Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Products
 D&D Core Products
 Class Alignment Restrictions

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
George Krashos Posted - 26 Jul 2016 : 12:34:34
Am I right in thinking that the various 5E classes no longer have alignment restrictions? Can't see where it says that rangers have to be "good" or druids "neutral", etc. What am I missing?

-- George Krashos
22   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Wooly Rupert Posted - 16 Aug 2016 : 02:48:17
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I've always liked the idea of divinely-empowered knights of other alignments. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman first introduced me to that idea, with the Black Paladins of Zhakrin in their Rose of the Prophet trilogy. Auda ibn Jad was a very interesting character, and he is a great example of how someone can be evil and commit murder and such, and yet still care greatly for friends and loved ones.

For me, though, the word paladin is associated with the LG knight -- after all, D&D paladins were inspired by the Knights of the Round Table and the whole image of a knight in shining armor.

So as long as they're not called paladins, I have no issue with divine knights of other alignments.



You know, I remember very little else about that series OTHER than the fact that I liked that evil knight's character. I can't even tell you anymore what he did, but in the back of my mind he's always the idea I think of when I think evil paladin done right.



"Nomad -- you have stolen from me, cheated me, tricked me, and now it seems likely you are going to get me killed by my own people." Ibn Jad shook his head. "By Zhakrin, I grow to like you!" Pages 351-352, Paladin of the Night

sleyvas Posted - 16 Aug 2016 : 01:13:53
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I've always liked the idea of divinely-empowered knights of other alignments. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman first introduced me to that idea, with the Black Paladins of Zhakrin in their Rose of the Prophet trilogy. Auda ibn Jad was a very interesting character, and he is a great example of how someone can be evil and commit murder and such, and yet still care greatly for friends and loved ones.

For me, though, the word paladin is associated with the LG knight -- after all, D&D paladins were inspired by the Knights of the Round Table and the whole image of a knight in shining armor.

So as long as they're not called paladins, I have no issue with divine knights of other alignments.



You know, I remember very little else about that series OTHER than the fact that I liked that evil knight's character. I can't even tell you anymore what he did, but in the back of my mind he's always the idea I think of when I think evil paladin done right.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 15 Aug 2016 : 22:22:27
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

quote:
Originally posted by Wrigley

I have also always wandered why there are only paladins. If I restrict this to only good gods they represent why those couldn't have their own divine knights (as a base class)? You could have them as rangers but it is wierd with all the nature stuff. For evil there are blackguards but it is prestige class (3.x) so it greatly limit their numbers.
In my game there are "paladins" limited only to lawful alignment to represent their dedication to the cause and their abilities differ based on their patron.



In 5e there's the Oathbreaker path for which a Fallen paladin or any Paladin might take, which sort of is like 3.5's Blackguard. In 4e Paladins didn't have to be a specific alignment.



2E did have the Crusader class -- a kind of cleric/fighter class. It wasn't a paladin, but it was similar, and didn't have the tight alignment restrictions.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 15 Aug 2016 : 22:20:09
I've never understood why there's so much of an issue with something explicitly stated to be general guidelines and not behavioral straitjackets, myself.
Wrigley Posted - 15 Aug 2016 : 18:15:38
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
I never liked alignment in D&D, there was (is) always some muppet saying what such and such a character and creature can do because of their alignment. Oddly enough, these sort of people tend to tell you what other creatures and characters can do but rarely apply the same logic to themselves. (I've formed a dislike, probably undeserved of Planescape because of alignment lawyers. Ugh, ghastly things.)

In my own setting, I've scrapped alignment for mortal/material plane creatures. I've kept it for celestials, fiends and a number of magical creatures

I've also scrapped alignment for deities, who are above such things.



In my realms (inspired by Planescape) I use alignment as a planar based element that you align with/agains as a mortal and only effect is that spells work differently on you. Person can change alignment multiple times during their life unless he is outsider or mixed which limit him in this choice (character is steered into that direction). So my players anounce their starting characters alignment as they choose and during play I may change it based on their play. I do always inform them beforehand that they slide towards different alignment but mostly they are not affected by it (if somebody play a paladin or priest they have actual need to stay in certain path but it is more about their god's dogma than alignment).

On the other hand you get more restricted as your connection to planes get stronger. If you have a divinity in you you are also bound by your domains. It is not absolute but you tend to do it that way by default. So for me gods are not above alignment they are made of Alignment. Basicaly whole outer planes are built on believes.
Kiaransalyn Posted - 15 Aug 2016 : 17:39:00
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

Am I right in thinking that the various 5E classes no longer have alignment restrictions?


I never liked alignment in D&D, there was (is) always some muppet saying what such and such a character and creature can do because of their alignment. Oddly enough, these sort of people tend to tell you what other creatures and characters can do but rarely apply the same logic to themselves. (I've formed a dislike, probably undeserved of Planescape because of alignment lawyers. Ugh, ghastly things.)

In my own setting, I've scrapped alignment for mortal/material plane creatures. I've kept it for celestials, fiends and a number of magical creatures

I've also scrapped alignment for deities, who are above such things.
Diffan Posted - 15 Aug 2016 : 14:57:01
quote:
Originally posted by Wrigley

I have also always wandered why there are only paladins. If I restrict this to only good gods they represent why those couldn't have their own divine knights (as a base class)? You could have them as rangers but it is wierd with all the nature stuff. For evil there are blackguards but it is prestige class (3.x) so it greatly limit their numbers.
In my game there are "paladins" limited only to lawful alignment to represent their dedication to the cause and their abilities differ based on their patron.



In 5e there's the Oathbreaker path for which a Fallen paladin or any Paladin might take, which sort of is like 3.5's Blackguard. In 4e Paladins didn't have to be a specific alignment.
Wrigley Posted - 15 Aug 2016 : 14:26:42
I have also always wandered why there are only paladins. If I restrict this to only good gods they represent why those couldn't have their own divine knights (as a base class)? You could have them as rangers but it is wierd with all the nature stuff. For evil there are blackguards but it is prestige class (3.x) so it greatly limit their numbers.
In my game there are "paladins" limited only to lawful alignment to represent their dedication to the cause and their abilities differ based on their patron.
Delwa Posted - 14 Aug 2016 : 17:24:47
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I've always liked the idea of divinely-empowered knights of other alignments. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman first introduced me to that idea, with the Black Paladins of Zhakrin in their Rose of the Prophet trilogy. Auda ibn Jad was a very interesting character, and he is a great example of how someone can be evil and commit murder and such, and yet still care greatly for friends and loved ones.

For me, though, the word paladin is associated with the LG knight -- after all, D&D paladins were inspired by the Knights of the Round Table and the whole image of a knight in shining armor.

So as long as they're not called paladins, I have no issue with divine knights of other alignments.


Agreed. If I had my rathers, I'd rename the Paladin Class something else, and make "Oath of the Paladin" the name of Oath of Devotion. But apparently my opinion wasn't loud enough in the playtest feedback, as it didn't happen.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 14 Aug 2016 : 16:03:39
I've always liked the idea of divinely-empowered knights of other alignments. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman first introduced me to that idea, with the Black Paladins of Zhakrin in their Rose of the Prophet trilogy. Auda ibn Jad was a very interesting character, and he is a great example of how someone can be evil and commit murder and such, and yet still care greatly for friends and loved ones.

For me, though, the word paladin is associated with the LG knight -- after all, D&D paladins were inspired by the Knights of the Round Table and the whole image of a knight in shining armor.

So as long as they're not called paladins, I have no issue with divine knights of other alignments.
Delwa Posted - 14 Aug 2016 : 14:25:24
I like the absense of alignment restrictions. Mechanically, I don't think there's a need for a whole distinct class for a holy knight who serves nature versus a knight who follows law and justice. In games, NPCs will still refer to LG Paladins as Paladins, but the other alignments and oaths will be termed something else, because I do still think there is something special about a LG Knight with divine power as opposed to anyone else wjth similar powers that's not LG. But that's just me.
Diffan Posted - 14 Aug 2016 : 11:00:38
I think the idea of Paladins having to be Lawful sort of misplaced. Sure Devotion Paladins most certainly will follow a just and righteous path but those who've sworn an Oath to uphold the Ancients (forest, the Earth-Mother, natural order) don't necessarily have to be Lawful as we view them. And Vengeance oaths are made that sometimes the ends justify the means to maintain their oath.

PS. I'm very happy they kept hard-lined Alignment restrictions out of the Core rules. To me, it opens up role-play in interesting ways that otherwise could not have been. But I don't see any reason why a DM couldn't implement them into their campaign.
moonbeast Posted - 14 Aug 2016 : 05:51:28
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU

Although there's no specific restriction, the virtues in the SCAG that paladins are supposed to uphold are very lawful good orientated. As a DM I'd probably restrict the paladin class to lawful at the very least, and probably lawful good. I do wish they'd made formal alignment limitations though.



oath of vengeance... you take a solemn commitment to punish those who have committed a grievous sin.... to these paladins - sometimes called avengers or dark knights - their own purity is not as important as delivering justice. Not exactly screaming lawful.



Ummm…. depends on one's interpretation of "Law". IMHO…. enforcing "punishment" is very much an act of a Lawmonger. Torturers, jailers, prison-guards, bounty hunters, and executioners/hangmen…. they have all been part of the LEGAL system of human history. They are enforcers of the Law. It doesn't matter if they follow good laws or not. The law is the law. And these people are enforcers of the law of their lands.

Are they "Good" guys? Maybe not. But they certainly are LAWFUL, because their jobs and duties are doing exactly what the laws dictate….. punish, pursue, slaughter, and crucify those who have broken the laws and covenants.

In my (D&D) games, Paladin's don't necessarily have to follow "goodness", they do have to follow a set of laws/codes/ethics/mores. They follow a strict code, be it a code of laws or a code of honor. To outsiders who have different set of ethics, the said Paladin's ethics might seem screwed up, bonkers.

In this manner, I totally dig the fact that Pathfinder has "Lawful Evil" knights and paladins…. essentially enforcers of a Tyrannical set of laws. They follow the laws as dictated down by despots. But little do they know that the despots they follow blindly…. are (Lawful Evil-ish) devil worshippers.



KanzenAU Posted - 28 Jul 2016 : 04:50:35
Hah agreed! Sorry my lawful good comment was for the traditional paladins (I think it's called Oath of Devotion?). In my campaign I don't call the Ancients/Vengeance/Crown oath guys paladins, so sorry for any confusion.

They just don't fit my idea of what a paladin is (or the SCAG virtues for that matter). I call Oath of Devotion Paladins, Oath of Ancients as Green Knights, Oath of Vengeance as Avengers, and Oath of the Crown as Sentinels. These titles are offered as alternatives within the core descriptions, and I think they fit a bit better than the "paladin" default.
sleyvas Posted - 28 Jul 2016 : 02:34:03
quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU

Although there's no specific restriction, the virtues in the SCAG that paladins are supposed to uphold are very lawful good orientated. As a DM I'd probably restrict the paladin class to lawful at the very least, and probably lawful good. I do wish they'd made formal alignment limitations though.



oath of vengeance... you take a solemn commitment to punish those who have committed a grievous sin.... to these paladins - sometimes called avengers or dark knights - their own purity is not as important as delivering justice. Not exactly screaming lawful.
KanzenAU Posted - 27 Jul 2016 : 14:00:24
Agreed, the SCAG paladin guidelines seem to be aimed at the traditional paladin oath rather than the ancients and vengeance ones. Again, something that could have been made more explicit!
BenN Posted - 27 Jul 2016 : 07:23:27
quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU

Although there's no specific restriction, the virtues in the SCAG that paladins are supposed to uphold are very lawful good orientated. As a DM I'd probably restrict the paladin class to lawful at the very least, and probably lawful good. I do wish they'd made formal alignment limitations though.


On the other hand, the tenets of the Oath of the Ancients are hardly lawful, and (according to the wiki) paladins of this type are more likely to be neutral-good. I could easily see chaotic-good paladins in this case.
KanzenAU Posted - 27 Jul 2016 : 04:03:56
Although there's no specific restriction, the virtues in the SCAG that paladins are supposed to uphold are very lawful good orientated. As a DM I'd probably restrict the paladin class to lawful at the very least, and probably lawful good. I do wish they'd made formal alignment limitations though.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 27 Jul 2016 : 03:50:01
That's still a pretty big change for druids, considering they originally had to be true neutral.
sleyvas Posted - 27 Jul 2016 : 02:43:43
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

rangers didn't have to be good in 3/3.5.



Pretty sure 3.x changed it for druids, too.



druids still had to be neutral on one axis (i.e. NG/NE/CN/LN/TN). Monks had to be lawful. Paladins had to be LG. Yeah, all that's gone now, but of course the big change was the paladins.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 26 Jul 2016 : 18:26:39
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

rangers didn't have to be good in 3/3.5.



Pretty sure 3.x changed it for druids, too.
sleyvas Posted - 26 Jul 2016 : 13:22:37
rangers didn't have to be good in 3/3.5. The big change is paladins

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000