomats, con men, merchants, cat burglars, and detectives can all be considered the same Rogue class. 3e doesn't seem to have any issues with lumping all of those interpretations of archetype together under one roof; I fail to comprehend why wanting to do so with the Paladin — instead of insisting upon a single uber-strict interpretation — is fair to the Class as a whole or to the Players in general.
(3) I am actually willing to answer the Vows question.
If you'd like another similar example...what if there are abilities like Vows in the game (of poverty/chastity/whatever) that have existed in some editions where the character gains power but at the cost of some personal restriction...is it therefore okay for a character to take one of those Vows and then just ignore the penalties/requirements of the Vow?
If there were abilities like Vows, where all characters no matter the archetype (ie, class) had the option of taking a "vow" or other similar limitation/restriction, in order to get a benefit of relatively equal value, then I would say that it would not be okay for a character to take a vow and ignore the requirements of it.
However, that is neither what Tectorman suggested, nor is it what is actually used in the Design of the Game. So your "similar" question is neither similar nor applicable; and if you were using it to refute Tectorman's proposition, it would be considered a Straw Man.
Tectorman specifically said, "This code was not specific to certain classes, but could be applied to any sort of character." He did not suggest that there would be any mechanical benefit or penalty for taking the Code. Based on his proposition, it would be there purely and entirely for Roleplaying Purposes. (Which, I will note, is what they said in the Rules that Alignment was supposed to be.)
And, in fact, in 3e, any character of any class could be said to have taken a Vow, for Roleplaying Purposes, and in fact to Uphold it. They could devote themselves to being Lawful Good, to fighting for The Cause via their personal milieu (based on archetype/class), and so on and so forth. Yet only one class would get any Mechanical benefit for doing so — the Paladin class.
So to counter your question, is it fair that if there were two characters who took an identical (Roleplaying) Vow, and were identical in every single way except one — one was a "Paladin" and one was not — that the two characters both could not get some similar benefit for having taken that Vow?
Furthermore, is it fair that there is no way for someone to play a character best defined by the Paladin archetype without being forced to take the Vow against their will?
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
What do you know, it says the same thing in all editions. You don't see a pattern? That perhaps alignment is NOT meant to be used as a straightjacket?
I have defined the term "straitjacket" for you. More than once.
Unless and until you can show that it does not do all of those thingsk, then any amount of saying it isn't so and wishing it isn't so and insisting that it's not intended to be so does not prrevent the truth from being proven: Alignment is a Straitjacket. By definition. No matter how much you can claim the contrary, you have proven that it is.
Alignment doesn't prevent a character from doing anything. If you have a LG character and decide to murder a dozen innocent people, you can still take that action, but there may be consequences. Having consequences is NOT the same thing as restricting or hindering action.
Because, by your logic, Speed Limits are straightjackets. Laws against killing people are straightjackets.
The biggest flaw in your arguments is that you think anything but playing "pretend superheroes" in your backyard-where anything your imagination comes up with goes-is a straightjacket.
Yagami's response to you in this vein is something I support 110%. Every word he said about how juvenile your stance is presented.
No, of course not, you extrapolated from what the text actually said in order to find a way to make it sound like it supported your claim.
And so did you. You focus on the wrong things. You focus on it saying, "Alignment is not a Straitjacket," and ignore the fact that by having Alignment, characters are restricted. Certain classes cannot be chosen. If a character changes alignment, they may be punished to varying severity by the class that they have.
Once again, the alignment-based class restrictions are an indictment of class design, and not alignment. Furthermore, your point is pretty much bunk, because who creates an alignment first when creating a character? I love your last sentence here, because you make such a good point for me "If the character changes alignment..." The character's actions could cause him to change alignment. If alignment were a straightjacket, the character would be unable to act in ways that could cause him to change alignment. If he's chosen a class with an alignment restriction, then that class' design is what is restrictive to him if he loses his powers. Alignment did not limit or prohibit his actions. The confines of his class, and the rules regarding that class, is what caued him to be punished.
You provided no evidence that "proved" that it was a straightjecket, and I addressed such.
I did provide evidence that it was a straitjacket. I defined the term "straightjacket." I defined all the terms that went into the definition of "straitjacket." I showed how Alignment Enforcement Mechanics, in each and every edition and clone that I had access to the rules for, with the sole exception of 4e, did the exact definition of "straitjacket."
Because there were mechanics that related to it? No, you grossly extrapolated from the rules to claim that the text "promoted conflict between different alignments" and claimed that the books "encourage DMs to make 'alignment traps'". Which is a blatant falsehood.
Furthermore, you didn't address 4e at all. 4e still had alignments. It had LESS alignment mechanics, but not none. You could not have a Paladin or Inoker of Bahamut who was not Lawful Good. You cannot have a Good cleric of Bane. Look at the 4e Monster Manual. Goblins and Kobolds are Evil, are they not? Orcs are Chaotic Evil, yes?
You didn't prove a single thing. Quite the contrary. You showed their claim that it wasn't supposed to be a straitjacket. You then provided definitions of Good and Evil and whatnot, which prove absolutely nothing in either direction.
Defining alignment is necessary in a game with mechanics based on it. If you have a sword that does extra damge to 'evil' creatures and imposes penalties on anythign 'evil' who tries to wield it, then you need mechanics to say what creatures are 'evil' and which ones are not.
Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are objective forces in the core D&D world. By RAW, those definitions are defined to avoid the DM/player using their own preconcieved notions of what those words mean. By quoting the definition of alignment, I was citing proof that the definition of what is 'Good' or 'Evil' is not up to the DM's opinion of those words.
And as has been said before, a DM should be able to objectively judge the rules by their own definitions, and not color his judgement with his own bias.
You also provided the example of Paladin being a strictly design class based entirely on one supposition – that Paladins are Lawful Good. That example alone was enough to prove my point. And yet you deny even saying as much?
Who denyed anything? That proves only that the class design is restrictive, not alignment. A 3e paladin can still choose to do something evil, he'll just suffer if he does.
I hope you've never taken a class on how to prove or disprove anything. You're owed your money back, big time.
I hope you've never taken a class on how to maturely discuss anything without sounding like an arrogant, juvenile ****. You're owed your money back, big time.
See how insulting that is? Stop posting like that.
Your point of "classes with alignment restrictions" is an indictment of class design, as those classes reflect specific fantasy archetypes.
Whose "fantasy archetypes?" Not mine. My "fantasy archetypes" include Religious But Evil Knights, not limited solely to Chaotic Evil ones. If the Paladin is supposed to be representative of "fantasy Knights," as you've repeatedly stated, then the Lawful Good restriction — an alignment restriction, and thus something which can be attributed to alignment — causes it to fail miserably in that regard. And, again, it is confining, constricting, and hindering. Which makes it.... a straitjacket.
How about "classic fantasy archetypes"? Like stealthy rogues, woodsy rangers, and bookish, studious wizards. And, once again, the paladin is not supposed to be representative of "fantasy knights" because that term is too broad, and yes, "evil fantasy knights" are a valid fantasy trope. Paladins are meant to be representative of "knightly or heroic champions/defenders of a noble cause" which is a little more specific than "fantasy knights". And thus, the alignment restriction is internally consistent with the design. Your repeated failure to understand that your definition of paladins (influenced, I am sure, by your exposure to 4e first) is not what was used in previous editions is not indicative of a fault in those previous editions to match 4e's definition. It makes 4e's definiton a departure from what was done before.
Alignment is used as one way of re-enforcing those archetypes. But precious few people comlain about the Barbarian class being illiterate as restrictive of their character concepts. No, they just whine that the "non-lawful" one somehow does.
(1) So you do admit that the Barbarian alignment restriction is restrictive of character concepts? How does that not make it a straitjacket, then?
(2) Not that it matters, since character literacy isn't relevant to this debate, but I consider the illiteracy thing to be equally a straitjacket, too. It's silly and pointless and needless and restrictive and deserves not only to be ignored but completely erased from the rules.
Yes, the Barbarian's class design was restrictive to character concepts. Not solely because of the alignment restriction, but the illteracy, too. Because you can make a character who has the same background and personality as a stereotypical Barbarian, wields a greataxe, wears lighter armor, etc. and choose Fighter for your class, and have no alignment restriction. Thus proving that alignment is not restricitive of the concepts, but the class design is.
I was going to make more points about how every class is a straightjacket according to your bass-ackwards definition, but you've already admitted that you think that such is true.
You’re in Control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, “My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,” the appropriate response from you is “Prove it.”
This means that Character Alignment Change is actually dictated by DM Fiat. It is up to the DM to decide how much is enough to change alignment, how many acts it takes. And it isn't Player Choice. A player can choose to act in a way that he thinks is appropriate for his alignment, based on his reading of the rules. And yet a DM may not see that he's doing so, and punish him for it via the Class Restriction mechanics.
DM Fiat, means the DM either makes a judgement call on something that is unclear, or overrides what the RAW say. And you have a serious failing in comprehension of an argument presented against you. You break down things into so many pieces, you don't see how they fit together. I post you 3e's definition of alignments, you say "so what?" Later, when I post how 3e handled allignment change, you come back with this inane drivvel. Because here's what you're not seeing. If player and DM are both using the RAW definitions of alignment a not their own preconcieved notion of what they mean, then they're on the same page. If a player is acting in a manner that really is consistent with his alignment using the RAW definition, NOTt his own, and the DM judges that using the RAW definition of alignment, and NOT his own, then there will be no issue of alignment needing to be changed. Hence my main thesis: If people use RAW, alignment doesn't cause these kinds of problems at the table. But it's when either players or DMs (or both) use a definition for any alignment that is not consistent with the RAW, that you have a problem. And that mean that those people are the problem, and not alignment rules, because if everyone at the table is actually using the rules, AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, then everyone's on the same page. Furthermore, I showed how the rules say "how much is enough" to change alignment. Consistent behavior over a period of time-not to be less than one week-that is more in keeping with the RAW definition of an alignment that is NOT the player's alignment will cause the player's alignment to shift one step towards the new alignment.
Question: Can you provide the exact wording for the Paladin's alignment restriction? The whole thing, please. I'll explain if you do.
From the 3.5e PHB: "Alignment: Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. Additionally, paladins swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with law- fulness and goodness." Also relevant: "Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good. "
As for the rest, of course it's relevant. It's a Restriction and it is Based on Alignment. And if you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd have seen that I made note of each and every such restriction, and what the penalty was when given. Again, any restriction based on Alignment is, virtually by definition, a Straitjacket. Which is precisely why this list is relevant. It's also relevant in showing that even among the classes with Alignment restrictions, the rules regarding them were handled differently. Again, making it a straitjacket. Why, if Alignment isn't intended to be a Straitjacket, must there be any restrictions at all?
A straightjacket implies much more hinderance and limitations than "restrictions". Especially when those restrictions doon't actually PREVENT you from doing something, they just punish you if you vary too wildly from them. There's a difference between saying "you can't do this" and saying "if you do this, you're gonna have consequences". The former is a straightjacket, the latter is not.
And again, I acknowledge that class design can be limiting/hindering to certain concepts. But alinment is not the problem, because you can have a Fighter who wears spiked armor, takes Improved Unarmed Strike, and is Chaotic, thus making an unarmed warrior who can do what a monk cannot, due to his class restrictions.
I'll also pause to note, by the by, that this list — and the stuff in your previous post — is pretty much identical to what I posted from the Pathfinder rules. So I'd like to know why you shouted up and down loudly and repeatedly that I was posting the PF rules not the 3.x rules, when in fact they are identical, so far as you've shown?
Again, your reading comprehension of my points. I said that the additional stuff about "how to use alignments" (which, is, by the way, where you got most of your 'proof' that the RAW promoted alignment as a straightjacket) was exclusive to PF.
In fact, the DMG quote I posted above explicitly states "most characters incur no game penalty for changing alignments". A druid, for example, who slips from Neutral Good to True Neutral has nothing bad happen to him as punishment, as he has stayed within the alignment guidelines. Same with a bard or barbarian who goes from Chaotic Good to Neutral Good-likewise no penalty. Most alignment restrictions on classes were broad enough to encompass at least 3, if not 5 or 6 alignments. The Paladin is the only class in the PHB who must be of only one alignment.
Not necessarily. For a Barbarian, it's only one step from NG to LG, NE to LE, and Neutral to LN. 3 of the 6 legal alignments are one step away from falling off the wagon. For a Druid, it's only one step from whatever Neutral he has to any non-Neutral alignment. 4 of the 5 legal alignments are one step away. And so on and so forth. They're only "safe" if they start with an "insulated" alignment, where you'd have to have multiple steps to change. So, again, the player is subject to trusting that he is playing within the alignment as defined by the DM. And the DMG, as you quoted, says nothing about giving players any sort of warning; the sole example given simply tells him to change his sheet. Again, subject to DM Fiat is definitely "straitjacket"ish.
If I'd wanted a dictionary definition of "paladin," I would have provided it myself. I've been asking you about the 3.x rules, why in the world would I want a dictionary definition?
Quote me in the book where it says that, in your words, "the class design for the Paladin was meant to reflect a noble and honorable knight, who, as a paragon of virtue, is granted powers above what a normal mortal warrior has access to." I acknowledge that you may have been quoting, but you didn't use the ""s, so I couldn't be sure.
Again, the definition for the word "paladin" means something specific. Just as "wizard" is "person who uses magic" and "cleric" means "priest or minister".
I quote the English language as my source for that one. The class wasn't called "templar" (which has specific religious connotations) or just "knight". It was called a "paladin", and that word explicitly means "honorable knight", or "defender of a noble cause". Just because YOU think "paladin" means something else doesn't make you correct. In fact, it's not a matter of opinion, you're actually flat wrong (as log as we are discuing pre-4e paladins).
Trying to give your definiion of "paladin" for pre-4e paladins any kind of validity, would be akin to me saying that, in my opinion, a tall plant with bark, leaves, branches, and which produces acorns as a seed is a valid interpretation for the word "volcano", and that my interpretation should be considered as valid as your dictionary definition of "volcano"
And in 2e Birthright, of the 11 deities, there were 4 who had paladin orders. One of those orders? Chaotic Good paladins. So it's been done in official settings, and prior to 4e or 3e to boot.
So? And in Dark Sun, there were no gods, and thus no clerics. There were elemental priests, but no true clerics like those that existed in core. If you're going to bring up a non-core setting, pick an example that doesn't violate the tenets of core rules, but rather supports them. I used FR as an example of a non-LG deity who has an order of paladins. The paladins still had to be LG. And the core PHB mentions a NG deity with LG paladins, so it was just another example of something that supported an existing "core-RAW" trend. It would be like me bringing up how in Eberron (a 3.5e setting), a Red dragon is equally as likely to be LG as CE. The relevance to core alignment rules regarding dragons is moot, because the setting is a specific exception.
Back to the main point: yes, I can say with some degree of certainty, that by making a class a "paladin", it was an attempt to make the class "an honorable and noble knight" type of character, because that's that the word "paladin" means.
And some people would disagree. Some people would say that the real life ideal of the "paladin" might have been "honorable and noble," but that in practice they may have missed the mark. (Crusades, anyone?)
You may want to educate yourself about certain examples before you use them. I know it's a popular trend to villify the Crusades as an excuse for Europeans to plunder the Holy Land, because of our modern, reactionary and secular views (as a society) regarding religion, and how we feel it should be kept out of other life factors. But your example is 100% off-base. I know it's hard to believe, but the Crusade really were started in order to protect Christian pilgrims who were being persecuted and murdered in the streets in the Moor-controlled Holy Land.
And my citation for this? I have it directly from the mouth of Dr. Paul Crawford, one of the leading world experts on the Crusades, and my professor during the time I attended Alma College from 2001-2005 (you can Google him if you like). I'm going to take his word on the matter as turth over your uneducated, pop-culture overgeneralization 10/10 times.
So you can define the term "paladin" all you want. But when I think "Paladin" in terms of fantasy archetypes, I think of the spiritual knight, and have been ever since 1st edition when they first appeared.
Which is more of a reflection of your poor understanding of what the word "paladin" means as opposed to a failing on the part of the designers.
By the way, this is why the old "anti-paladin" class had to be Chaotic Evil. Lawful Good is the alignment that best espouses thi kind of ideals that "paladin" represented (duty, honor, etc.). So, an "anti-paladin" is literally the antithesis of that. Chaotic opposite Lawful and Evil opposite Good.
Actually, when I personally think of "anti-Paladins," I think Lawful Evil.
And your personal opinion means...what? I thought were discussing facts of the rules. The old anti-paladin had to be CE.
Let's look at a fantasy example: Lord Soth, from Dragonlance. He is an anti-Paladin. He is the antithesis of the Solamnic Knights, who aspire to Lawful Good (and don't always succeed). I define his actions througout the 5 books he appears in as Lawful Evil.
Chaotic Evil makes no sense, to me, for an "anti-Paladin." I realize that it's on the opposite side of True Neutral from LG, but to me it doesn't fit at all what I think of when I hear that term.
Lord Soth was a Death Knight, not an anti-paladin. Death Knights were undead monsters who were LG warriors in life, and betrayed their ideals in life before they died. Death Knights continue to exhibit some semblance of their old sense of honor. In 2e, for example, it explicitly mentions in their monster entry, that a Death Knight will not stoop to ambushing a party of heroes, but will announce its presence and engage heroes in honorable combat. Lawful Evil sounds about right.
First off, because the definition of "paladin" explictily entails a "knightly and heroic champion", it's no more a straightjacket than Wizards casting spells, or Monks fighting unarmed.
Monks have to fight unarmed? Sheesh. Yet another silly restriction. And all the European martial-artists throughout history would be annoyed at the oriental restriction.
Are those straightjackets as well? Address this, please, because you need to be consistent. Either Wizards being spellcasters (as opposed to, say, weapon-wielding dervishes) and Monks fighting unarmed (as opposed to praying, making beer, and selling religious relics) are also straightjackets, or retract your statement that a LG-only paladin in pre-4e D&D is one.
As you've repeatedly stated, classes are based on archetypes. Wizards are the archetype of the learned magic user. Monks are the archetype of the focused martial artist (which is not necessarily unarmed). Paladins are the archetype of the spiritual knight.
Your last sentence here is blatantly untrue. Paladins were the archetype of a noble and honorable knight, in accordance with the definition of the word "paladin". Spirituality didn't have anything to do with it. Paladins were dedicated to "righteousness". It was entirely possible, and plausible to have an agnostic Paladin, who has humanist values, protects the innocent, fights monsters, and doesn't give a rat's *** about the gods, they can go hang.
That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking one archetype and using it for another. The more silly and unnecessaru restrictions which are placed on classes, though, the harder this becomes.
For example, I once played a kobold paladin who followed Bahamut (in a 4e game). He could call upon the holy wrath of his god (Ordained Priest theme). He was gifted with excellent coordination, not having to rely upon armor or shields to defend himself (High Dex). And, in the course of protecting those he deemed in need of protection, he could smite the evil foes he fought (Backstab).
Oh, did I fail to mention? He was actually a refluffed Thief. That didn't change the fact that he was a Paladin.
I also know of a couple of Bards and a Warlord who were all refluffed as Paladins to one degree or another. The mechanics of the classes they used fit their concept better than the "Paladin" class, but they still were Paladins, in every other way but mechanics.
And that is how it ought to be. There should be nothing to prevent anyone from doing the same thing with any class — including the Paladin, to refluff its mechanics as another class. (I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but it's late.)
And that's fine. I actually like the kobold thing. Fluff is mutable. Especially when "Paladin" is something that exists in-game as well as a metagame concept. Kind of like in Oriental Adventures (or L5R), your character could be a member of the Fighter, Ranger, or heck, even Rogue class and still be considered "Samurai" within the world, een if you had no levels in the Samurai class. To use a 4e example, I had an idea for a Final Fantasy I style game, and I realized that a hybrid Warlord|Sorceror was the perfect game mechanic for a Red Mage. Just take Hybrid Talent(Warlord Armor Proficiency) at 1st level, and Arcane Implement Proficiency (Heavy Blades) at second, and you have a character who can wear chainmail (but no higher), light shields, use military weapons, fight well in combat, as well as sling damaging spells. All it requires is re-flavoring his Warlord powers that heal as White Magic instead of a Martial for of healing.
Moving on...There are some who believe that CE paladins cannot exist because it cannot fulfill the definition of the word "paladin" as it exists traditionally in the English language. HOWEVER...it can be seen from 4e, that D&D has re-defined the word "paladin" within the context of D&D as "champion of x deity". From what we've seen on D&DNext, this trend will continue.
Not true. I've known Paladins who weren't champions of any deity. And I've known a lot of Paladins back in 2e who were. 4e didn't re-define it. It just made better use of it.
Expressly untrue. 4e is the first edition to not mandate that paladins are "honorable knights/defenders of a noble cause" (which is the dictionary definition of paladin), therefore, 4e re-defined what paladin meant for use in D&D context.
Given that, 4e paladins now have a distinct role as a champion of divine entity (or church thereof),
Or not. See 4e Cavaliers.
Holy Cow, did you really just do that? You just brought up a 4e class that MUST be Good or LG? I thought you maintained the superiority of 4e because of no alignment resrictions. I was willing to lay off Essentials material because of how much a deviation from "standard 4e". 4e PHB1 Paladins, like all other AEDU Divine classes, serve deities. Essentials was kind of a throwback to pre-4e editions in so many ways. Martial classes returned to "I make a basic melee attack" instead of varied powers, Rogue class was called Thief, Druids had pets, and so on. Much of which was a departure from the 4e design goals stated in the 4e preview books "Races&Classes" and "Worlds&Monsters".
it greatly expands concepts for "holy warriors" of any faith to be consistent with the powers they display. In pre-4e, one reason for paladins being so strictly restricted was a balancing factor. Paladins were grossly overpowered compared to other, similar classes (like Fighter and Ranger). They were immune to fear, immune to disease (inlcuding supernatural diseases like lycanthropy), could lay on hands, detect evil (a 1st level spell) AT-WILL, and smite evil. In pre-3.5e (to include 3.0), they got all this AT LEVEL ONE. Eventually they could turn undead like a cleric, and were entitled to a special mount-that was superior to other, similar mounts-for free. So yes, playing one came with some special rules that you had to follow or lose your goodies.
Again, not true. As noted above, there were CG Paladins in Birthright in 2e.
Besides which, overpowered classes aren't a justification for alignment restrictions. They justify nerfing, not irrelevant limitations which have nothing to do with those powers in the first place.
The strict limitations and penalties for breaking them was really the only balancing factor, though. 4e did away with a lot of the stuff that was grossly imbalanced. Detecting Evil at will, immunity to fear and disease, and so on. They kept the lay on hands, and Paladins in 4e had more healing surges than any other class in the game (including Blackguards in 4e, which, despite being strikers, had Paladin hp. healing surges, and proficiency with all armor up to and including plate).
Like I said, 4e made paladins of multiple faiths, and they made all paladins able to be consistent with the powers they display, which was a good thing.
I also like that they MUST match the deity's alignment (unlike Cleric and Avenger, who can be Unaligned), because it represents the fervent dedication that is a paladin's calling.
Slightly inaccurate. Technically, they have to match at creation only (and I know a number of DMs who handwave that requirement, too). The reason being? It also says this: "Once initiated, the paladin is a paladin forevermore. How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is up to him, and paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful." They only have to "match" at the time of investiture, assumedly.
Oh, really? Tell you what...since you DO have access to the 4e books, why don't you prove that you CAN change alignment in 4e, and how alignment change from DM or player perspective works. Since alignment is optional in 4e, it makes it mean even more for those who actually DO choose it. And, presumably, that choice a player makes in creating his/her character is something that a character will never sway from over the course of a chracter's lifetime. Because there are NO rules in 4e RAW that say that a character's alignment can change.
But, prove your claim. Quote, from 4e rules, where it says your alignment can change.
Oh, and beware Munchkin Fallacy, which is that "just because the rules don't expressly forbid it, then it's allowed".
Also, again, paladins aren't only devoted to religions, though granted it took Essentials to really clarify this part. But deities have always been optional for all divine classes — even Invokers.
From the 4e PHB, page 90(bold added for emphasis): "As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity." So standard 4e paladins from the PHB absolutely must choose one. Essentials has Cavaliers, which, like almost all of Essentials material, is a throwback to previous editions. Cavaliers, like pre-4e paladins, are dedicated to virtue, and, like pre-4e paladins, had alignment restrictions. Oh, what do you know? You're now defending alignment-restricted paladins now? You're inconsistent, you know that? And your statement about Invokers...a flat lie. PHB2, pages 101-102:
"Choice of Deity: Like other divine characters, invokers are dedicated servants of one or more deities. Most invokers devote themselves to a single deity, but all invokers recognize the entire pantheon as worthy of respect (see “Deities,” Player’s Handbook, page 20). Whereas a cleric might revere Corellon and despise Lolth as a rival and enemy, an invoker dedicated to Corellon recognizes Lolth and her servants as comrades in arms against the forces that seek to destroy the world and the gods. That’s not to say that you can’t oppose the evil schemes of Lolth’s followers if you’re dedicated to Corellon, only that you shouldn’t lose sight of the grander scheme of things. Choice of Alignment: Invokers don’t gain their power through rites of investiture or ordination, as avengers, clerics, and paladins do. You bear the touch of your god’s own hand on your soul, a direct channel through which divine power can flow into the world, shaped by your will. Because you strive to bring your will into perfect accordance with your deity’s, your alignment must match your deity’s. For instance, an invoker of Moradin must be lawful good, an invoker of Pelor must be good, and an invoker of Ioun must be unaligned."
So...you can't keep from making false claims about even the one edition you DO claim to like.
And sometimes restrictions, when used universally, do more harm than good. And sometimes those restrictions can hinder, constrict, and confine. And sometimes those restrictions are straitjackets, no matter how much some people may wish otherwise.
And you've done nothing to prove to me that 3.x alignment isn't a straitjacket. Quite the contrary; you've confirmed it, from my point of view.
Your point of view? I don't give a rat's *** about changing your mind, I'm talking about what is and is not FACT about alignment. You have made no factual claims. To the contrary, you have been extrapolating from RAW, and using your interpretation of written text, instead of just reading the text for what it says, and accepting that as the rule? You're welcome to not like alignment, I'm not trying to make you like it. I want you to stop LYING and claiming that some things about alignment are facts when they are just your opinion; based on your own interpretation of the RAW from your preconcieved bias against alignment. Of course your interpretation is negative. By your own admission of your distaste for alignment, you are incapable of making an objective analysis of the RAW.
I have to read your posts as I respond to them (though you're on the verge of earning your way off my blocked list, thank you very much). But I have a question for you, since you bring up ignoring cited evidence....
I have repeatedly given examples, throughout the editions, of how Alignment is used in order to restrict characters. Through class-defined restrictions to alignment, and through DM interpretation of player behavior, certain things are either restricted or taken completely out of the players' hands.
Can you please expain to me how — when you yourself freely admit, multiple times, that Alignment is used as a restriction — how you fail to comprehend why we say that it is a Straitjacket?
As I have been saying, but here in summary: If alignment were a straightjacket to restricting your character, your character would not be free to act in ways contrary to his alignment that could precipitate a change. Discussing classes that only allow x number of alignments is an indictment of class design. I could have a Fighter whose backstory, choice of equipment, and personality is identical to a stereotypical Barbarian, and he can be Lawful. Ergo, alignment is not restrictive of character concepts, classes are. Effects that punish a character for changing alignment are not a straightjacket, because you can still make the choices as a character that could cause you to move to a new alignment. This is a combination of the above two points. To be a straightjacket, it would have to PREVENT or HINDER action. Creating consequences is not the same thing. And saying that they are the same thing is juvenile, akin to a child whining "that's not FAIR!".
• I also note that throughout the history of D&D from Basic to 3.x, Alignment decisions were more in the hands of the DM than of the player, after the point of character creation. (Even in your quote from the DMG, the players could not simply change their alignment, they had to wait for the DM to tell them to do so.)
But character decisions are fully in the hands of the player. If the player and the DM are both abiding by RAW definitions of alignment, there will be no cases of a player genuinely thinking he is acting within his alignment and the DM disagreeing and changing his alignment anyway.
• I can't read your mind, so I'm only able to assume that when I say, "Alignment is a Straitjacket," that you interpret that to mean that if you have an alignment, you can only act that way (the "predestination" interpretation from Pathfinder).
• This is not what I mean.
• What I mean by "Alignment is a Straitjacket" is at least two-fold: ◊ Alignment Restrictions which limit, to any degree, the use of certain archetypes in a variety of character concepts. There are plenty of examples throughout literature of Legendary Heroes, be they fantasy or mythical, who "break" these restrictions all the time. If someone can't even attempt to make such characters, then these restrictions are a failing, and a straitjacket.
Again, that's an indictment of class design, and not alignment. The clases were designed to represent the most common, "classic" archetypes. Other concepts are certainly valid, but are best served by a houseruled exception. The default premise, for example, that all Monks are disciplined, ascetic martial artists on a path to spiritual and physical perfection following a rigid prescribed methodology. If you have a character concept for a Chaotic Monk, who perhaps achieves his perfection through adaptation and change (sort of a Darwinian method) to become ultimately versatile and adaptable, then it is best served with a houserule. The Monk in the PHB is good enough as is for most people, and most game worlds. But exceptional character concepts only serve to enrich a story or game, and a good DM should be willing to work with his players to find what makes the game best for all involved.
◊ Restrictions for Changing Alignment which rely on someone other than the Player to invoke. Prior to 3e, changing alignments — for any character — was considered punishable (as I've shown) through loss of XP and items and similar things. While I will grant you that someone finally woke up about such things when it came to 3.x, they still took it out of the hands of the player and put it into the hands of the DM. It is up to the DM to perceive any action(s) as being of the desired alignment, whether that's your current one or the one you want. If the DM fails to perceive those actions as such, then the DM is empowered to change the character's alignment — even if they player doesn't want that — or to refuse to change the character's alignment — even if the player does want it.
All the player has to do is show that his/her character's alignment has changed through action. The RAW which put the control in the DM's hands even explain why it is so. It is to prevent a character from switching his alignment like a switch so he can use a powerful evil artifact or something, and then switch it back when he is done. It is to create a sense of consistency within the game, so that such mechanics are not jarring to the story. People don't just "turn evil" for a week, and then revert to selfless and "good" behavior. And as far as perception, I have addressed this so many times, on so many threads. This is why I maintain the importance of sticking to RAW if one is going to use alignment mechanics. In D&D, alignment forces (Good/Evil, etc.) are objective. This is unlike the real world, where morality and ethics are subjective to inidviduals and cultures. But D&D is fantasy, and in fantasy, objective Good&Evil can exist, and does, in D&D. Like I said way at the top of this post regarding the holy weapon example, as soon as you base mechanics off of things like Good or Evil, those terms need to be defined. Every creature that might interact with those mechanics, be they PCs, NPCs or monsters, need to have a clearly defined alignment tag in order to identify how a holy sword, or a Word of Law spell might affect them. And the rules of D&D rely on the definition that D&D provided for those alignments. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that when a DM, a player (or both), are using their own interpretations for Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, instead of RAW, the system starts getting iffy, because people's own ideas about these things can (and likely will) vary greatly. But if everyone is using the RAW definition of those terms, then the player will never genuinely think he is acting in a LG manner and the DM decide he is not. You may have a player try to con the DM and try and excuse behavior that he knows is evil (or even questionable). But that's a Bad Player, who tries to twist things to get the most he can out of a situation, and push the envelope as far as it will go, in order to maximize his benefit and minimize his restrictions. A good DM will let a player know-in case there is any confusion-if something is an evil act. Because he is the final arbiter. A Bad DM will override what the RAW is saying and make calls based on his own personal moral/ethical outlook, or worse, to further his own agenda regarding the game or that player's character. DISCLAIMER: Exceptions to the "strict-RAW-use-only" can be okay, if and only if every player at the table is made aware of exactly what deviations from RAW are in effect. As long as the players and the DM have the same expectation of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, it will be okay. I only advocate using the RAW over anything else, because it's something anyone with access to the books can reference, and they can all read the same words and know what defines Good/Evil/Law/Chaos.
For those two reasons alone, I maintain my prior statement: Alignment is a Straitjacket. It may not be intended as such. It may not be meant to be such. But it is. And that's by RAW, not by bad DMing.
No, that's bad DMing. Because plenty of good DMs out there use alignment, and players don't feel the way you seem to. If your points were actaully facts, it would be true in all cases. Alas, it is not.
I am willing to concede that, if you very narrowly define Alignment to the one thing, it may not be as restrictive as all that. However, Alignment is used primarily as a Restriction, one way or another. And that makes it a Straitjacket. It doesn't directly restrict player actions; it restricts player options. And that's what I'm talking about.
You have a f-ed up definition of a straightjacket, I will say that. Furthermore, I vehemently object to your statement "alignment is primarily used as a Restriction, one way or the other". This is categorically untrue. Alignment is used primarily as a roleplaying aid, it is a simplified summary of a character's general outlooks and attitudes. Furthermore...It is mechanically used to define where a character stands in the objective crossroads of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos, because there are mechanics in the game (spells, magic items, etc.) that affect each creature in the world a different way. Without alignment, a demon is just a sentient being from another plane with a Different Point of View. Furthermore, you acknowledge that alignment does not restrict player actions. This is what the RAW say. "Alignment is not a straitjacket for restricting your character". When people claim "alignment is a straitjacket", they cite this DM or that DM who told them "you can't do that, you're x alignment". You have acknowledged that alignment does not restrict character action. Ergo, it is not a straitjacket to characters. However, you view anything that doesn't let you do whatever you want as a "straitjacket". You probably think the fact that the D&D rules don't let you create Superman with the head of a T-rex, who has all normal superman powers plus Charles Xavier's powers as a straitjacket. Because the D&D rules don't let you do that. That's a restriction, isn't it? Not every restriction is a straitjacket. Alignment Enforcement Mechanics are not, because they simply encourage characters of certain classes not to change alignments, by creating Bad Things that will happen if they do. The player can still choose to do things that will change his alignment, and it will happen. Ergo, it is not a straitjacket. To be a striatjacket, it must prevent the action in question from occuring in the first place. To that end, I will acknowledge that classes with alignment restrictions are restrictive of character concepts, because while your monk may become chaotic, he must be lawful at level one. However, there are still multiple options with most of those classes (bard and barbarian especially), so I would not go so far as to call it a straitjacket. Having options is still not being forced into only one thing. Was the pre-4e paladin "LG only" bit the most restrictive? Yes. And I'll even throw you a bone and concede that it counts as a straitjacket DURING CHARACTER CREATION because it shoehorns all paladins into the one archetype. Paladin personalities may differ and vary greatly, but the all had to be LG champions. I will defend that restriction, however, because it is consistent with what is implied by the definition of "paladin".
One last thing...I realized towards the end that I have been spelling "straitjacket" wrong throughout most of this. I'm not going back to change it, so I ask that you please excuse the spelling error.
I acknowledge that people have different opinions.
I acknowledge that people can read the exact same words, and come to different interpretations of what they mean, no matter how concrete those words may be, and that subjective words can be even more differently interpreted.
I acknowledge that if people can't agree on such simple things as that, then expecting them to agree on things like Good and Evil and Law and Chaos in such a way that any sort of consistent interpretation of "RAW" is possible is probably an unreasonable expectation.
I acknowledge that there's no point in continuing a debate where people cannot come to agreement upon the premises of that debate.
I acknowledge that no longer reading what certain people write, while it isn't much of a help to the marketplace of ideas, it is helpful to cutting down the insanity of the situation, and that spending several hours on a Saturday trying to work out a response? It's a waste of my time, and everyone else's.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
If you'd like another similar example...what if there are abilities like Vows in the game (of poverty/chastity/whatever) that have existed in some editions where the character gains power but at the cost of some personal restriction...is it therefore okay for a character to take one of those Vows and then just ignore the penalties/requirements of the Vow?
How about the reverse? What if the game has no Vow mechanics and a player decides to play a character with a Vow, nevertheless. Let's say he's a Monk (or if you prefer, a Martial Artist or a Tao, if you need to visualize a class without the specific baggage that D&D adds). He also takes a Vow of Honesty, and plays the character as though he must not only not lie, but also not obfuscate, omit, or do anything to "technically lie but not actually lie". Because the game doesn't have Vow mechanics, he doesn't gain any additional ki points, or ki abilities, or hp, or points to his Wisdom score or anything.
And standing next to him is another Monk, played by a player who had no interest in taking a Vow. Has the Vow-Monk been overshadowed by the non-Vow-Monk? Or to put it another way, why is the non-Vow-Monk suddenly being treated as "wanting something for nothing" just because someone else playing a Monk has taken a Vow (solely because it was a concept he wanted to play and not because he wanted "teh eksdra powurz"), is therefore at a disadvantage, but did not gain anything extra for it?
That's the point. What you get mechanically should be one thing, what sort of character you play with those abilities for should be something else entirely. "I want to play a Wizard character. What do you mean my eyes have to be green and I have to have a predilection for obsessive counting?"
So to answer your question specifically, should a player get extra abilities for a roleplaying restriction even if he doesn't obey the restriction? No. Should the game set up a situation where extra abilities and roleplaying choices are tied to each other? No. So, should a player get extra abilities for unobeyed roleplaying restrictions? Actually, yes.
Do you remember the episode of Futurama where Bender's relative dies and he inherits the spooky house (it's the episode with the Werecars)? The robo-lawyer reveals that Bender is left with the house - "Oh, cool! Everyone, let's stay there tonight!" - but only so long as Bender spends one night there - "Aw, man! There's always a catch!"
A funny gag, but it raises the question: is a requirement a requirement if it's something the person is going to do, anyway? If a player decides to play a Paladin (the 3.5 version with the alignment requirements, Code of Conduct, and multiclass restriction), and it's exactly what he wanted to do, anyway (so he effectively has all those goodies for no roleplaying cost), and we have another 3.5 Paladin player who is playing his Paladin character but nevertheless chafes under those restrictions (so he has goodies but is in fact paying for them), who's being treated unfairly? Should the DM come up with more restrictions for the Paladin player so that he has something to chafe under just to keep things fair?
For that reason, we say that a character's mechanical abilities should be entirely divorced from roleplaying choices.
I've finally figured out how to put in a sig. Yes, I'm including this here for no other reason than to express how happy I am that I could finally do this. For goodness' sake, change these forums back (or just change, I don't care).
