Sure, you need "game systems" in a game. Hit points aren't particularly realistic, but they do allow you to play a game without a full (and probably overly complicated) simulation of the human body and its various reactions to trauma. I am fine with this because hit points generally get the messy details out of the way and let me play the game.
The problem with alignment is that it DOESN"T get the messy details out of the way. Rather, it forces the writers to pigeonhole every NPC into a daft framework that doesn't really have any payoff anywhere. Instead of debating character X's motivations at various plot points we are stuck with insipid arguments about whether or not they followed their alignment properly.
Better to scrap the whole thing and just write actual reactions that fit the situation and the characters that are being written. I am glad that 5e has done this.
To the bolded part: Alignment is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. It's the opposite of what you think it is.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I've never been a fan of closing certain classes for some alignment, especially since it didn't always make sense and was terribly restrictive. Why can a paladin only be lawful good? Why couldn't any evil or chaotic god have his own paladins?
That would make sense, if all you see when you look at a Paladin is "divine knight". But that ignores all the literary and mythical roots of the concept behind the class, and the tropes if plays upon.
It's like people who see the Monk class and go "why can't I play a european Monk who sits in a cloister and copies old tomes all day and maybe knows a little about herbs". Sure, there's nothing wrong with that character concept, but it's just not what the Monk class is supposed to classify. It draws from different roots and tropes.
In the same way, there's nothing wrong with the idea of evil gods having divine champions of their own, but why would they be Paladins? They'd draw from different sources.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
@rhobar
I think you make a good point about the implementation of the rules but bad implementation doesn't mean the rules are bad anymore than bad a bad RPG game means RPG games are bad. Now, yes, confusingly the game doesn't have many Lawful Good options. More often than not the "good" option is neutral good which I'm guess is just a dumb coding issue. They should be (null) good.
My biggest gripe with the game, probably (maybe after the design choice that makes most Cavaliers unable to cavalry their mounts until level 7). It's so annoying, especially since there are so few sensible Lawful choices and the vast majority are Lawful Stupid. Thankfully it seems less slippery in the full release than it was in the EA, when I played back then I was starting to switch alignments to Neutral Good by the time we first leave Kenabres.
