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

[Manbearcat]

This is really why I prefer a carrot approach over a stick. I agree that a character with a strong moral code has great dramatic potential.

I've found fate points and aspects (like FATE Core) to be pretty easily portable to most other systems, in one form or another. If the DM is pushing a hard moral choice, the player has to pay to resist it, but gets rewarded for playing according to their character. It pulls the PC's dilemma into the player's reward systems. My 4e Dark Sun game was helped immeasurably by adding them in.

-O

Couldn't agree more. That is precisely what I was getting at upthread with my post using MHRP's Milestone or Distinction system (gain a boon or plot point when invoking them in play; especially when invoking them for disadvantage to your character when their ethos/core is challenged). Fate Points and Aspects are pretty much the same deal. That would make for an extremely fun and rewarding Paladin play experience.

 

[Elf Witch]

But there is no reason there needs to be a "moral quandary class". You don't really gain anything as a paladin for acting in a righteous way, you just don't lose anything. There's a stick but no carrot. Moral quandaries can be addressed by any character, of any alignment, they just simply need to be set up in a manner to make players think about their actions. Setting up a lose-lose situation for Paladins because you want to be a dick and force the paladin to fail is where most "moral quandries" go and why they're so obnoxious.


Clearly not only the player felt lying was unacceptable, but the DM did as well. This is exactly the sort of gotcha game I have no desire to repeat.


Exactly, under the alignment restriction system there really isn't any room for moral quandaries. Players will do whatever lets them keep their cool powers, retreating to "lawful stupid" up until the point that the DM presents them with an impossible situation where everyone in the party walks away unscathed, even if they're lawful good, but the Paladin loses all his class features until they find a high level cleric to atone with. I HATE the idea that everything can be fixed by a high-level cleric. Hell even a high-level cleric who is LG, following a LG deity, heck, the SAME deity as the paladin gets out of the same moral issue completely unscathed.


.

That is very true and I have played many class other than paladins who were faced with moral dilemmas, But I find that they take on just a little more meaning when it is a paladin or a cleric. With other classes it can be a great role playing experience but that is it there is no real effect of an alignment change. With paladins and clerics to some extent you lose more I am not speaking just mechanically but they have lost their gods favor which can change everything for the character.

DMs who set up a lose lose situation are just bad at it. And if a player does not want to deal with it it should be made clear from the start and the DM should respect that. I have set up moral quandaries for paladins and other classes in my game and it is never a lose lose situation. There is always another way if they think about it and often they find ways that surprise me.


Like I said I think it should be a optional rule to lose powers and I explained how I like to do it. But I do think there should be in game consequences for classes who have a religious bent it is bad role playing to do evil acts and expect your god if he is a good to look the other way. That is part of playing a cleric, favored soul or paladin.

This is something I make clear to any player who wants to play one of these classes that if you drift to far from your god theology then their will be some kind of consequence.

I think you are reaching when you claim that alignment restrictions is the cause of lawful stupid behavior. I have seen plenty of players play paladins just fine with those restrictions. And I have seen players play lawful stupid even in games where the alignment has been removed. I think some people just don't get lawful good like I said earlier they see things in absolutes and miss the subtle degrees.

 

[Elf Witch]

Why should it scream "munchkin" if gods don't strip clerics of their power? You're acknowledging that arcane and martial classes don't have similar limits.

-O

Why do all the classes have to be the same? Arcane and mundane classes don't get some of the special things that clerics, paladins and other religious classes get.

There is also the role playing aspect of it. It makes no sense to think that you can do what ever you want as a religious character and get away with it the gods are real in most games they won't tolerate it. And even if they are not real the church hierarchy might come after you if you give the church a bad name.

It is kind of being a munchkin if you pick a god for the cool stuff but have no intention of at least trying to follow the gods portfolio.

 

[Manbearcat]

Exactly, under the alignment restriction system there really isn't any room for moral quandaries. Players will do whatever lets them keep their cool powers, retreating to "lawful stupid" up until the point that the DM presents them with an impossible situation where everyone in the party walks away unscathed, even if they're lawful good, but the Paladin loses all his class features until they find a high level cleric to atone with. I HATE the idea that everything can be fixed by a high-level cleric. Hell even a high-level cleric who is LG, following a LG deity, heck, the SAME deity as the paladin gets out of the same moral issue completely unscathed.

Classes should not allow DMs to assault your personal morality by presenting impossible situations that do nothing by slap people across the face for trying. LG alignment restrictions slide towards a conception of universal "lawful goodness", thus making players with a different idea of what "LG" means have to challenge the DM, who is using his personal moral code to determine alignment.

I don't play D&D to argue morality with my friends.

You know what happens when players get tired of this? They roll a Favored Soul or a Cleric and tell the DM to shove it. There are a dozen different "holy" classes whose powers reasonably should be tied to how well they hold to the commands of their god/religion, but only ONE class loses everything for it.

This is a very good post and cuts to the heart of many of the "stick" issues.

Here is what I know:

- I am a thoughtful, extremely learned person in morals/ethics/philosophy, who has well-considered and well-developed positions on these issues at the metaphysical level, the micro-social scale, and in the context of greater social systems.
- I am fully confident in my ability to argue for and against my positions.
- My players trust in my acumen and sincerity as an ethicist and as a GM.

Boy. That is a lot of confidence, right? I should feel great about "absolute GM authority" when it comes to the imposition of ethos pass/fail judgements and corresponding dictation of player power loss, right? Not even close. Because I also know:

- I am not remotely unique in this in the greater gaming community at large and, more importantly, nor even at my small table of myself and 3 players.
- Losing power via the imposition of ethos failure judgements is not a "lacking in controversy" issue at a table. No matter how smart, learned or convincing a person is as an ethicist, this issue will sow discord, potential disagreement or, at the very least, require explicit justification. This, in turn, will create the need for contrived and unwieldy (i) "information dump" exposition at the table via interaction with NPCs, or (ii) outright dialogue (external to the fiction) at the table.
- I don't want either (i) or (ii) at my table. Contrived color via expository dialogue to clearly portray my reasoning and thus legitimize my "stick" is weak parlor tricks and wreaks of terrible movies which are unable to convey their plot underpinnings via implicit storytelling magic. Overt dialogue (within the fiction or external to it) requires mental overhead and table handling time committed to legitimizing this anointed position (which means that its either only the illusion of anointment or self-anointment) as moral arbiter. Both are game-disrupting.

For all of these reasons, I will take the "carrot" approaches whereby a balanced class is

1 - tactically and strategically rewarded by merely playing to its tightly bound, thematic underpinnings and passively 'punished' (meaning not rewarded) by playing outside of the sphere of that ethos (eg 4e)

or

2 - rewarded with thematic and tactically rich boons by having its ethos challenged, making difficult decisions and succeeding or voluntarily failing in an interesting way that empowers the player to propel the narrative forward via dynamic, thematic complications" (eg any number of narrative games)

over

3 - the "stick" approach in which a fundamentally overpowered class causes game balance problems (requiring my mental overhead to handle in play) in its standard state but that can be stripped of that unbalancing power and rendered underpowered (again requiring my mental overhead to equilibrate) by way of moral adjudication by (self) anointed arbiter...which implicitly mandates the commitment of mental overhead and table handling time (with a healthy side of potential trust erosion when two well-considered, reasonable, thoughtful people ultimately just disagree) in the way of contrived, "information dump" expository dialogue within the fiction or external dialogue with players outside of it.

 

[Starfox]

And even if they are not real the church hierarchy might come after you if you give the church a bad name.

Well, this could apply to any class- a fighter known to be dishonorable loses the respect of his peers (suddenly city guards won't let him keep his arms and armor), a wizard ousted from his guild will find it much harder to expand his spellbook, a bard taking things to far wont be in on the romor mill and so on.

But there is a huge difference between going renegade like this, abd loosing al your powers.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Exactly, under the alignment restriction system there really isn't any room for moral quandaries.

This is a very good post and cuts to the heart of many of the "stick" issues.

In my very long 3.5 game, my players (all Good, by alignment, for about 3/5 [maybe 4/5?] the game) had many moments where they questioned if Good was "right" or not. And, we even go to 3.5 once every 6 months or so to play the same characters (even though I dislike 3.5's implementation very much), and Good being "right" or not is at the very heart of what they left their characters dealing with, and where we'll pick them up again.

I think that absolute alignment systems let people question things. It's not Good by alignment, but is it morally right or wrong? There's tons of room to explore that at my table (not that my RPG has alignment), and my players have time and again. But that's my group and my experiences.

As to the main thrust of manbearcat's post (I only briefly skimmed it, so my impression, anyways): I could go either way on the carrot / stick thing. Personally, I prefer both. But, I also like using both fail forward and fail [backwards]. The more tools I have at my disposal, the better. As always, play what you like

 

[Scott DeWar]

Spambot Sally600 reported

 

[pemerton]

So... you want an explanation of why torture is evil?

Personally, no - I have my own views, and a reasonable knowledge of the literature (including the literature around so-called "torture warrants"), and I think to go into it would be contrary to board rules.

I was making a different point, namely, that the traditional outer planer structure doesn't determine the ideals of any alignment. It presupposes them. The ideals have to be sourced elsewhere.

And likewise, it can't be "shifting of the planar balance" that explains why an action is good or evil; because it will only shift the planar balance if it is already, in some logically prior sense, good or evil.

Why can't both be right? Doesn't mean the argument will necessarily devolve into a fight but it can be a conflict of discourse or political maneuvering to prove the supremacy of one's beliefs. Taking the above example, the feudal contract might not be evil, but it could be seen as not Good (i.e. neutral) by the paladin promoting institutions based on the people electing their own legitimate authority rather than basing it on landed gentry.

But if it was not good but neutral then the paladin espousing it would be in breach of the code. And if it was in fact good, then the paladin opposing it would be in breach of the code.

To be clear, I have nothing against conflict between paladins. Lancelot and Gawain came to blows, after all. I am saying that in a traditional D&D alignment set up there is no room for it, because the paladin whose views are wrong will immediately suffer the consequences of code violation.

And [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION], I think I misunderstood you - I took you to be defending the traditional approach. If in fact you were trying to show that it is a failure at setting up and inviting players to explore moral conflicts in play, then we're in agreement!

there are indeed plenty of "paladins" being played by immature or just simply greedy players out there, trust me, and the DM needs a way to not have to give them IRL morality lessons.

Why? If you don't want to give them morality lessons, what's the objection to them playing a paladin that differs from the GM's conception?

If the issue is just that they're a bad player - eg they want to play an obviously cowardly PC while insisting that their PC is a paragon of courage - then I don't see that I need special paladin rules to handle that. At least for me, the issue will go deeper and as I said upthread my solution would be to boot that player.

I want D&D gods to have real power

The DM should speak the will of the gods through the game

These two things aren't in general equivalent (though they may be at some tables).

The gods in my gameworld have real power - for instance, they can return the dead to life (and that has happened to two PCs in my game).

But the gods are not played solely by me as GM. Given that four of the five PCs in my game are divine characters (invoker, paladin, fighter-cleric, ranger-cleric) and one is a non-divine member of a divine cult, I (as GM) don't have sole authority over who the gods are and what they want. The players share that authority, given how integral the gods are to their PCs.

 

[Gorgoroth]

That is really cool permetron. I would probably enjoy playing a 4e game (or whatever edish) at your table, to be honest, but I'm also okay with giving the DM narrative control over supreme beings, that are perhaps inscrutable except when they deign it warranted to intervene. For example, as a DM I would never res a PC follower unless he died valiantly or was doing something supremely important that no one else around could achieve, like Gandalf coming back as the White Wizard. But as a player, obviously, I'd rather not have my character be totally dead. (though I'm okay with that too, because, well, if one is mature enough to understand mortality in real life, one certainly should be in a game). I think if the divine interventions make sense and don't cheapen the gods, then do it. If it happens too often, it ruins it. But the paladin who sacrifices his own life to save the world, coming back as an Avatar with perhaps some white hair or something, that's super cool. I do want the PCs to interact with their gods, possibly communing with them directly at critical moments (and not just via spells, but daily prayer and/or sacrifices or rituals).

But in terms of actually sharing the authority for the PCs controlling the deities? that seems like sharing the DM responsibilities a little too much. But that can work too, if you alternate DMs in the same campaign world, so each DM expands upon, and thus must know, what the internal motivations of some of the prime movers are. I just don't want to know the script beforehand, as a player. I don't want to know that my god's secret plan for me is to make me their Avatar, or to excommunicate me the next time I do something wrong. What I'm saying is, PCs would themselves never willingly disconnect themselves from their divine grace, and thus it's a conflict of interest to have them adjudicated by themselves (even if by committee). It's like the police launching an "internal investigation", and we all know how little that achieves. Yeah, we're "looking into it", that incident where you let the village burn instead of risk your life to save it...sure, no problem! we're all good. ...Nah. No matter how mature and capable of self-control the players are, they still have their motivations which should be at odds occasionally with their deities. It creates dramatic tension, and has tons of precedent in real life religious myths. I just don't see how it makes a good game to play chess against yourself, so to speak.

 

[Madmage]

I was making a different point, namely, that the traditional outer planer structure doesn't determine the ideals of any alignment. It presupposes them. The ideals have to be sourced elsewhere.

And likewise, it can't be "shifting of the planar balance" that explains why an action is good or evil; because it will only shift the planar balance if it is already, in some logically prior sense, good or evil.

I disagree mainly because in the example of torture within the D&D alignment system, is considered an ultimately evil act. Choosing and acting upon the choice of torture is committing evil. To opt not to isn't Evil but not necessarily an act of Good. By being an agent of good, conceding to take an evil act is recognition that Good is not superior to Evil. Thus, the planar balance is shifted (albeit extremely slightly in the parameters of the multiverse). The dilemma of the Paladin in the first 3 editions of the game was varying degrees of how to best serve as that paragon. Nevertheless, the Paladin is a mortal being and thus not infallible. The class was about living up to a set of ideals.

I do agree that the earlier basic or original settings were very clear cut in their definitions of good and evil. It wasn't hard to determine who was evil in a setting like Greyhawk with entire countries making pacts with fiends from the lower planes as frequently as the local insurance company does with their customers (some might argue they are one and the same! lol). But if you are at a table where a player must justify that his Paladin will lie, cheat and steal on a regular basis... well I think the fact he or she has to do so certainly warrants a discussion or perhaps a warning such as "As you are about to pocket the coin, you are overwhelmed by a sense of guilt. Are you sure you take the coin?" Or divine warnings etc.

But if it was not good but neutral then the paladin espousing it would be in breach of the code. And if it was in fact good, then the paladin opposing it would be in breach of the code.

In RAW, you only lose your powers when you willingly commit acts of evil. I think the point of contention everyone seems to be having here is that some think there is only 1 definition of Lawful Good. In most campaign settings, there's multiple deities of Lawful Good and even in the context of Planescape, there are multiple layers to Celestia that represent different aspects of Lawful Good.

Going back again to the Forgotten Realms, as that is the setting I am most familiar with, both a Paladin of Tyr and a Paladin of Ilmater will both fight slavers but their main motivation would be different. The former would be fighting for the matter of Justice and the rights of the individual, while the other to rescue the slaves from a life of undue hardship. They might even employ different methods where the Ilmaterite would be more willing to allow himself to get captured if the fight goes against him to try to help those within while the Paladin of Tyr would be more open to working with local authorities. However, the paladins themselves can have disagreements because the Ilmaterite might criticize the Tyrite for taking too long by trying to organize support from the local authorities which would lead to the retort that his methods would bring greater force to bear to prevent slavers from escaping and continuing their ignoble deeds. They are both fighting for the same cause, just using different methods that are both lawful and good. As a DM, I would both see them as being right.

The example used by Shidaku is similar. The perception of a paladin from a feudal society will be that his form of government is just so long as the local lord adheres to the social contract and doesn't abuse the local populace. The paladin that hails from a cosmopolitan city-state would see it differently because the feudal contract can be twisted by petty or selfish lords and his experience of a democratic state where the power of the community and legitimate authority derives from the Populace is more likely to form a just society. On the other hand, the feudal Paladin could point out that many city state officials can become corrupt and that system doesn't necessarily behoove officials (elected or appointed) to have a stake in the general welfare of the community. I.e. the local clerk doesn't benefit directly from the well-being of the populace.

The more this thread goes on, the impression I get is that some players or tables have had bad experiences while others have had good experiences or no issues. The 3rd edition basic write up was simple enough (no lying, cheating, etc) that it set up a guideline of what was unacceptable without going out of its way to give a morality lesson to readers. If the eventual PHB for D&D Next has enough room to go into more detail then I say great! But limitations of page count and so forth are to be considered (and perhaps desires to publish books on the divine classes) and so I won't fault the designers if they KISS. My table doesn't need a complete and thorough treatise on both the spirit and letter of what LG is. Hopefully, no one else does either. And if you do... well the current iteration of the Paladin can be LN or LE so have fun!