D&D 3E/3.5 Alignment Restrictions in 3.5

[FreeTheSlaves]

Law and good.

The paladin is concerned with the well being of others. They have a code of conduct that is measured and exact. They take the rightful and often punishing course of action, with no thought for profit. They go out of their way to uphold the laws and traditions that make society good. When evil threatens, they use only fair means to confront and thwart it.

They must maintain the moral high ground even as things turn to custard because success through evil means actually strengthens the evil in their heart. In their world evil is a tangible force found within and without, winning the battle cannot come at the price of losing the war.

Lawful because they value society over the individual. Good because they are concerned for the dignity and well being of life.

There are many paradoxes here, which is why I always enjoy a well played paladin, both as a player and dm.

 

[Merlion]

Ohh I know there unlikely to do it in the core rules. Although in the core rules the Paladin is basicaly presetned as a the generic/archtypal holy champion, but for some reason to DnD desingers Holy implies law as well as good. I dont see the connection.
Yea the monk thing makes sense. But as I said before in the murky law/chaos alignment options in DnD a monks self displine and focus could actualy be seen as chaotic as well.

 

[Merlion]

Law and good.

The paladin is concerned with the well being of others. They have a code of conduct that is measured and exact. They take the rightful and often punishing course of action, with no thought for profit. They go out of their way to uphold the laws and traditions that make society good. When evil threatens, they use only fair means to confront and thwart it.

They must maintain the moral high ground even as things turn to custard because success through evil means actually strengthens the evil in their heart. In their world evil is a tangible force found within and without, winning the battle cannot come at the price of losing the war.

Lawful because they value society over the individual. Good because they are concerned for the dignity and well being of life.

There are many paradoxes here, which is why I always enjoy a well played paladin, both as a player and dm.

But why does a holy champion neccsarily have to value society over the individual?
Yes with a good DM there are no problems but I think a lot of people avoid playing the paladin because in so many game worlds and campaigns, your put in the position of choosing between the aspects of your alignment but being required by your class to follow both. What about evil laws? and areas ruled by evil governments? Which aspect is more important..and are you going to punish a player if they follow one at the expense of the other?
I think personaly Paladins being simply Good would be more iconic and simpler. It also makes it diffacult for someone who wants to play a paladin but doesnt want to be forced into the sterotypes ad into an alignment that in my opnion in this game is often...how to put it....badly interpreted? or always interpreted a certain limited way?But of course as you say, even if many express the same view, thats one of those things that always been a part of DnD, so they will most likely never change it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My lawful tenants keep me from doing such a thing, even if thousands of innocent lives are threatened.

If his lawful tenants are threatening thousands of lives, he can probably evict them without too many repercussions.

Landlords need to take a hard line with tenants like that, lawful or not.

-Hyp.

 

[Petrosian]

What would i like to see?

All non-religion based (mus remain within one ste of your diety) alignment restrictions removed.

this leaves the only characters who have to consider alignment as part of day to day affairs LIMITED TO the ones who have an outside source WITHIN THE GAME WORLD to adjudicate these issues.

A cleric (or IMO paladin or even ranger and druid) who starts to stray has a church (grove), its members, it teachings and dogma to all provide nudges. If he strays further his GOD or its minions can also provide some rather subtle (or even not subtle) guidance. This can ALL be handled IN PLAY.

The other characters have no IN GAME guidance but now would have no real problems with alignment either.

Most of the problems with alignment i have seen in practice come from differences of opinions on the nature of an act by alignment definitions. This way, the issue is not one of player-dm out of game thinking at all. IN GAME, the Gm defines the churches and the gods and the player handles this IN CHARACTER. The speedbumps are less pervasive. For non-religious classes, the issue is moot.

As an adjunct to this, all divine casters get the pick a god and within one alignment (or less for a paladin) of diety rules clerics get.

I haven't has a single alignment problen in over two years using these rules.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Well Merlion, if the paladin is supposed to be a holy champion it would be modelled somewhere between a cleric and fighter.

Now, I know the cleric is supposed to have a lawful bent but I cannot recall the precise reason why although it has to do with society and hierarchy.

You'd really want to have a nosey at the cleric to get an idea exactly why so lawful.

Chaotic paladins would basically be vigilantes. Neutral paladins would not stand out as exemplars for good society. Paladins of either alignment would hardly inspire those they aim to protect and if society doesn't give a rat about what you stand for, how could you be their champion?

 

[Merlion]

Dear lord for once we actualy almost completely agree on something! I would never allow evil paladins(thats what blackgaurd is for) BUT it makes sense in a balance way to have them on that level.
I also think alignment(which to me on a personal level means Good vs Evil) can be and is important for all characters...but yes in game I agree that really just doing away with them accept on religious basises and such would be wonderful

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Warning, getting OT

I have done something of the opposite IMC Petrosian.

Virtually everyone has a religion because the gods only favour those who show due respect to them and their cause. Going into a strange temple with a bag of loot and a loud mouth will probably get you blown up by the forbiddance spell and the boot.

Of course I changed the rules for raising, faithful in good standing only.

Basically I didn't like the commercial aspect of temples so I scrapped it. That and I think that a world with actual gods and miracles would be very religious.

Less scrupulous clerics, potions and friends of friends are the only way to divine favours for non-faithful. But really there is a large pantheon already with rather lax requirements.

 

[Merlion]

I actualy like both aproachs on some levels myself like I said. Doing away with alignment restrictions on classes is good but I DO think alignment and/or religion are very important parts of all characters.
Well, accept I dont see a need for the law/chaos part especialy as is usualy represented in the game.

 

[Berk]

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."

I am not saying anything noble about torture here but a neutral good character shouldn't have any qualms about it if it was for the greater good. Neutral Good is one of those alignments where the strictures of law and chaos just don't apply, it's whatever suites your fancy to get done what needs to be done for the greater good. It might not be noble to do certain things, but then again, is it noble to let thousands of people to die because of commiting an act that is viewed by 1/8 of the populace not noble or honorable or even correct.

These are other words for noble. Honorable; worthy; dignified; elevated; exalted; superior; sublime; great; eminent; illustrious; renowned; stately; splendid; magnificent; grand; magnanimous; generous; liberal; free.

Now you might say that torture itself is not a noble act, but then again in the ways of DND noble is what the alignment makes it to be. One of my favorite definitions of noble is; To have high moral qualities. Certain alignments would think it noble then to commit certain acts not thought of as noble by others. Noble is as noble does.

Ok not gonna rant anymore. My point is that the core rules should allow for any good aligned paladin. Will they make that change at all? Most likely not. It's part of the games roots and I don't mind that at all. One of the first things it says in the DMG and in every DMG that was ever written was that the DM can change the rules to how he/she sees fit. Which makes this game, one of the greatest of all.