Alignment Restrictions?

[supergoji18]

Flipping through both the Players Hand Book and the Dungeon Master's Guide, I found very little mention of alignment restrictions. Now the last time I played a D&D game was using 3e rules, and in it there were certain alignment restrictions for some classes. But it seems that in 5e there are no such restrictions. Is this true or did I miss an important part of the rules?

I mean, not having an alignment restriction could be rather odd for certain classes. For example, a Chaotic Evil Paladin would technically be possible, even though the Paladin is by its very deffinition the antithesis of that alignment and most of its powers are dedicated to the defeat of evil. Or a Lawful Barbarian, since according to the class description they think civilization is weak.

As a DM I suppose I could just force my own rule on the subject in, but I am not sure if the players will be happy about me making up rules.

[hamishspence]

Between 3e and 5e there was 4e - which stripped out a lot of the restrictions.

5e didn't really do much in the way of bringing them back.

[Slipperychicken]

I mean, not having an alignment restriction could be rather odd for certain classes. For example, a Chaotic Evil Paladin would technically be possible, even though the Paladin is by its very deffinition the antithesis of that alignment and most of its powers are dedicated to the defeat of evil. Or a Lawful Barbarian, since according to the class description they think civilization is weak.


For paladins, I think it serves to roll up all the paladin variants (i.e. paladin of freedom, slaughter, tyranny, antipaladin, etc) into one class. This not only makes playing a paladin much easier (since you don't always have the threat of falling hanging over your head), but it also allows the possibility of "corrupted" or "edgy" paladins without as much hand-waving.

Also, law and chaos in D&D (PHB 122) don't imply attitudes toward civilization: law seems to be about adherence to expectations and/or a consistent moral code, and chaos is about defying others' expectations to embrace personal freedom. It's not hard to imagine a lawful barbarian once you realize that codes of honor are compatible with the use of screaming blood frenzies in battle.

I'm personally very glad they ditched the previous code of conduct and falling rules. The sheer amount of flame which paladin threads, and alignment threads in general, evoked made it pretty obvious that those rules were not suitable for most tables. If 5e can avoid that, I think the system will be much better off for it. I'm still kind of wary of the idea of losing archetype powers for violating your code, but it's overall a much more lenient system.

[mephnick]

Well, paladins historically have nothing to do with holy powers obviously, they were just another name for knights used by a ruler, namely Charlemagne. I'm not sure when they ever became "holy warriors" in literature. So an evil paladin is easy to picture for me. Think of the evil kingsguard in GoT. Those would be knights who could be considered paladins.

And like like slipperychicken says, lawful barbarians are as simple as a warrior with a code.

Free yourself from alignment restrictions of all kinds. I don't use it at all. Everyone will be much happier.

[Spacehamster]

Thinking its good that it's gone too but it seems not completely since on oathbreaker it says you need to be evil alignment and show no will to atone. So found that a bit odd to say the least.

[supergoji18]

Well, paladins historically have nothing to do with holy powers obviously, they were just another name for knights used by a ruler, namely Charlemagne. I'm not sure when they ever became "holy warriors" in literature. So an evil paladin is easy to picture for me. Think of the evil kingsguard in GoT. Those would be knights who could be considered paladins.

And like like slipperychicken says, lawful barbarians are as simple as a warrior with a code.

Free yourself from alignment restrictions of all kinds. I don't use it at all. Everyone will be much happier.
I'm actually certain that D&D was the one that started that trend. If not, then there is the connection to the Holy Roman Empire.

Well the powers of Paladins sort of gear toward being good, or at least anti-evil. I guess for evil Paladins the powers can be retooled a bit.

[Eslin]

I'm actually certain that D&D was the one that started that trend. If not, then there is the connection to the Holy Roman Empire.

Well the powers of Paladins sort of gear toward being good, or at least anti-evil. I guess for evil Paladins the powers can be retooled a bit.

How are their powers geared towards being good or anti-evil? Only one I can think of is turn undead for devotion paladins, since undead tend to be evil.

And I think D&D is the one that started it, but please note that fantasy archetypes don't have to equal real ones. Google 'dragoon' - I bet you don't get light cavalry, you get a dragon-themed armoured guy with a spear who can jump ridiculous heights.

[Abithrios]

How are their powers geared towards being good or anti-evil? Only one I can think of is turn undead for devotion paladins, since undead tend to be evil.

And I think D&D is the one that started it, but please note that fantasy archetypes don't have to equal real ones. Google 'dragoon' - I bet you don't get light cavalry, you get a dragon-themed armoured guy with a spear who can jump ridiculous heights.

Just tried it, and the results were mostly real world based with a few final fantasy links. Nothing dnd related...

[Eslin]

Just tried it, and the results were mostly real world based with a few final fantasy links. Nothing dnd related...

Oh, woops. I usually use image search as a measure of what people think of more when they think of something, since if you do a web search you're just gonna get a bunch of impartial wikipedia and dictionary stuff.

[Ralanr]

In my mind it still makes sense that you should have a similar alignment to a god you worship if you're a divine class (more for clerics than paladin. But I might be wrong on that since I haven't looked much into that class. Do you still need to worship a god to use certain domains?). Aside from that, if my class doesn't really require an alignment (which none do I guess. But Divine classes feel like it to me) I decided to just play my character with an ambiguous alignment and just let it develop as the campaign goes on (Basically let my DM decide it based on my actions). At least two of my friends are following along with the idea.

[Rfkannen]

Paladins are now sworn to an oath rather than an alignment. At least for the oath of ancients, i see no reason why someone who was chaotic nuetral couldnt follow it. Might be a strech to have a chaotic evil guy follow any of the oaths, but it could work.

For clerics, look at real life. You do not need to be the same alignment as whatever god you worship. I could be an aweful person and still worship hades(the only actual decent person of the three main gods). By Hades I could even be a priest.

With druids. You could have the more primal chaotic evil moon druids who burn down cities in the name of nature. Or a nicer lawful good guy who tries to be a guide and teach humans to get along with nature.

With barbarians, I would say bruce banner was laweful. Alot of the berzerkers worshiped odin. Spirit shamans have the whole tied to the spirits thing, I could easly see them fit into the roll of a cheif of a tribe.

With warlocks,sometimes good people have to resort to evil means.

Hell yeah lawful bards in the house. You got your scholar who remembers stuff for the king. Worships the past and sings songs to tell the glory of the ancectors.

Chaotic monks. Maybe your a kid given to the monastary and had to grow up there learning the techniques, they were drilled into you.

I forget if any other class has alignment restrictions.

[Ralanr]

Chaotic monks. Maybe your a kid given to the monastary and had to grow up there learning the techniques, they were drilled into you.

I forget if any other class has alignment restrictions.

Monkey King, Sun Wukong!

Unless I'm misinterpreting his character, but he seems pretty chaotic.

[Rfkannen]

Monkey King, Sun Wukong!

Unless I'm misinterpreting his character, but he seems pretty chaotic.

True true true. He is pretty chaotic

I could see him as a lv 20 awakened rock four elements monk

[supergoji18]

How are their powers geared towards being good or anti-evil? Only one I can think of is turn undead for devotion paladins, since undead tend to be evil.

And I think D&D is the one that started it, but please note that fantasy archetypes don't have to equal real ones. Google 'dragoon' - I bet you don't get light cavalry, you get a dragon-themed armoured guy with a spear who can jump ridiculous heights.

I thought they still had the smite evil ability, but I see it is now just divine smite. Nevermind then, I was wrong.

[Slipperychicken]

Hell yeah lawful bards in the house. You got your scholar who remembers stuff for the king. Worships the past and sings songs to tell the glory of the ancectors.

Chaotic monks. Maybe your a kid given to the monastary and had to grow up there learning the techniques, they were drilled into you.

Expanding a little on these two. A monk's education might emphasize personal freedom over adherence to a particular code, or the monk himself might be somehow eccentric or unorthodox. Also, "lawful bard" can easily describe both academic and professional performers, as well as oral historians.

[supergoji18]

Well I guess it's just the paladin that I see a problem with. The entire description of the class and the tenets of the oaths all gear towards being good or neutral.

I guess I can home brew a blackguard class.

[Tarrab]

Well I guess it's just the paladin that I see a problem with. The entire description of the class and the tenets of the oaths all gear towards being good or neutral.

I guess I can home brew a blackguard class.

DMG, Oathbreaker, he does the trick.

I would allow a player who decidedly RULES at interpretation to play and evil paladin, maybe of the ancients or of vengeance, but of course he would eventually break the oath almost certainly...

[goto124]

Are alignments really all that good as a mechanic, or do they work best as RP guidelines?

Computer games have alignment mechanics, but how those translate to TTRPGs, I'm not sure.

[mephnick]

Are alignments really all that good as a mechanic, or do they work best as RP guidelines?

Neither. They're clunky as a mechanic and restrictive/arbitrary/controversial as RP guidelines.

[archaeo]

Are alignments really all that good as a mechanic, or do they work best as RP guidelines?

Computer games have alignment mechanics, but how those translate to TTRPGs, I'm not sure.

Well, in theory, alignment can be another cool axis on which a character is measured. If there's a lot of crunch, and it has real effects on the game world, it can be interesting and cool.

In practice, from what I can tell, it mostly leads to arguing over exactly what "Lawful" and "Chaotic" means, or "Good" and "Evil," and it tends to be a conversation that is exactly 0% interesting in the context of the game. It can be fun playing "let's categorize people into 9 personality boxes," and it probably serves as useful shorthand for people who don't want to think much about characterization.

5e, with its focus on backgrounds, seems to be pushing players toward thinking more about their characters' outside the alignment grid, which only strikes me as a good thing. It's still there, for people who want to focus on it -- it's an interesting way to play the game, along with being iconic -- but it's not given much primacy.

[goto124]

So in 5e, alignment is just an RP guideline.

If I wanted it as a mechanic, I'll have to homebrew and/or use another system, and divorce 'mechanical alignment' from 'RP alignment' altogether... ?

[archaeo]

So in 5e, alignment is just an RP guideline.

If I wanted it as a mechanic, I'll have to homebrew and/or use another system, and divorce 'mechanical alignment' from 'RP alignment' altogether... ?

Basically! The DMG calls out alignment numerous times, often in the magic items, but it's more or less an RP thing now. Certainly, nothing in the PHB requires a given alignment, though playing an evil Paladin probably requires a bit of handwaving.

Edit: Oh, and the MM uses alignment a few times, notably in the Lycanthropy section.

[Eslin]

DMG, Oathbreaker, he does the trick.

I would allow a player who decidedly RULES at interpretation to play and evil paladin, maybe of the ancients or of vengeance, but of course he would eventually break the oath almost certainly...

Why? You could easily play a paladin of vengeance evil from the start. It's fight the greater evil, but the paladin doesn't necessarily have the best judgment on that.

[Knaight]

So in 5e, alignment is just an RP guideline.

Yep. The mechanical effects of alignment have been well and truly purged, and now the entire thing can be neatly excised from the game without causing any issues whatsoever.

Personally, my attitude towards that is one of "good riddance". I've never liked alignment, and every time I find a new game which has some sort of codified system for the character part of a character, I find that it's better than alignment. I've seen a lot of different ones, and alignment remains at the bottom of the pile (though it's non-D&D interpretations of it at the very bottom). That it is now effectively gone is one of the things I like most about 5e, and there's quite a bit I like about it.

[Naanomi]

Alignment matters for outsiders and the Outer Planes still, which is fine... Weird objective moral truths helps keep them 'alien' to the subjective morality of the mortal world.

For what it is worth, we have a Lawful Evil Vengeance Paladin in our game who regularly consorts with demons, Devils, and evil fae... He is a member of an order opposed to the 'greater evil' of the Far Realms and sees any cost as payable to oppose the unspeakable horrors there.

[Svata]

Alignment matters for outsiders and the Outer Planes still, which is fine... Weird objective moral truths helps keep them 'alien' to the subjective morality of the mortal world.

For what it is worth, we have a Lawful Evil Vengeance Paladin in our game who regularly consorts with demons, Devils, and evil fae... He is a member of an order opposed to the 'greater evil' of the Far Realms and sees any cost as payable to oppose the unspeakable horrors there.

The Far Realm isn't evil. Alien, non-euclidean, hungry, jwjkqshej, mind-rapey, terrifying beyond comprehension, as far beyond us as we are beyond algae, and weird? Oh, certainty. But not evil. It is true that good and evil are not concepts they have. They are beyond it. Above it. Outside of it. But not evil. No, evil requires that they consider us to be thinking beings. They are just harvesting their crop. No, never evil.

[goto124]

In Naanomi's world, the Far Realms are evil. DM ruling.

Or the paladin just THINKS it's evil, and acts accordingly :P

[Svata]

But making them just be "evil" takes away everything interesting and horrifying about them. It makes them understandable, less alien.... :smallsigh: Oh well. I'll just stay over here with my incomprehensible eldritch horrors being, well, incomprehensible.

[Naanomi]

Not evil alignment wise but 'the greater evil' cosmic threat wise for a paladin to focus on

[ghost_warlock]

That is not evil which can forever writhe
And in strange eons even good may die.

[Forrestfire]

But making them just be "evil" takes away everything interesting and horrifying about them. It makes them understandable, less alien.... :smallsigh: Oh well. I'll just stay over here with my incomprehensible eldritch horrors being, well, incomprehensible.

A farmer might call the wolves that constantly harry his livestock evil. An insect might call that same farmer, who merely dusts his crops to keep them safe, evil. The Far Realms may not be "Evil" in a cosmic morality sense, but the vast majority of the things from there are so incomprehensible and antithetical that they could could easily be labeled 'evil', for lack of a better word. They're the Enemy, the Other, That Which Is Not Meant To Be. Regardless of how Evil your allies might be, something that destroys without morality, merely by being around, is even worse.


On the note of alignment restrictions... I am very glad to see them go. D&D alignment has always only worked if you looked at it as a set of cosmic 'moralities' only tangentially-connected to actual morality, so removing alignment restrictions on options is fine by me. I've always liked Outsiders being physically made of their planestuff/alignment, because it made them that much more alien. In 3.5, you had to reconcile the existence of Angels that could murder innocents in cold blood because they were tagged as "Evil", without leaving their end of the alignment pool, or use magic brainwash enemies for the greater good (rewriting their soul in the process, something noted to be Big-E Evil in other books), with the idea that the alignments actually meant something regarding actions and ethics. If you remove their connection to actual morality, it becomes a series of planar factions, who sometimes overlap with what might be considered good/chaotic/evil/lawful.

[goto124]

Are there existing worlds/campaigns/modules/blah where cosmic alignment is intentionally very much seperate from goodness/evilness? Could have things like sex outside marriage = Evil (only if you're female, then you're Defiled Forever and stuff), Lawful = Good and Chaotic = Evil, etc. Alignment-based spells (Detect Evil/Good, Blasphemy, Smite Evil) all work exactly as well as you would expect in this sort of world. Is this even workable and enjoyable? There probably needs to be some kind of in-universe recognition that cosmic alignment isn't terribly reliable:

P1: Is NPC Lady good or evil? You have Detect Evil right? Use it!
NPC Paladin: Why? I know her in and out, she rescues regularly and helps out at the orphanage and many other things, she's a good person.
P1: Come on, just to make sure...
NPC Paladin: Fine... Detect Evil. Wait, she pings Evil?
NPC Lady: You've got to be kidding me.
NPC Paladin: Maybe it's something to do the sandwich you gave to that peasant, who turned out to be deathly allergic to peanuts.
*Everyone facepalms*

[Ralanr]

P1: Is NPC Lady good or evil? You have Detect Evil right? Use it!
NPC Paladin: Why? I know her in and out, she rescues regularly and helps out at the orphanage and many other things, she's a good person.
P1: Come on, just to make sure...
NPC Paladin: Fine... Detect Evil. Wait, she pings Evil?
NPC Lady: You've got to be kidding me.
NPC Paladin: Maybe it's something to do the sandwich you gave to that peasant, who turned out to be deathly allergic to peanuts.
*Everyone facepalms*

That is incredibly unsatisfying.

[Myzz]

for me any Chaotic PC, or NPC, that is a Paladin would find themselves on the outside looking in of their respective order... Paladin Orders are all about following rules and anyone of a chaotic alignment would have a very hard time doing so especially on a regular basis. Does that mean they lose their god given abilities? nope. They would lose any benefits of being within the political, social, and military structure that is the Paladin Order tho.

All my pallies are backed by a god, even if the PC chooses to be atheist. If the player chooses the deity, I require them to be 1 bump away. If they go outside of that, their God might start to withdraw their powers...

SO a Pally of a CE god, could be CE, CN, N, or NE... without any problems. except in the case of the Chaotic part which they would lose any benefits belonging to a military order would entail. Basically the leaders of the order who might be Chaotic themselves, require utter obedience to the rules that they have set down and harshly punish those who do not comply... So being Chaotic does not get you automatically kicked from the order, its actually playing out that alignment and not following the rules like you should that gets you kicked, or dead...

[Forrestfire]

:smallconfused:

Chaotic people can still obey orders. Hell, someone who only obeys (but still obeys) someone stronger than them is a fairly common archetype. You can recognize authority and be chaotic. Even the Paladin of Slaughter, from 3.5, is willing to obey orders from people they consider authority.

Also, it makes me sad that you artificially tie paladins to gods. They've always been fluffed as serving a higher power than the petty deities, and it's a shame to see that turned into just another generic cleric.


Are there existing worlds/campaigns/modules/blah where cosmic alignment is intentionally very much seperate from goodness/evilness? Could have things like sex outside marriage = Evil (only if you're female, then you're Defiled Forever and stuff), Lawful = Good and Chaotic = Evil, etc. Alignment-based spells (Detect Evil/Good, Blasphemy, Smite Evil) all work exactly as well as you would expect in this sort of world. Is this even workable and enjoyable? There probably needs to be some kind of in-universe recognition that cosmic alignment isn't terribly reliable:

One of my friends plays in a setting where alignment is the result of a massive supernatural bureaucracy. They file people into different 'folders', and the detect/blasphemy/etc spells reference the notes that the organization puts on people. There's one character who is basically a sociopathic necromancer, but who uses her magic and undead for Good enough that she's managed to con her way into a Good folder, for the purpose of pinging. Overall, it's recognized as useful to a certain extent, but only with broad details.

iirc, it partially grew out of a discussion on how 3.5's alignment system is inconsistent with actual morality in many, many cases.

[Myzz]

Chaotic people can still obey orders. Hell, someone who only obeys (but still obeys) someone stronger than them is a fairly common archetype. You can recognize authority and be chaotic. Even the Paladin of Slaughter, from 3.5, is willing to obey orders from people they consider authority.
As I said being chaotic does not get them kicked, if they can follow the rules, which would grate on them ceaselessly due to their chaotic nature, then everything is good.



Also, it makes me sad that you artificially tie paladins to gods. They've always been fluffed as serving a higher power than the petty deities, and it's a shame to see that turned into just another generic cleric.
Paladins are the military arm of the appropriate church, clerics being the Priests of that church, thats the way they have always been in my campaigns and they way they will continue to be in my campaigns. My players know this and plan their Paladins accordingly.



One of my friends plays in a setting where alignment is the result of a massive supernatural bureaucracy. They file people into different 'folders', and the detect/blasphemy/etc spells reference the notes that the organization puts on people. There's one character who is basically a sociopathic necromancer, but who uses her magic and undead for Good enough that she's managed to con her way into a Good folder, for the purpose of pinging. Overall, it's recognized as useful to a certain extent, but only with broad details.

iirc, it partially grew out of a discussion on how 3.5's alignment system is inconsistent with actual morality in many, many cases.

That does sound interesting.

In my world, doing something inherently evil (animating dead, which i realize is a debatable topic) to perform good deeds is at most a Neutral thing.

[goto124]

One of my friends plays in a setting where alignment is the result of a massive supernatural bureaucracy. They file people into different 'folders', and the detect/blasphemy/etc spells reference the notes that the organization puts on people. There's one character who is basically a sociopathic necromancer, but who uses her magic and undead for Good enough that she's managed to con her way into a Good folder, for the purpose of pinging. Overall, it's recognized as useful to a certain extent, but only with broad details.


Plane shift, sneak into office, move the papers around. Ta-da, that villian who managed to be Good is now Evil!

[Joe the Rat]

Plane shift, sneak into office, move the papers around. Ta-da, that villian who managed to be Good is now Evil!
Celestial Bureaucracies: Turning D&D into Shadowrun since the 15th Dynasty.

[Knaight]

Celestial Bureaucracies: Turning D&D into Shadowrun since the 15th Dynasty.

It's not like celestial bureaucracies are a modern concept. Even avoiding religious examples, there are plenty in pretty old Chinese literature. Sure, it doesn't exactly scream "medieval Europe", which is sort of the baseline for the sort of fantasy D&D emulates, but the default pantheons to which people attach themselves primarily to one god thing D&D has going on doesn't either.