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

[Imaro]

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.”

Maybe Jaime Lannister (the Kingslayer) is just looking for an excuse to justify being chaotic without loosing his powers?

 

[Madmage]

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.”

Gotcha. I was referring more to his desire to bone his sister and not care about the social mores or consequences, pushing Bran down the tower window to protect his secret, and his overall attitude of "I do what I want and if you have a problem with that, I'm strong enough to beat the snot out of you. " I'd say Jaime is close to a CN or N at the start of GoT and does change over the course of the series.

 

[jonesy]

Maybe Jaime Lannister (the Kingslayer) is just looking for an excuse to justify being chaotic without loosing his powers?

It's possible. But in the context he's also right. The mad king was killing innocents. He had sworn to protect them. He had sworn to protect him. He had sworn to follow the laws. He was damned in every option.

 

[Gorgoroth]

That's what makes the class interesting to play! great quote, I loved it too. But just because someone swore an oath out loud doesn't mean he is free to cross his fingers behind his back when he's deep in prayer. You can equivocate an oath, or chose one over the other, or live with the consequences. Game of Thrones is definitely nuanced, and I like that. I've been in campaigns where you had to chose between two goods, or between a greater evil and a lesser one. Perhaps atonement can be done while still keeping your powers in some cases, in order to keep protecting the weak. After all, Anakin did not turn overnight, it was a process. But the Force and D&D gods are not the same.

 

[Madmage]

It's possible. But in the context he's also right. The mad king was killing innocents. He had sworn to protect them. He had sworn to protect him. He had sworn to follow the laws. He was damned in every option.

Indeed. That's part of the dilemma of the Paladin in a certain sense. Nevertheless, his king was EVIL. He chose to act very late into the reign (i.e. the enemy was at the gates and the King was about to burn the entire city to the ground). He did struggle though as he has a flashback of a conversation with one of the other more senior Kingsguard about what to do. The Jaime at the start of the book series is one that is jaded because while he did do a good act in the end, he was chastised for it by the moniker of the "Kingslayer" by Targaeryan loyalists and some of Robert's supporters. Robert didn't seem to have much objection about Jaime other than denying him the chance to kill Aeris himself. He did consider making Jaime the Hand of the King at the start of the 1st book.

 

[Gorgoroth]

It's possible. But in the context he's also right. The mad king was killing innocents. He had sworn to protect them. He had sworn to protect him. He had sworn to follow the laws. He was damned in every option.

That's why your only oath should be to your deity, he/she will understand and illuminate your path, my child!

 

[jonesy]

That's why your only oath should be to your deity, he/she will understand and illuminate your path, my child!

So you're saying LG doesn't follow laws?

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

And breathing requires you to open your mouth....of course we still need to specify that one needs oxygen to live.

So what we need to do is not add abstract alignment restrictions, but define WHICH set of laws we're following. Which again...is EXACTLY what I wrote up above....and is EXACTLY what I wrote in half a dozen posts in this thread.

Lets say we have a Paladin class that we want to only be lawful good. Well, we don't know what defines lawful or good yet do we? So the Paladin must follow a code of conduct...so from whence does this code come from? The god or religion that they choose to follow.

So what we really need to do is say that the Paladin can only choose to follow a LG deity. This deity defines exactly what it means to be "lawful good" for all of it's followers. Be that following only the deity's laws, be that following the laws or the land, or some other ruleset.

So in order to achieve the LG restricted paladin, all we have to do is say that a Paladin must follow a LG deity, who then specifies the specific code of ethics the paladin must follow. Theres no restriction on the Paladin or the player to be LG, there's only a restriction that they must follow the rules as defined by their god. In the multi-deitstic world, the followers of two LG gods may be similar, but there are still going to be differences because of how that god/religion defines what it means to be "lawful good".

 

[jonesy]

So in order to achieve the LG restricted paladin, all we have to do is say that a Paladin must follow a LG deity, who then specifies the specific code of ethics the paladin must follow. Theres no restriction on the Paladin or the player to be LG, there's only a restriction that they must follow the rules as defined by their god. In the multi-deitstic world, the followers of two LG gods may be similar, but there are still going to be differences because of how that god/religion defines what it means to be "lawful good".

It would truly be an interesting scenario where two LG followers of LG gods ended up being enemies because of interesting code conflicts.

 

[Imaro]

And breathing requires you to open your mouth....of course we still need to specify that one needs oxygen to live.

You can breathe through your nose...

So what we need to do is not add abstract alignment restrictions, but define WHICH set of laws we're following. Which again...is EXACTLY what I wrote up above....and is EXACTLY what I wrote in half a dozen posts in this thread.

Like the paladin code from 3.x???

Lets say we have a Paladin class that we want to only be lawful good. Well, we don't know what defines lawful or good yet do we? So the Paladin must follow a code of conduct...so from whence does this code come from? The god or religion that they choose to follow.

Or the code of conduct in 3.x...

So what we really need to do is say that the Paladin can only choose to follow a LG deity. This deity defines exactly what it means to be "lawful good" for all of it's followers. Be that following only the deity's laws, be that following the laws or the land, or some other ruleset.

Why must a paladin follow a deity? He didn't have to in the last 2 editions (not sure about AD&D but he didn't in BD&D either)... if he did then, on top of the paladin's code he's choosing to follow the edicts of that deity as well as his paladin's code... it makes sense that they should not conflict...

So in order to achieve the LG restricted paladin, all we have to do is say that a Paladin must follow a LG deity, who then specifies the specific code of ethics the paladin must follow. Theres no restriction on the Paladin or the player to be LG, there's only a restriction that they must follow the rules as defined by their god. In the multi-deitstic world, the followers of two LG gods may be similar, but there are still going to be differences because of how that god/religion defines what it means to be "lawful good".

This is definitely one possibility for a paladin...