D&D 3E/3.5 Alignment Restrictions in 3.5

[Merlion]

I'm right with you Berk..like you said there not going to change it...I just wanted to see peoples opnions on the idea of it. Although as everyone has probably noticed I am for the rules being as iconic, basic, and non restrictive as possible, and then each gaming group/DM tacks on there own restrictions etc especialy in thease areas.
Also as I've said...for some reason DND stuff has always A) assoaciated Law with justice, and goodness in general, which I dont get, and B) seemingly, IMO touted Lawful Good as the "perfect" or "ideal" alignment.
I just think house ruling should be required more to add restrictions and alterations than to have to remove them, especialy in thease sorts of areas.

 

[melkoriii]

Hmmm from what I understood. Alignment Lawful: meant, That you follow a strict code that you must follow. That does not mean you have to agree with the laws of the land. You will follow them as long as it does not interferer with your code. When 1000’s of innocents are threatened, the laws of the land can go out the window.

From the SRD
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, and a lack of adaptability.

Nothing in there says you have to follow the law. I can respect my parents but I still do not always do what they say.

 

[Merlion]

Thats kind of my point. Law/Chaos in DnD amount to personality traits IMO

 

[SylverFlame]

I'm not gonna wade in on the monk, I think the class needs some major overhauls besides the alignment stuff, so they come first. However I do have plenty of thoughts on the Paladin.

First of all, why is the Blackguard (effectively the evil paladin) a PrC and the good-guy not? Doesn't make sense for me, therefore, either Paladin becomes a prestige class or the alignment gets shifted for the balance of the alignments. It doesn't take much to balance a paladin to evil, especially under 3e rules.

Next, the Paladin as a class has always been based on the old Knightly orders that were seen during the Crusades, ie. The Templars and Hospitalers (though there were others). These people were essentially Warrior Priests who lived their lives by the tenents of their religion (in this case Christianity). Also, they did some REALLY nasty stuff, just look at one of the sieges and assualts on Jerusalem (can't remember which crusade it was in). They murdered (yes, murdered) anything that moved in the city walls, all in the name of God. Therefore, even the followers of a God that essentially preaches "Love everyone" can be capable of really not nice stuff.

Now then, the next question becomes, why can't evil deities have a warrior willing to kill and maim for them, they are evil already aren't they? And why are they not willing to shower the same attention and power on these followers as the good deities? Fight fire with fire and all that. If a nasty bad-ass is ripping into your followers with a big honking sword, why not do the same to someone else?

In all of the games I've DM'd I have allowed evil paladins because it makes sense. Sure they've been slightly altered (ie. Hurting Hands, rather than Healing Hands) it makes the game better. Besides, if a paladin is the paragon of good, it just makes their enemy so much nastier if they are the ultimate evil. It's cliche but my players in good campaigns like fighting something as twisted as an evil Paladin. It makes them even more heroic and good.

 

[Merlion]

I agree...although I'm not gonna touch the stuff about "christianity" and the crusades much as it tempts me...it makes perfect sense.
In the campaign I ran for all of 2 sessions paladins could be any Good alignment, and you had the blackguard. This was because an anti-paladin base class wouldnt have fit into my world, which is very good vs evil/good dominant. The ideas being that 1 no one would be that evil that early in there career(to gain "divine" favors from the Dark Powers" and because I dont personaly feel that evil gods/Powers would give as much to there followers as easily, if your using them to really represent evil
But yes for general purposes like I said I(surprisingly) agree with Petrosian more or less doing away with non-religious etc alignment restrictions across the board would be nice.

 

[Berk]

Ahhhh, the good ol 1E anti-paladin. God I loved those.

 

[Merlion]

1e anti paladin?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

anti paladin was a dragon magazine thing. I'm at work so I can't look up the issue on my cool cd rom thingy.

 

[Merlion]

Ahh thanks thats plenty. Not real up on 1E

 

[Tyrion]

I'd like to see the alignment restriction on monks dropped completely. I don't buy the "disciplined lifestyle" thing...wizards, for example, require just as much discipline and dedication to become powerful in the magical arts. Even evil clerics could have strictly regimented lifestyles and still be chaotic.