D&D 3E/3.5 Alignment Restrictions in 3.5

[Merlion]

I know this could get controversial...theres actualy a lot of alignment stuff that bugs me in DnD that I'm not going to get into right now...and maybe this would be better for the House Rules area but I am curious to know if anyone would like to see any alignment restrictions changed in 3.5, if they think theres any chance it will happen, and if so which ones.
Me..I'd like to see the Monk go to Any Non-Chaotic and the Paladin go to Any Good. but thats just me.

 

[AuraSeer]

Compared to previous editions, 3E is already tremendously permissive when it comes to alignments. Lawful rogues are no longer disallowed, for instance. Even more importantly, changing alignment is far easier. Earlier editions imposed some very painful experience loss on anyone who changed alignment, but that went away entirely in 3E.

The restrictions you point out are there for hysterical raisins*. If you want to relax the alignment requirement (and even the multiclassing restrictions) for monks and paladins, that's the simplest of house rules to implement. There's really no significant reason to make it a change in the core rules.

 

[Berk]

As for the monk, nope, can't do that, must be lawful (insert secondary alignment here). It just comes with the strict life style of the 3E DND monk.

As for paladins. God yes I wanna see them be any good. Just silly that they can only be lawful good. I think that is just a stuck left over from the older editions. Besides, a neutral good paladin is much better.

"I am a champion of all that is good, but I can't do that. No it doesn't matter, my lawful tenants keep me from doing such a thing, even if thousands of innocent lives are threatened. I won't torture him to get the information that is needed."

The last dying words of Sir Oeri before a mob slaughtered him for protecting the life of a criminal that had information about a stored storm of vengeance that was gonna go off within the next 24 hours.

 

[Merlion]

Re: Re: Alignment Restrictions in 3.5

Compared to previous editions, 3E is already tremendously permissive when it comes to alignments. Lawful rogues are no longer disallowed, for instance. Even more importantly, changing alignment is far easier. Earlier editions imposed some very painful experience loss on anyone who changed alignment, but that went away entirely in 3E.

The restrictions you point out are there for hysterical raisins*. If you want to relax the alignment requirement (and even the multiclassing restrictions) for monks and paladins, that's the simplest of house rules to implement. There's really no significant reason to make it a change in the core rules.

Yep I know all those things...i just want to see what everyone thinks.
And I partialy personaly disagree with the last part...I totaly in my personal opnion think there is a reason to change them in the core rules...well especialy the paladin...again and I'm sure everyone is noticing this trend with me..I think it would be more fantasy-accurate.
Berk on the monk: that makes perfect sense. However me personaly..I dont even fully understand why law and chaos exist as alignment factors for people in DnD...and like in the case of the monk...yes the monk discpline inplies many lawful traits...however inversely the self-centered(for lack of a better word) and pure self-development aspects of it could actualy be seen as Chaotic in the odd DnD law-chaos as personality traits thing. Thats all purely my opnion tho...the Paladin is the biggy.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Change the alignment but don't pretend it is a real paladin. Call it something else.

Personally I think it would be really lame to have another 8 warrior classes with contrived roles.

 

[LuYangShih]

I personally do not want to see the alignment restrictions for Paladins changed. The code and honor of a Paladin requires a Lawful alignment. As for torturing a man to gain vital information, that Paladin was right not to do it. In fact, any good character would be right not to do it, at least in my campaigns. Commiting an evil act with noble intentions doesn't make what you did any less evil. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

[Merlion]

the word "paladin" means champion. So its a pretty general role anyway.
And as Berk said I think it creates a lot of roleplay issues since they are supposed to be champions of good and right and justice but in many worlds/campaigns are also expect to go by the rule of law..which often has no bearing on goodness/justice.
of course like I said I personaly dont even like the law/chaos aspects of alignment anyway. To broad and hard to define...more personality traits/political views than anything.
purely out of curiosity, why to you is the association with Paladin and Lawful Good so strong?

 

[Spatzimaus]

You can house-rule these things easily already. The PHB rules work well, but individual campaign worlds might tweak. For example, IMC:

Cleric: not True Neutral (all 8 others okay)
Paladin: LG, LE, CG, or CE (abilities vary)
Sorcerer: Not Lawful, just like Bards
Psion and Psychic Warrior: Not Chaotic
Ranger: same as Druid (anything with Neutral in it)
and the usual ones.

In some cases alignment limitations seem to be a balance factor, or at least a way to prevent certain multiclasses (Monk/Barbarian). In others, it's just a flavor thing (Bard), and those types of decisions should be left to the individual campaign IMO.

 

[Merlion]

Yea thats very true...like I said I am just looking for opnions.
Although that does work both ways...you could also say, why have them at all?
I just think the law/chaos thing in DnD is to murky among other things. I mean what does being a holy knight(paladin) have to do with being lawful? or how does it neccesitate lawfulness?

 

[niteshade6]

The name paladin may mean champion, but in D&D it's always represented the very height of lawful and good. I think that's too much of a tradition to ever be changed in the core rules. It would be like saying elves don't have pointy ears or dwarves don't have beards. You might change it in your home campaign, but the core rules will never do so. If you allow him to be any alignment you kind of kill his flavor and just make him just a generic holy warrior, at least in my opinion.

Monks and barbarians have their alignment restrictions for more logical reasons. Clearly somebody attempting to remain in constant balance and control and be one with the universe (transcending into an enlightened being at lvl 20) is lawful. And clearly somebody who regularly flies into bloody destructive unthinking rages is not lawful.

Bards and druids on the other hand could probably lose their restrictions without much being lost. I don't think they need to, but I wouldn't care if they did.