D&D 5E So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?

[Sunseeker]

Why not just let the paladin figure out in-game what he did to upset Torm? It should be pretty obvious, and if it isn't, maybe get a cleric to commune with the deity to find out. Or he can just pray to the god and the DM should tell him THOU HAST ANGERED ME, SERVANT, ATONE IMMEDIATELY BY DOING X

I really don't see why we need to mollycoddle players for their bad in-game choices with kid gloves. If someone isn't mature enough to play a selfless champion who will risk his own hide to save the weak, and exhibit the virtues of self-sacrifice and generosity, honesty and compassion, then perhaps they deserve to lose their supernatural helper? It causes me a lot of discomfort that the player would be told this, and not the character himself. Perhaps the PC just feels "his connection to the divine slipping, his faith being lost....", and he should meditate on it. A lot of gods speak to their followers in allegories, dreams, or through animals or other religious iconography. This is D&D, the gods are in fact real...why should they not speak directly to their chosen champions? Why must it be OOC?

But that's not the LAWFUL good paladin. That's a wide range of "good" paladins. Again, I reference selfless characters in real history who broke the law in order to protect the weak, be self-sacrificing, generous, honest and compassionate. And even those figures did it in a variety of different ways.

If there should be any alignment restrictions on the paladin, it should be only to the MORAL alignment of "good", "neutral" or "evil". Because good places can have bad laws, and evil places can have good laws. The Paladin should at best be only limited in their morality, not in their legality. The authorized ajudicants of holy organizations historically broke laws on a regular basis because those laws were against church doctrine, or stood in the way of them accomplishing their chruch-given goals.

I want to state for the record that my officially "chaotic good" aligned paladin in 4e did more good and was more lawful than my mandated "lawful good" paladin I played in 3.5.

The Paladin doesn't need alignment restrictions universal to the class. The Paladin must choose a deity, and then adhere to the domains of that diety. So a Paladin of Bahamut should be honorable, just, and fair; they may follow the law when the law is those things, but when it doesn't they follow their godly code, lawful edging chaotic good.
A Paladin of Erathis however might look more lawful neutral, believing the laws of the land they are currently in to be the best guide for their actions in that land, even if the law seems harsh, stupid, or even oppressive.
A Paladin of Corellion might edge more towards chaotic neutral, defending things of beauty and nature and disregarding the laws of men entirely. A Paladin of Avandara might see laws as opposed to their god's ideals of change and luck, but still believe that the goals behind them are good, leading them to appear more chaotic good.
A Paladin(or Blackguard) of Asmodeus might see the law as a useful took to gain power and control over others, and utilize the flaws of the law to exercise cruelty and bring suffering to others by having a very strict or selective reading of the law.

That's ALL a Paladin needs, to adhere to the philosophical leanings of their god. There is no reason that Paladins from different deities are ALL going to be lawful good, it makes no sense. As long as the deities are fleshed out with some basic information on what domains they cover and their stance on good, evil, and law, then that's all a paladin needs.

Referencing my 4e paladin above, was a follower of the Silver Flame , which while not really a god, espoused exactly the ideals I felt a paladin should have and I don't recall ever deviating from them because they were specific enough to give me guidance on how to play my character, but vague enough to allow for personal interpretation.

We don't need alignment restrictions. Heck we don't really even need codes for anything more than making our paladins a little more specific, we just need some fleshed out deities to worship.

 

[Madmage]

Divine grace is a very good incentive to pump lots of points into CHA

Yes, but a Paladin in 3E wasn't necessarily absolutely terrible because it wasn't a high stat. For example, if say the campaign was a roll system and the player's best stat was a 14 the player could choose to place it elsewhere (say intelligence for more skill points) and while not exactly a powerful character, they are still viable.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Agree with removing the simplistic alignment restrictions in a future splat book, but the core "cavalier/paladin" should be LG. I loved Oathsworn class in AU, or UA, or whatever Monte's game was called.

In a future book, there could easily be non-alignment specific oaths, such as protect your king, this artifact, etc. But I don't think those options merit Core treatment, they are fringe options. What powers do you give such creatures? It would depend on Deity. They should, add perhaps as an option in the DMG to make your own Oaths and Oath power templates for suggestions on how to make options that would be similar in power and functionality to the default three, but why get ahead of ourselves? You can already do LG, LG or LN, or LE. It's hard to adhere to a strict code when you're chaotic, IMO. If chaotic means a champion of liberty, but I don't think deities of LG gods are so hard up for champions that they need to accept recruits from the village ruffians who grab wenches and spit on their superiors, who have no manners or etiquette or class. I know some people in real life who embody "chaotic" and I would not see them even wanting to swear allegiance to an oath or principle as a "thing", they're more carefree and fly by the seats of their pants kind of people. Great fun to be around, but not the steady, reliable type that you call when you are in trouble and need their help.

 

[Sunseeker]

Agree with removing the simplistic alignment restrictions in a future splat book, but the core "cavalier/paladin" should be LG. I loved Oathsworn class in AU, or UA, or whatever Monte's game was called.

In a future book, there could easily be non-alignment specific oaths, such as protect your king, this artifact, etc. But I don't think those options merit Core treatment, they are fringe options. What powers do you give such creatures? It would depend on Deity. They should, add perhaps as an option in the DMG to make your own Oaths and Oath power templates for suggestions on how to make options that would be similar in power and functionality to the default three, but why get ahead of ourselves? You can already do LG, LG or LN, or LE. It's hard to adhere to a strict code when you're chaotic, IMO. If chaotic means a champion of liberty, but I don't think deities of LG gods are so hard up for champions that they need to accept recruits from the village ruffians who grab wenches and spit on their superiors, who have no manners or etiquette or class. I know some people in real life who embody "chaotic" and I would not see them even wanting to swear allegiance to an oath or principle as a "thing", they're more carefree and fly by the seats of their pants kind of people. Great fun to be around, but not the steady, reliable type that you call when you are in trouble and need their help.

This is another great example of how the black and white legality range fails miserably in D&D. Either you're lawful...or you're not. But we still don't even know what lawful is! A person who ignores the laws of a civilization in favor of the laws of their god could be viewed as chaotic. A person who follows the laws of a civilization even when they're bad could be seen as unlawful to their god.

That's why having universal alignments is useless. The Paladin needs to adhere to the codes of their god or their religion. We can't go around demanding paladins be lawful without actually telling them what it means.

 

[Gorgoroth]

But that's not the LAWFUL good paladin. That's a wide range of "good" paladins. Again, I reference selfless characters in real history who broke the law in order to protect the weak, be self-sacrificing, generous, honest and compassionate. And even those figures did it in a variety of different ways.

I get your point, but since there are many ways to do acts of goodness, shouldn't the champion of a god follow the examples of their respective scriptures? Surely there must be precedents or styles to follow, rules and traditions. Those things don't matter much to the happy ranger or barbarian who all want to free the slaves too.

A paladin would do it even if it meant he got killed in the process, or had to give the shirt off his back to do it. I agree that a personal code of ethics doesn't mean you obey the law of the land blindly, but a holy order of knights should value social stability as a good means to provide and achieve a good life for the people against the encroaching of the agents of evil and chaos at the city gates. It's a chaotic world out there....I can't even stomach all the potholes in my old city! And people die from those, from car accidents. Laws enable you to have a safe, reliable, predictable way of life, that's what LG means to me. Not too many people envy the simple life of a barbarian, or the rustic solitude of a ranger, but life outside the city is often brutish and short.

A neutral good Paladin would be more like a high level paladin who enacts his own vision of what makes society Just and True, i.e. his "neutrality" along the chaos/law axis (or libertation freedom vs orderly axis) is something that he can champion. So sure, since there are NG gods, they should be supported too. Or NG oaths, that's fine, but then where does their magic come from? I thought DDN wasn't supposed to have magical martial characters. There still has to be either divine or arcane or something else powering his oaths

 

[Imaro]

This is another great example of how the black and white legality range fails miserably in D&D. Either you're lawful...or you're not. But we still don't even know what lawful is! A person who ignores the laws of a civilization in favor of the laws of their god could be viewed as chaotic. A person who follows the laws of a civilization even when they're bad could be seen as unlawful to their god.

That's why having universal alignments is useless. The Paladin needs to adhere to the codes of their god or their religion. We can't go around demanding paladins be lawful without actually telling them what it means.

Lawful means you follow a particular code or set of rules that define and guide your life. I don't see why that's so hard to grasp? The set of laws, whether bushido, chivalry or divine edict don't matter... only that you've chosen to follow them through your behavior.

 

[Madmage]

But that's not the LAWFUL good paladin. That's a wide range of "good" paladins. Again, I reference selfless characters in real history who broke the law in order to protect the weak, be self-sacrificing, generous, honest and compassionate. And even those figures did it in a variety of different ways.

Self-sacrificing for the greater whole does suggest less chaotic and more lawful or at least neutral behaviour by the explanation of the rules. Can a chaotic character be generous? Of course! But I would see it as they would do so once their needs (as they see it) are met. Say the government posts a bounty on a nefarious bandit. The chaotic good character would risk their life to try to bring the culprit to justice but would expect to be compensated to some extent for the deed if at least to cover their expenses. The lawful Good Paladin would do it without expectation of any reward except the spiritual reward of duty and working for the common good of society. The chaotic good character would see it as a choice rather than an obligation or duty. While both might be making a choice (the LG is making a choice between duty/obligation vs shirking those responsibilities and the CG is to do what is right vs the risks of doing so), there is a nuanced difference.

If there should be any alignment restrictions on the paladin, it should be only to the MORAL alignment of "good", "neutral" or "evil". Because good places can have bad laws, and evil places can have good laws. The Paladin should at best be only limited in their morality, not in their legality. The authorized ajudicants of holy organizations historically broke laws on a regular basis because those laws were against church doctrine, or stood in the way of them accomplishing their chruch-given goals.

I always found the concept of a neutral paladin to be silly. I pledge myself to the ideal of ... staying on the fence. It's not very evocative. Plus, I always found the druid in their pursuit of the natural balance to kind of play that role in the first place. I'd also suggest that politics also took place in conflicts between Church and State. A Church could become intolerant of those of other faiths as one of their implied goals is to promote their faith above others within their spheres of influence and to expand into new areas. If the intended purpose is to turn the Paladin from the paragon of LG to something like a divine Crusader then certainly that is an exercise that could be done. The previous incarnations of D&D made Paladins out as paragons of what it was to be LG and had their powers derive from LG sources (a philosophy or deity).

I want to state for the record that my officially "chaotic good" aligned paladin in 4e did more good and was more lawful than my mandated "lawful good" paladin I played in 3.5.

Without going into details of your campaigns, that is a function of circumstance. A paladin in a campaign set entirely in the Abyss would be very different than one set in something based on the Arthurian legend. The LG Paladin in the former case would be very much opposed to the status quo vs the latter because of the nature of the campaign.

One must also weigh doing vs trying. If the LG Paladin is never placed in a situation where they can promote lawful or orderly behaviour or are involved in a conflict of chaos vs law, then how can such a character be at fault for not doing more? That's not the scope of the campaign.

I'm currently in a 2E Greyhawk campaign paying a Paladin of the Shield Lands, devoted to Heironeous circa From the Ashes boxed set. My character liberated an island in the Nyr Div that was under the influence of a cambion in the service of Iuz the Evil. The island had formerly sworn fealty to Furyondy (one of the "good guy" kingdoms of the setting) but had been lost to Iuz's forces. The cambion was oppressing his people by forcing many of them into slavery and tormenting them. The "law" of the land, such as they were, was of Might makes Right. The cambion was the strongest one there and his goons imposed their strength upon the locals for self-serving ends. My character along with the rest of the group put an end to that (eventually). Does that make the character act in chaotic way? I'd say it was rather a lawful act because following the liberation my character restored the feudal hierarchy and rules over the native peasants as a benevolent baron concerned with their well-being and dignity. They still have certain obligations towards my character as part of the feudal contract but the people are content with that and happy when compared to their previous overlord.

The Paladin doesn't need alignment restrictions universal to the class. The Paladin must choose a deity, and then adhere to the domains of that diety. So a Paladin of Bahamut should be honorable, just, and fair; they may follow the law when the law is those things, but when it doesn't they follow their godly code, lawful edging chaotic good.
A Paladin of Erathis however might look more lawful neutral, believing the laws of the land they are currently in to be the best guide for their actions in that land, even if the law seems harsh, stupid, or even oppressive.
A Paladin of Corellion might edge more towards chaotic neutral, defending things of beauty and nature and disregarding the laws of men entirely. A Paladin of Avandara might see laws as opposed to their god's ideals of change and luck, but still believe that the goals behind them are good, leading them to appear more chaotic good.
A Paladin(or Blackguard) of Asmodeus might see the law as a useful took to gain power and control over others, and utilize the flaws of the law to exercise cruelty and bring suffering to others by having a very strict or selective reading of the law.

That's ALL a Paladin needs, to adhere to the philosophical leanings of their god. There is no reason that Paladins from different deities are ALL going to be lawful good, it makes no sense. As long as the deities are fleshed out with some basic information on what domains they cover and their stance on good, evil, and law, then that's all a paladin needs.

Referencing my 4e paladin above, was a follower of the Silver Flame , which while not really a god, espoused exactly the ideals I felt a paladin should have and I don't recall ever deviating from them because they were specific enough to give me guidance on how to play my character, but vague enough to allow for personal interpretation.

We don't need alignment restrictions. Heck we don't really even need codes for anything more than making our paladins a little more specific, we just need some fleshed out deities to worship.

The differences between the gods is that of perception and what values they place above others. I agree entirely it would certainly help to have the gods that do sponsor Paladin (or holy warriors of some kind) have certain guidelines defined and that is a matter of setting. If the idea of D&D Next is to present the core rules as divorced from setting, then one has to present a cohesive structure of what is the "generic" or "paragon" paladin. Again, the classes were first written with inspired examples from myth, legend and fantasy writings. Legolas, Aragorn, Robin Hood for the ranger, Arthur and his Knights for the Paladins.

As of right now, the designers wish for the Paladin to be a knight of some kind (like in several previous editions). Which implies a character that is part of a formal hierarchy (implying lawful) behaviour. If their desired intention is to make the class warriors devoted to a faith or cause that can take different alignments into question, then the class has to be made more malleable to fit that. Like the examples you provided, the holy warrior of X would be different than Y if both deities portfolios and domains where at wildly different places within the alignment spectrum. A paladin of Corellon might be more of a woodsman type vs the Paladin of Moradin that might be better suited to underground or mountainous setting.

 

[jonesy]

Lawful means you follow a particular code or set of rules that define and guide your life. I don't see why that's so hard to grasp? The set of laws, whether bushido, chivalry or divine edict don't matter... only that you've chosen to follow them through your behavior.

Jaime Lannister would go crazy reading that.

 

[Madmage]

Jaime Lannister would go crazy reading that.

Well Jaime, at least in the start of the series, is decidedly not a lawful individual in terms of D&D while a Stannis or Ned Stark would more fit the bill.

 

[jonesy]

Well Jaime, at least in the start of the series, is decidedly not a lawful individual in terms of D&D while a Stannis or Ned Stark would more fit the bill.

I was actually thinking of this:
"So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.”