4e and Alignment

[Dragnmoon]

I will admit I am not completely finished going over 4e with a fine tooth comb, but there is one thing that is bugging me.

How does Alignment fit into the 4e Rules? Other then a description of them I have not seen anything rule related to them.

[David Roberts]

Dragnmoon wrote:

I will admit I am not completely finished going over 4e with a fine tooth comb, but there is one thing that is bugging me.

How does Alignment fit into the 4e Rules? Other then a description of them I have not seen anything rule related to them.

In general all of the spells and effects related to alignment (protection from, magic circle against, holy word, etc.) have been removed from the game. If I recall correctly, the designers wanted alignment choice to be a role-playing decision, not a character optimization decision (ie. choosing to be a form of Neutral to avoid certain spells). To be honest the game I am running now is the first time I had heard of players doing this, but maybe I was just naive (the party Wizard admitted to being Lawful Neutral so she could avoid the large amounts of protection from good and unholy blight the enemies use in the campaign).

[WotC's Nightmare]

I never have seen or heard of players picking a cetain alignment to avoid alignment based effects. Was alignment that big of hassel? Alignment pretty much is history in 4E which is kind of sad because it was part of the flavor of D&D from the beginning.

[Dragnmoon]

David Roberts wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

I will admit I am not completely finished going over 4e with a fine tooth comb, but there is one thing that is bugging me.

How does Alignment fit into the 4e Rules? Other then a description of them I have not seen anything rule related to them.

In general all of the spells and effects related to alignment (protection from, magic circle against, holy word, etc.) have been removed from the game. If I recall correctly, the designers wanted alignment choice to be a role-playing decision, not a character optimization decision (ie. choosing to be a form of Neutral to avoid certain spells). To be honest the game I am running now is the first time I had heard of players doing this, but maybe I was just naive (the party Wizard admitted to being Lawful Neutral so she could avoid the large amounts of protection from good and unholy blight the enemies use in the campaign).

Then why even have an Alignment? If you are not going to use it a all it is defiantly not needed for roleplaying..

If this is true Most likely if I ever run a 4e game I will take out alignments since they are not needed.

[crosswiredmind]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Then why even have an Alignment? If you are not going to use it a all it is defiantly not needed for roleplaying..

If this is true Most likely if I ever run a 4e game I will take out alignments since they are not needed.

Well, it is still a requirement for classes with connections to gods. Just because it is no longer a mechanic does not mean it is completely useless.

[Dragnmoon]

crosswiredmind wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Then why even have an Alignment? If you are not going to use it a all it is defiantly not needed for roleplaying..

If this is true Most likely if I ever run a 4e game I will take out alignments since they are not needed.

Well, it is still a requirement for classes with connections to gods. Just because it is no longer a mechanic does not mean it is completely useless.

I did not see that..can you direct me to the page?

I have never liked alignments I always saw them a a Crutch to roleplaying not a boost, but they were part of the rules. If they are no longer part of the rules I feel there is no longer any need for them.

[Matthew Koelbl]

WotC's Nightmare wrote:

I never have seen or heard of players picking a cetain alignment to avoid alignment based effects. Was alignment that big of hassel? Alignment pretty much is history in 4E which is kind of sad because it was part of the flavor of D&D from the beginning.

Well, I think it was a variety of things. The fact that Paladins could Detect Evil meant you had to always plan ahead when dealing with all sorts of intrigues or the like - and if you took countermeasures to prevent abilities like that from working, that made the entire class feature pointless, didn't it? Similarly, you had powers like Blasphemy or Holy Word which were almost abusively powerful because of the 'limitation' of only working on certain alignments.

Personally, while I find the new alignment system itself a little weak, I absolutely love the disassociation of alignment from the mechanics of the rules. I had found that, in pretty much every single campaign I played in (or ran), alignment was always handled differently. Everyone had different views on whether a certain act would be good or not, what sort of behavior for Paladins would be considered breaking their vows, etc.

Now, each game can decide how alignment works without worrying about having to make any adjustments to the gameplay itself - just character interaction and roleplay, which is really what alignment is all about.

[Teiran]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Then why even have an Alignment? If you are not going to use it a all it is defiantly not needed for roleplaying..

If this is true Most likely if I ever run a 4e game I will take out alignments since they are not needed.

They wanted to remove the game mechanics of alignment, while leaving the roleplaying tool it provides in the game. And yes, Alignment is a roleplaying tool, even if your group does not use it as such.

It's not the greatest tool, and it can be misused, (or lampooned as the Order of the Stick does quite well), but it is a good tool for a begining player.

[Stereofm]

WotC's Nightmare wrote:

I never have seen or heard of players picking a cetain alignment to avoid alignment based effects. Was alignment that big of hassel? Alignment pretty much is history in 4E which is kind of sad because it was part of the flavor of D&D from the beginning.

I admit I have seen that. Especially in Living Campaigns.

Now, it's not just everybody : only a select few people were doing that. Most members would choose alignment from their roleplaying POW.

(And chafed they could not play evil) Mwahahaha !

[Dragnmoon]

Teiran wrote:

but it is a good tool for a begining player.

That I can see...

But for an Experienced Roleplayer It is not needed at all and can be a limiting crutch.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Dragnmoon wrote:

I have never liked alignments I always saw them a a Crutch to roleplaying not a boost, but they were part of the rules. If they are no longer part of the rules I feel there is no longer any need for them.

They actually created a specific category for characters who felt that way, "Unaligned." The goal, I think, is for the alignments to be there to help people define their characters, and figure out a bit how they will act and react in certain situations. (As well as what their over-all goals might be.)

You certainly don't need an alignment to figure out those things. And in truth, morality (even in game play) covers so many shades of grey that even the classic 9 point system couldn't cover them all - that was why so many debates would spring up about them.

But it did provide an easy way to categorize characters (both PCs and NPCs), and many found that handy. Now, that opportunity is still there... without having to worry about how that characterization will affect you mechanically in combat. Your character's personality and ethics will matter in how they deal with situations, what choices they make, how the roleplaying elements of the game affects them... but it won't mean that certain enemies will be stronger or weaker against them.

And if you don't want to deal with pin-pointing characters down to a specific choice from 5, or 9, or however many options... you can simply toss out the alignment concept entirely, and let everyone define each character as intricately as they want to.

[Dragnmoon]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Teiran wrote:

but it is a good tool for a begining player.

That I can see...

But for an Experienced Roleplayer It is not needed at all and can be a limiting crutch.

Though it is not really limiting anymore since even going out of alignment would have no penalties... But that just leads me more to alignment is just useful as a tool for those who need the help and not needed anymore.

[crosswiredmind]

Dragnmoon wrote:

crosswiredmind wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Then why even have an Alignment? If you are not going to use it a all it is defiantly not needed for roleplaying..

If this is true Most likely if I ever run a 4e game I will take out alignments since they are not needed.

Well, it is still a requirement for classes with connections to gods. Just because it is no longer a mechanic does not mean it is completely useless.

I did not see that..can you direct me to the page?

I have never liked alignments I always saw them a a Crutch to roleplaying not a boost, but they were part of the rules. If they are no longer part of the rules I feel there is no longer any need for them.

Page 90 talks about Paladins and alignment. Page 62 talks about Clerics and alignment.

I also agree that alignments have always felt like a roleplaying crutch but D&D has always had them. At least in 4e you can choose not to have one which simply leaves your character as unaligned.

[crosswiredmind]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Teiran wrote:

but it is a good tool for a begining player.

That I can see...

But for an Experienced Roleplayer It is not needed at all and can be a limiting crutch.

Though it is not really limiting anymore since even going out of alignment would have no penalties... But that just leads me more to alignment is just useful as a tool for those who need the help and not needed anymore.

Actually both the cleric and paladin entries talk about the consequences of acting "out of alignment". Basically the order to which you belong will hand out the punishment for failing to hold to the strictures of the PCs particular faith.

[Dragnmoon]

crosswiredmind wrote:

]

Page 90 talks about Paladins and alignment. Page 62 talks about Clerics and alignment.

I also agree that alignments have always felt like a roleplaying crutch but D&D has always had them. At least in 4e you can choose not to have one which simply leaves your character as unaligned.

Thanks for the Pages Cross... Yeah those are not very strong fast rules and easily left out. Having a Cleric or paladin just follow the testaments of their faith is all that is important there.

And You are not allowed to agree with me cross!!! so sorry you have to take that back..:-p

[Dragnmoon]

crosswiredmind wrote:

Actually both the cleric and paladin entries talk about the consequences of acting "out of alignment". Basically the order to which you belong will hand out the punishment for failing to hold to the strictures of the PCs particular faith.

But it is better just to take out Alignment in my opinion and just require them to have to follow the 'Beliefs' of their faiths.

[crosswiredmind]

Dragnmoon wrote:

crosswiredmind wrote:

Actually both the cleric and paladin entries talk about the consequences of acting "out of alignment". Basically the order to which you belong will hand out the punishment for failing to hold to the strictures of the PCs particular faith.

But it is better just to take out Alignment in my opinion and just require them to have to follow the 'Beliefs' of their faiths.

I agree. D&D has always had a fairly poor implementation of religions. The best IMHO will always be RuneQuest (2nd ed). The cult system is fantastic with levels of membership, strictures, spirits of reprisal, etc. Simply fantastic.

[crosswiredmind]

Dragnmoon wrote:

And You are not allowed to agree with me cross!!! so sorry you have to take that back..:-p

Why would I disagree? You are being very very reasonable. I like reasonable :-)

[Dragnmoon]

crosswiredmind wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

crosswiredmind wrote:

Actually both the cleric and paladin entries talk about the consequences of acting "out of alignment". Basically the order to which you belong will hand out the punishment for failing to hold to the strictures of the PCs particular faith.

But it is better just to take out Alignment in my opinion and just require them to have to follow the 'Beliefs' of their faiths.

I agree. D&D has always had a fairly poor implementation of religions. The best IMHO will always be RuneQuest (2nd ed). The cult system is fantastic with levels of membership, strictures, spirits of reprisal, etc. Simply fantastic.

I don't think D&D has done that bad a job of describing the different faiths in the deities books, But they have always done a piss poor job of describing the faiths in the PhB to the point of being almost useless, and from what I see the 4e book is no different.

[Dragnmoon]

crosswiredmind wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

And You are not allowed to agree with me cross!!! so sorry you have to take that back..:-p

Why would I disagree? You are being very very reasonable. I like reasonable :-)

Ehh.. I try to be...even if I don't Like 4e as much as I like 3.5..

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Dragnmoon wrote:

crosswiredmind wrote:

]

Page 90 talks about Paladins and alignment. Page 62 talks about Clerics and alignment.

I also agree that alignments have always felt like a roleplaying crutch but D&D has always had them. At least in 4e you can choose not to have one which simply leaves your character as unaligned.

Thanks for the Pages Cross... Yeah those are not very strong fast rules and easily left out. Having a Cleric or paladin just follow the testaments of their faith is all that is important there.

And You are not allowed to agree with me cross!!! so sorry you have to take that back..:-p

The system they have in the PHB is very basic and straight forward but there are no mechanical restraints to deciding to take it and make it very much shades of Grey.

So you can certainly go with whats presented or you can even go back to the old 9 point system without any mechanical consequences.

For myself however - I really like the idea of taking things a little further into Shades of Grey. I think I'll stop giving the Gods alignments in my Homebrew players guide. My Gods have always been very distant and unknowable anyway - so is the God of Conquest Evil, Well that depends on your point of view Does the fact that Orcs often Worship him make him evil? I like the idea of kind of jumbled mess with the possibly evil clerics of the Goddess of Love and possibly good Clerics for the God of Conquest. I'll let the players decide how their perspective interacts with their faith.

Its more complex then the usual systems but, on the other hand, you can get much deeper more complicated characters that are not confusing the player and the DM over exactly which alignment best suites the character.

[Dragnmoon]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

I actually like it this way. I might well stop giving the Gods alignments at least in my home brew player guide. Is a God of conquest evil? Well that kind of depends on your opinion. The system they have in the PHB is very basic and straight forward but there are no mechanical restraints to deciding to take it and make it very much shades of Grey.

I don't think Alignments are important at all anymore in 4e, and I agree, even for the god, all is important are the beliefs and commandments of the gods, that is all the is truly needed to be followed by clerics and Paladins.

I just wish they went into more details about the Gods.... grrrrrr

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

I actually like it this way. I might well stop giving the Gods alignments at least in my home brew player guide. Is a God of conquest evil? Well that kind of depends on your opinion. The system they have in the PHB is very basic and straight forward but there are no mechanical restraints to deciding to take it and make it very much shades of Grey.

I don't think Alignments are important at all anymore in 4e, and I agree, even for the god, all is important are the beliefs and commandments of the gods, that is all the is truly needed to be followed by clerics and Paladins.

I just wish they went into more details about the Gods.... grrrrrr

What and let you avoid buying their splat book? Perish the thought.

[Dragnmoon]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

I just wish they went into more details about the Gods.... grrrrrr

What and let you avoid buying their splat book? Perish the thought.

Is there a Deities Splat book coming up?...

[Matthew Koelbl]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Is there a Deities Splat book coming up?...

Manual of the Planes is on the way in, I think, December - I wouldn't be surprised if that goes into Deities in a bit more detail. I doubt it will focus on them exclusively (I want my info on the Feywild and the Shadowfell!), but I'm certain they'll have a good chunk of the content.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

I just wish they went into more details about the Gods.... grrrrrr

What and let you avoid buying their splat book? Perish the thought.

Is there a Deities Splat book coming up?...

I'd be pretty shocked if one did not come down the pipeline.

[crosswiredmind]

Dragnmoon wrote:

I don't think D&D has done that bad a job of describing the different faiths in the deities books, But they have always done a piss poor job of describing the faiths in the PhB to the point of being almost useless, and from what I see the 4e book is no different.

D&D has been great at describing Gods but not so great at describing the organizations that grow from their worship. That is what I meant though it may not have come across that way.

[Bluenose]

crosswiredmind wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

crosswiredmind wrote:

Actually both the cleric and paladin entries talk about the consequences of acting "out of alignment". Basically the order to which you belong will hand out the punishment for failing to hold to the strictures of the PCs particular faith.

But it is better just to take out Alignment in my opinion and just require them to have to follow the 'Beliefs' of their faiths.

I agree. D&D has always had a fairly poor implementation of religions. The best IMHO will always be RuneQuest (2nd ed). The cult system is fantastic with levels of membership, strictures, spirits of reprisal, etc. Simply fantastic.

It's not really a surprise that someone who takes religion seriously (Greg Stafford) would come up with a serious approach to religion, ethics and morals. Cult strictures, the geas the Humakti and others gain, expected bahaviour patterns, and a link between religion and culture which hardly any D&D world has ever bothered with are some excellent features. And I think the cults of chaos would make a really good model for 4E demonic cults.

Pendragon was even better, imo. Different character traits are regarded as virtues by the different religions, so Pagans should be Proud while Christians should be Modest. When you add passions (Hate Saxons) and loyalties (Love Wife) you're getting something much more involved than a two word alignment description.

[ProsSteve]

WotC's Nightmare wrote:

I never have seen or heard of players picking a cetain alignment to avoid alignment based effects. Was alignment that big of hassel? Alignment pretty much is history in 4E which is kind of sad because it was part of the flavor of D&D from the beginning.

My biggest gripe with D&D roleplaying in 2nd,3rd and 3.5 edition was Alignment. Used to get in the way big style. Much prefer the 4th edition way. The Alignments detailed in the Core books are Good, Lawful Good, Unaligned, Evil and Chaotic Evil. Then there is a brilliant long roleplaying section about character choice and decisions to flesh the PC out. 'Would your character help an old women across the road, would they ignor a heated agressive argument between man and a women and so on'....much better. Rather than the Paladin who's horrified and furious when the bad guy has just cold bloodedly murdered his betrothed, even worse when the lawful good fighter hunts down the bad guy after he commited a similar act and when the bad guy begs for mercy instead the fighter beheads him.

In earlier editions he'd probably get an alignment warning or change alignment and suffer from it. Roleplaying at its best and suffering for it.

I like players being 'good people' as it were but developing a real hatred for some of the enemies I put against them. In a previous campaign one of the characters had a Zentarim scumbag for a father who I featured in the campaign and most of the PC's hated him. Funny enough his 'son', the PC, hated him worse even though he refused to kill his son and tried to get him over to his side.
Alignment often gets in the way of some quality roleplaying and now only a few NPC's count as Truly 'Good' or 'Evil', Necromancers, High level evil priests and a few others, most soldiers are just nasty.

[Andreas Skye]

As it is, the system will doubtlessly receive expansions in its connection with Divine powers. The PHB declares an understandable focus on "good guys". Now you can have Paladins of Evil (and CE) gods. I am pretty sure that their powers will not be "radiant" or restorative. The core books give some guidelines for adapting "bad guys Channel" into sinister (shadow or Necrotic) things, but I can see expansions coming (in supplements, Dragons or whatever).

I do kinda like going back to the Basic D&D thing: Protection from Evil affected "evil intent" and "enchanted" (read Outsider) creatures, regardless of alignment. That makes more sense to me and simplifies things: a wizard wants a protection ward against hostile outsiders/undead/whatever, no matter what their alignment would be.

In RW magic traditions, wards against angels, demons and elementals do not differ too much between each other. The "multiple axis of spells" felt kinda contrived.
I like holy and unholy weapons, though, if only because of their tradition in fantasy lit; but they could become "radiant vs. shadow" in a pinch.

[hopeless]

I have a question regarding 4e alignments.

I can't understand why they first decided to get rid of the good and evil side of the alignments yet retain both Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, wouldn't this be much better if they just restrict it to Lawful, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic?

I was picturing it as a sort of cross so you could have Paladins whom are Lawful but have both good and evil tendencies as exhibited by crusaders thereby resolving all those queries regarding how paladins can kill orc babies or follow the god of valour and still behave like a fanatic when Paladins are supposed to be the symbol of the faith not villify them.

Whats your opinion on this?

[Andreas Skye]

hopeless wrote:

I have a question regarding 4e alignments.

I can't understand why they first decided to get rid of the good and evil side of the alignments yet retain both Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, wouldn't this be much better if they just restrict it to Lawful, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic?

I was picturing it as a sort of cross so you could have Paladins whom are Lawful but have both good and evil tendencies as exhibited by crusaders thereby resolving all those queries regarding how paladins can kill orc babies or follow the god of valour and still behave like a fanatic when Paladins are supposed to be the symbol of the faith not villify them.

Whats your opinion on this?

To me it feels very similar to the old Warhammer system:

Law - Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaos.

CE is presented like almost-psychotically deranged, hostile to life, existence and, roughly speaking, inhuman.
E would be just the "extremely selfish", those willing to commit nefarious acts in order to benefit themselves.
Unaligned would be your average joe, try to get ok with your life without harming too much or getting out of the way to help either. You can have priorities which are different from morals (like a god of knowledge seekers).
G is about being willing to help others and doing your best to make the world a better place, even at your own expense.
LG would be an extreme of good, those "believer" guys who are on a mission to stop evil. Not so much "making the world a better place", say, by healing the sick, but by destroying the sickness, metaphorically speaking.

Thus it is assumed that CE is a more "insane and dark" form of Evil; and LG a more "militant" version of Good. I personally disagree with that take, as LG ideologies can end up committing all sorts of excesses (inquisition, holy wars, etc) which would appall Good people (and annoy unaligned ones in many cases). That said, I can see this 5-stop axis working ok in the Points of Light setting taken as default by 4e: "good civilized places and organizations" are few and far between. Evil and chaos are on the rise and the setting is far away from the moral quandaries brought about by LG organizations and realms becoming "enforcers" or starting up genocides of evil creatures. À la Middle Earth (a PoL setting after all) 3rd Age, good is on the defensive against onslaughts of evil. So the system works.
For other kinds of campaign paradigms, it would require a wee of adaptation to be fair, maybe dropping the Good from Lawful, as extreme lawful organizations can lead to terrible bad (check Warhammer witch hunters for a good example).

[ProsSteve]

hopeless wrote:

I have a question regarding 4e alignments.

I can't understand why they first decided to get rid of the good and evil side of the alignments yet retain both Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, wouldn't this be much better if they just restrict it to Lawful, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic?

I was picturing it as a sort of cross so you could have Paladins whom are Lawful but have both good and evil tendencies as exhibited by crusaders thereby resolving all those queries regarding how paladins can kill orc babies or follow the god of valour and still behave like a fanatic when Paladins are supposed to be the symbol of the faith not villify them.

Whats your opinion on this?

As described above both Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are the extreemists. Lawful Good fight to destroy evil and bring order to the world. Helping bring this for the greater Good. Chaotic Evil is a Diabolic monster with no morals and an inclination for destruction, Slaughter for the sake of it.

An Evil Person is someone with no morals and will kill mercilessly to achieve their ends...in short Pure Selfish.
Good Person will risk their own lives to save the common people, innocent etc and killing is an unfortunate requirement sometimes. They'd never lose a lot of sleep over killing an obviously evil creature but would struggle to finish a city guard when they don't have to.
Unaligned is a person who is trangent. He might murder guards to get to the boss but is doing this to get a job done and would probably look for alternatives before taking such action. Slightly selfish maybe but wouldn't kill an innocent to achieve his\her ends but can easily justify killing 'enemies' for personal gain.
I'd say basically unless your character is given to acts of self risk and bravado for the local people, go unaligned and concentrate on personality traits.
A lot of my characters will risk life and limb for members of the adventuring group(to varying degrees) and family but wouldn't risk his life for the common people so I'd go unaligned but with loyalty, brave traits when applied to family or people who've proved his loyalty well placed.
Other of my characters believed wholeheartedly in saving the populous but would sacrifice a few to save the many but be haunted for his choices( unaligned again).

[Matthew Koelbl]

hopeless wrote:

I have a question regarding 4e alignments.

I can't understand why they first decided to get rid of the good and evil side of the alignments yet retain both Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, wouldn't this be much better if they just restrict it to Lawful, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic?

I was picturing it as a sort of cross so you could have Paladins whom are Lawful but have both good and evil tendencies as exhibited by crusaders thereby resolving all those queries regarding how paladins can kill orc babies or follow the god of valour and still behave like a fanatic when Paladins are supposed to be the symbol of the faith not villify them.

Whats your opinion on this?

As others have said, they defined the extremes, and removed areas that essentially overlapped. What was the difference between Chaotic Good and Neutral Good? Both did good for its own sake. Chaotic Good didn't let the laws of the land define them - but in many cases, if a character was truly chaotic enough in defiance of legitimate laws, they start to lose a claim on being 'good'. (And if a land is ruled by a dictator with tyrannical laws, I think it fair to say that even the most Lawful character could make an argument for ignoring those laws.)

Personally, I prefer the earlier system, but I can very much see the reasons for the new one, and it does make a decent amount of sense the way they laid it out.

[Goth Guru]

It's in the Players Handbook.
A Paladin has to have the same alignment as their patron diety, but that alignment can be unaligned. The more I learn about 4th edition, the more confused I become. When they introduce Barbarians, they probably can be Lawful Good.
Note that in 3.5, choosing Lawful Good to create a Paladin was a character optimization decision.

[crosswiredmind]

Goth Guru wrote:

A Paladin has to have the same alignment as their patron diety, but that alignment can be unaligned. The more I learn about 4th edition, the more confused I become.

That makes perfect sense to me. Every god has his or her holy warriors and they should be the exact same alignment as the god they represent.

[Shroomy]

Goth Guru wrote:

When they introduce Barbarians, they probably can be Lawful Good.

Nah, I doubt it. Right now, it looks like only divine characters have alignment restrictions, which makes sense to me.

[ProsSteve]

crosswiredmind wrote:

Goth Guru wrote:

A Paladin has to have the same alignment as their patron diety, but that alignment can be unaligned. The more I learn about 4th edition, the more confused I become.

That makes perfect sense to me. Every god has his or her holy warriors and they should be the exact same alignment as the god they represent.

Although I'm personally not a big fan of Non Lawful Good, at least now the Paladin won't end up as Chaotic Good. Never sat well with me that a paladin should try to destroy the lawful structure of an area for the Good of the people!!! I can go with a Paladin breaking lawful decisions that he see's as unjust though.

Evil Anti-Paladin are an excellent enemy. I love them in a game.

[crosswiredmind]

ProsSteve wrote:

Although I'm personally not a big fan of Non Lawful Good, at least now the Paladin won't end up as Chaotic Good. Never sat well with me that a paladin should try to destroy the lawful structure of an area for the Good of the people!!!

In 3.5 my favorite character was a Holy Liberator of Trithereon - essentially a CG Paladin. I love the idea that every God has his or her holy warriors no matter what alignment.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

crosswiredmind wrote:

ProsSteve wrote:

Although I'm personally not a big fan of Non Lawful Good, at least now the Paladin won't end up as Chaotic Good. Never sat well with me that a paladin should try to destroy the lawful structure of an area for the Good of the people!!!

In 3.5 my favorite character was a Holy Liberator of Trithereon - essentially a CG Paladin. I love the idea that every God has his or her holy warriors no matter what alignment.

In my homebrew all Paladins are CG for fluff reasons. Essentially they exist outside of the law and ignore it in their pursuit of justice. Their basically good vigilantes or bounty hunters (without the bounty).

[ProsSteve]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

crosswiredmind wrote:

ProsSteve wrote:

Although I'm personally not a big fan of Non Lawful Good, at least now the Paladin won't end up as Chaotic Good. Never sat well with me that a paladin should try to destroy the lawful structure of an area for the Good of the people!!!

In 3.5 my favorite character was a Holy Liberator of Trithereon - essentially a CG Paladin. I love the idea that every God has his or her holy warriors no matter what alignment.

In my homebrew all Paladins are CG for fluff reasons. Essentially they exist outside of the law and ignore it in their pursuit of justice. Their basically good vigilantes or bounty hunters (without the bounty).

Now that I can live with happily, sort of Batman ideology. Ignoring the law to put justice onto evil men.

Thing was early edition Paladins had a code to follow as part of the make up. Thus LG alignment. Without the code their is little challenge on the player from this point of view.
Doesn't make a bad character just a more varied slant.

[crosswiredmind]

ProsSteve wrote:

Without the code their is little challenge on the player from this point of view.

The code is still there regardless of the paladin's alignment. The code comes from the god not the alignment. The paladin must adhere to the path his or her god has set out.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

ProsSteve wrote:

Now that I can live with happily, sort of Batman ideology. Ignoring the law to put justice onto evil men.

Thing was early edition Paladins had a code to follow as part of the make up. Thus LG alignment. Without the code their is little challenge on the player from this point of view.
Doesn't make a bad character just a more varied slant.

With the release of 3.5's DMG II ypu kind of knew that the emphasis on codes of conduct was on the way out. Certainly a DM can choose to add one if he wants but more often then one would like the code just got in the way. It was bad game design basically.

All to often the Paladin uses his code to make his character the centre of attention. Everything the rest of the party wants to do essentially has to be vetted by the Paladin. Even if the other players are plotting behind the Paladins back they are in still in effect making the Paladins character their focus.

Now I'm sure we have all seen Paladins played in such a way that it increased every one at the tables enjoyment of the game and of course thats a good thing. However putting the code into the rules explicitly encourages bad usage of those rules without really helping those that will make their Paladin a benifit to the other players at the table. Better to leave this sort of thing in the hands of the individual DMs. If your DM thinks that a Paladins Code will make the game better for everyone then by all means make one based after the tenets of the players God but if its really the attention hog (and he could otherwise be a really good guy - just has an over fondness for the spotlight) thats decided, once again, to be the Paladin don't give him extra ammunition with which to force the rest of the party to always be reacting to what his character wants to does not want.