I played with a couple guys a couple years ago. I asked them if my "chaotic good cleric could do yadda yadda...."
They said, "sure."
Yadda yadda was in jest; it was a bad thing to do.
So they told me their theory on playing alignments:
ANYBODY CAN ARGUE TIL THEY'RE BLUE IN THE FACE ABOUT WHETHER ANY ALIGNMENT CAN OR CANNOT DO SUCH AND SO FORTH. WE'RE BORED WITH IT. IT'S A BORING ARGUMENT. WE'VE ALL HAD THIS ARGUMENT UMPTEEN TIMES, AND IT ALWAYS ENDS STUPIDLY, AND IT'S BORING.
SO PLAY YOUR CHARACTER, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT AND WE WON'T EITHER BECAUSE IT'S BORING.
I'm beginning to see the wisdom of their philosophy.
So they told me their theory on playing alignments:
ANYBODY CAN ARGUE TIL THEY'RE BLUE IN THE FACE ABOUT WHETHER ANY ALIGNMENT CAN OR CANNOT DO SUCH AND SO FORTH. WE'RE BORED WITH IT. IT'S A BORING ARGUMENT. WE'VE ALL HAD THIS ARGUMENT UMPTEEN TIMES, AND IT ALWAYS ENDS STUPIDLY, AND IT'S BORING.
SO PLAY YOUR CHARACTER, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT AND WE WON'T EITHER BECAUSE IT'S BORING.I'm beginning to see the wisdom of their philosophy.
Alignment is a description not a prescription (with the possible exceptions of outsiders).
Consequences of actions is for the GM and group to work out, i.e. alignment is somewhat prescriptive for a paladin but presumably its how its fits in with their Gods domains.
I think the main problem with that is they are so inherently grafted into the selection of spells, but I agree.
|
As a Player, my favorite part of D&D is Alignment discussion -- discussion not tantrum.
But I'm usually DM.
As DM I acknowledge that everyone loves different parts of the game and I have to be flexible in making my campaigns as fun for everyone.
If one of my Players hates Alignment concepts then I'm not gonna force Alignment issues with him. When another Player in the same campaign loves Alignment issues I'm gonna make sure that there's some for him.
. . . .
Curious, when those of you who can't stand Alignment play a Cleric, how do you handle the PC background? -- Not a particular issue such as "can I do yadda yadda?," but your actual background Fluff. Why did you choose that Deity; why did you choose that Alignment? -- if Alignments are gone from your Homebrew, how does anyone play a Cleric? It would be helpful to see how this works for other groups.
Does the WotC version of Alignments work well? In theory it looks really good for gamers that just aren't that into the Alignment design.
I've never understood why people have problems with it in the first place, but things have always been fairly simple and easy to understand with the nine-point system for my group. *shrug*
Alignments shouldn't cause problems, because they're a general attitude towards the world, not a straight-jacket.
Far too many DMs (and players, for that matter) forget this little fact.
A CG character should generally act in a CG manner, but it shouldn't matter if he slips.
Of course, this is bound to wind up with the argument "Paladins should play my way otherwise you are all doing it wrong!" Fortunately, I don't play with those sorts of people.
Of course, this is bound to wind up with the argument "Paladins should play my way otherwise you are all doing it wrong!" Fortunately, I don't play with those sorts of people.
This is generally why it's a good idea to sit down and talk with your DM about what they expect from a Paladin before playing and make sure you are on the same page.
I made a point of doing this with my Paladin of Wee Jas before starting Age of Worms and it's worked out well. Though I also found out that my DM is one of those who thinks Paladins shouldn't have an alignment restriction, but that's another discussion entirely involving his opinions on how the Paladin and Cleric classes should work.
|
|
Lawful Good and Chaotic Neutral are the most widely debated.
I blame the LG problems on the IDIOTS who think Sturm Brightblade is a viable example of LG.
I blame the CN problems on the gamers who believe that's an excuse to be dicks at the gaming table.
.
.
.
This is generally why it's a good idea to sit down and talk with your DM about what they expect from a Paladin before playing and make sure you are on the same page.
Well, it's good to talk with the DM pre-campaign about most stuff regarding your PC but your post made me specifically think of Monte Cook's "Champion" core class in Arcana Evolved -- the Players Handbook he would have done if he'd been asked to do the 3.0 PHB instead of the 3.0 DMG.
It's a Paladin alternative where, like a Sorcerer Bloodline, a Champion must choose a Cause to follow. (Monte Cook's Monk-core class has the same thing).
This is generally why it's a good idea to sit down and talk with your DM about what they expect from a Paladin before playing and make sure you are on the same page.Well, it's good to talk with the DM pre-campaign about most stuff regarding your PC but your post made me specifically think of Monte Cook's "Champion" core class in Arcana Evolved -- the Players Handbook he would have done if he'd been asked to do the 3.0 PHB instead of the 3.0 DMG.
It's a Paladin alternative where, like a Sorcerer Bloodline, a Champion must choose a Cause to follow. (Monte Cook's Monk-core class has the same thing).
My DM - who is one of my players, in my Savage Tide game - is of the opinion that Paladin represents a knight devoted to a deity's cause, much as you said. His opinion is that Clerics should be robed noncombatant casters much like they were in 2E, or more like the leather-wearing Healers from 3E's Minatures Handbook, and not heavy-armor-wearing melee-casters; that archetype, he says, should be the Paladin.
His opinion is that Clerics should be robed noncombatant casters much like they were in 2E,
Off topic but, hate to tell you..he needs to look at his 2e PHB again. Clerics have always been the "holy warroirs" of the faith. They are based off the knightly religious orders of the crusades and in 2e they could wear any armor they wished.
The cleric have always been holy warroirs, not robed non-combatants.
His opinion is that Clerics should be robed noncombatant casters much like they were in 2E,Off topic but, hate to tell you..he needs to look at his 2e PHB again. Clerics have always been the "holy warroirs" of the faith. They are based off the knightly religious orders of the crusades and in 2e they could wear any armor they wished.
The cleric have always been holy warroirs, not robed non-combatants.
That would be my error not his. Neither of us have played 2E and that was my estimation of them from what I've heard of the game.
His opinion, in his words, is that Clerics should be like Final Fantasy White Mages: low armor, low BAB, moderate HP, lots of healing and divine magic slinging. Paladins should be the "knightly religious orders of the Crusades" that you mention, and they should not have an alignment restriction other than the "one-step" rule from their god's.
thats cool, to me a paladin is LG and nothing else, goes with the name and all. But in 2E clerics only had 7 levels of spells not 9 as well. But the class was never made to be non combatants, it was made to be the holy warrior of the faith.
I think the issues is people got lazy, instead of seeing Clerics as the military arm of the faith as they were meant to be, they started using them for every role in the church.
A good exsample of how clerics work would be David Eddings Elenium and Tamuli books. While many over the years have tried to call em "paladins" they are really clerics and the only "priests" of there faith who cast spells as they have permission to do so from the church. Other then using swords they pretty much are classic 2e clerics
Chaotic Neutral is not an excuse to play chaotic stupid.
Heresy!