Hatorade
A nice asshole.
- 8,463
- 7,209
Where does it say that? I remember the rule book says if your character become evil they also become NPCs, and alignment is still on the character sheet.
- 1
Baldur's Gate 3 by Larian Games
- Thread starter Lunis
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Hatorade
A nice asshole.
- 8,463
- 7,209
Gale is likely the worst of them all, that or they throwing a bunch of red herrings at us.
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,476
Alignment still exists, it just has no real impact. And there's no way that the rulebook says that an evil alignment player becomes an NPC. I play evil characters all the time. There are certain actions that if I do, the character becomes an NPC, but not just for being evil.
I shouldn't say that alignment has no impact, just that they've really gotten away from how important the alignment on your character sheet is. Paladins don't HAVE to be lawful good, monks don't HAVE to be lawful.
TJT
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,736
- 109,087
That's kind of silly though because a Paladin's lawful good derived powers have a hard time partying with human sacrificing necromancer or some other shit. They'd be honorbound to do something about it.
It's why playing Paladins true to character is LOL because they're actually monumental assholes.
It's why playing Paladins true to character is LOL because they're actually monumental assholes.
TJT
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,736
- 109,087
Monks need to be lawful because of the discipline involved in being a monk. That was always the reasoning. They just didn't need to be good. Atheist clerics? Seriously?
Paladins don't have to be good but most paladins followed a Lawful Neutral Deity and the cool part about the Divine casters was that they could follow good or evil gods and had to appease them accordingly. A lawful evil, "paladin" of Shar would be a blackguard or the equivalent evil Paladin class. Blackguard was one. I always liked playing Divine Champion of Cyric and concealing that I was evil at all for as long as possible. By pretending to be a typical asshole Helm following Paladin but doing evil shit because I was actually a Divine Champion of Lies.
Paladins don't have to be good but most paladins followed a Lawful Neutral Deity and the cool part about the Divine casters was that they could follow good or evil gods and had to appease them accordingly. A lawful evil, "paladin" of Shar would be a blackguard or the equivalent evil Paladin class. Blackguard was one. I always liked playing Divine Champion of Cyric and concealing that I was evil at all for as long as possible. By pretending to be a typical asshole Helm following Paladin but doing evil shit because I was actually a Divine Champion of Lies.
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,476
5e doesn't work that way though. paladins are "divine" casters, but there's no class-bound tie to any kind of diety. the idea is that they use charisma as one of their main stats specifically because their force of character was so strong, almost like their belief in whatever oath they take (the paladin subclass) is what gives them strength, not any specific deity. some oaths lend themselves to certain alignments more than others but there's no reason other than RP to be good or evil or lawful or chaotic. Oath of Vengeance, for example is about hunting and killing something specific (could be someone betrayed you, someone hurt your family, etc) to whatever end. if that means killing everyone and everything in your path than so be it. Oath of Crown is basically like a knight vassal, protecting the people that live on your lord's land.
yes, you can absolutely flavor your paladin to be a champion of Tempus which would put you at odds with the rogue in your group that likes to backstab and kill people in their sleep. but you don't have to anymore. You can be a true neutral monk that respects the lawful teachings of his monestary but is also perfectly happy sowing chaos so he can take advantage of the confusion.
you CAN play where alignment makes a difference... the games i play, alignment comes up in broad strokes. one of my games, i am playing a true neutral tabaxi monk who somehow got a hold of the sword of Kas. he has become a pretty devout follower of Kas. He KNOWS Kas is evil, but he also knows that Kas' goal is to wipe out vecna as well as any other liches along the way. he looks at it as a means to an end. some of the players love to point out "you know Kas is a bad guy right, that makes you a bad guy." and i just say, "no. it makes my character an opportunist."
anyway, point is, 5e (maybe it started with 4e? i didn't really play that edition much other than a couple of one shot games) dropped the emphasis on the alignment that's on your character sheet. alignment is sort of a nebulous thing, and it's something that i've complained about a ton in games that try to quantify it. being evil is a lot more nuanced than just psychotically murdering everyone and being good is a lot more involved than just refusing to take payment for a quest.
yes, you can absolutely flavor your paladin to be a champion of Tempus which would put you at odds with the rogue in your group that likes to backstab and kill people in their sleep. but you don't have to anymore. You can be a true neutral monk that respects the lawful teachings of his monestary but is also perfectly happy sowing chaos so he can take advantage of the confusion.
you CAN play where alignment makes a difference... the games i play, alignment comes up in broad strokes. one of my games, i am playing a true neutral tabaxi monk who somehow got a hold of the sword of Kas. he has become a pretty devout follower of Kas. He KNOWS Kas is evil, but he also knows that Kas' goal is to wipe out vecna as well as any other liches along the way. he looks at it as a means to an end. some of the players love to point out "you know Kas is a bad guy right, that makes you a bad guy." and i just say, "no. it makes my character an opportunist."
anyway, point is, 5e (maybe it started with 4e? i didn't really play that edition much other than a couple of one shot games) dropped the emphasis on the alignment that's on your character sheet. alignment is sort of a nebulous thing, and it's something that i've complained about a ton in games that try to quantify it. being evil is a lot more nuanced than just psychotically murdering everyone and being good is a lot more involved than just refusing to take payment for a quest.
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,476
what part don't you like? i ask because i really like it. 5e is designed to basically just be a wireframe for the DM's to do whatever they want
- 2
shabushabu
Molten Core Raider
- 1,408
- 185
i have played a ton of 3.5 over the years. One thing that is improved is BAB is GONE. So if you are a wizard with a staff u can actually hit stuff. However, 5e still suffers from the same thing D&D always has, there are a lot of misses due to dice rolls. Curious to see if that is showing itself in Baldurs.
- 3,699
- 6,712
I died in the prologue because of 3 misses. I couldn't help but laugh. It was shameful and almost had to commit sepuku. Been smooth sailing on dice roles since.
TJT
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,736
- 109,087
Tarrant
<Prior Amod>
- 15,801
- 9,212