I also don't look at paladins as always following a deity, more of an ideal.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
jonesy
A Wicked Kendragon
I don't think they work for anyone when they become crunch restrictions. I've seen first timers get into heated arguments over what is lawful. And I'm talking about kids who were fine swindling each other in Monopoly. On one side you have one who wants to play a prototypical knight in shining armor, and on the other one who thinks the other has suddenly become a fascist. Kids not old enough to even have a discussion about the underlying philosophies are arguing about whether the first one has a right to do what he thinks is the right thing to do and whether that makes him evil or good.
Gorgon Zee
Hero
I fall into the camp that says that it's the ethics and the code that make a paladin, and vague rules about alignment aren't very helpful. I've run a long-running game for a party of fourish people, two of which were paladins (3.0, then 3.5, then 4e -- did I mention it was long running?) and the two of them had very different ideas of what paladins are like, but following the basic principle of Christianity, translated -- "What Would Heironeous Do? -- made it work.
Frankly, I don't recall a single argument about "law" or "good" -- it was following your deity. That was the code, and it worked very well.
I'm currently playing a halfling paladin of Bandobaris in 4e, and he has his code, too. Basically it boils down to "never do anything the straightforward way when it can be achieved by trickery" with a healthy dose of "stick it to the establishment". It's fun. Clearly I could play him as just a warrior / cleric, but a more general interpretation of paladin fits better, I think.
I just love charging into battle on my horse, knocking a foe to the ground with my lance, and then jumping on him to do sneak damage as my lance morphs into a rapier. Sometimes it even works. It's be much easier just to either be sneaky OR by paladin-y, but that's not Bandobaris's way ...
Frankly, I don't recall a single argument about "law" or "good" -- it was following your deity. That was the code, and it worked very well.
I'm currently playing a halfling paladin of Bandobaris in 4e, and he has his code, too. Basically it boils down to "never do anything the straightforward way when it can be achieved by trickery" with a healthy dose of "stick it to the establishment". It's fun. Clearly I could play him as just a warrior / cleric, but a more general interpretation of paladin fits better, I think.
I just love charging into battle on my horse, knocking a foe to the ground with my lance, and then jumping on him to do sneak damage as my lance morphs into a rapier. Sometimes it even works. It's be much easier just to either be sneaky OR by paladin-y, but that's not Bandobaris's way ...
Starfox
Hero
This has always been my problem with the paladin. "balancing" a class by role-playing restrictions is a really bad idea IMO. If I want to re-skin a paladin as a sacred sword-sage of the red moon, I should not have to re-balance the class just because I remove the behavior code and directed the smite against infidel instead of evil. It restricts the overall usefulness of the class.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
What is "good" exactly? What is "lawful"? It's nice to have D&D deal with morality, but quite frankly WOTC(and everyone else I've seen) sucks at defining it. They either create something so vague or wishy-washy as it's impossible to actually nail down in an effort not to offend people, or they create something so specific that it prevents a player from thinking creatively.
The latter is generally the problem with the LG paladin...hell the alignment restricted ANYTHING. Alignment is often so narrowly defined as it generates what was termed "lawful stupid", where a player isn't actually lawful good, but are so terrified of losing 99% of their class features because actually doing good could be outside the law. That's the paradox of "lawful good", because really, lets look at many "good" historical figures. Ghandi. MLK JR. Rosa Parks. etc...
These people are generally considered champions of "good" and even fair laws, but all of them had to break existing laws in order to achieve their goals.
How do we differentiate between a "good" law that should be followed, and a "bad" law that shouldn't? The DM plays both the PC's god, and sets the social norms of the society the party is in. This is a clear conflict of interest. Obviously if LG Paladin Bob is in the LE Kingdom, then there are pretty much guaranteed to be laws and morals and social systems that are utterly repulsive to the concept of "good". But it is still a lawful kingdom, even if it's nature is evil. How does bob reconcile this? Does he follow the laws, thus being "lawful stupid", ie: the law is the law, no exceptions, and therefore not do good things? Or does he do good things, even if they are in violation of the law? Who determines if Bob is being lawful? Who determines if Bob is being good? I'll tell you who it's not: It's not Bob! It's Bob's DM.
Which is the ENTIRE problem. Bob is required to follow an alignment code that he gets NO SAY in. He doesn't get to decide between a good deed and a lawful one, the DM decides if his deed was good or lawful. So Bob stops thinking. Bob falls back into "lawful stupid", where Bob does whatever the DM says will allow him to keep his powers.
I LOVE that 4e eliminated this. 4e was the first edition that I could honest-to-goodness play a Paladin who was both lawful AND good. Because my Paladin could follow a code that I derived from the domains of my deity, not a code set down by my DM. My paladin believed in a fair rule of law, that bad laws should be broken, ignored, and overturned. My paladin believed in doing good, by smiting the wicked but not doing so out of anger or vengeance, but out of a desire to protect others. It was the best paladin I ever played because I actually got to play it!
So this is the problem with alignment restrictions, in short they either:
A: are meaningless because they're too ill-defined to matter.
B: force players to stop thinking because they're so narrow and their punishment so extreme as they make players not want to take the risk.
And that's not even getting into the subject of polarized DMs or those who actively try to challenge a party morally.
The powers of a Paladin are not even in the eensey-weensey, tiniest way cool or powerful enough to warrant the kind of BS that alignment restrictions cause. In any game where the DM has even a vague inkling of moral leanings, you're better off just playing an honorable fighter...who honestly will play much better and never even have to blink an eye at alignment restrictions, even if that fighter is lawful to a fault and good through and through, a LG Paladin gains nothing of value from their alignment compared to other classes, while they lose everything if they aren't.
That isn't fun. That's stupid.
The latter is generally the problem with the LG paladin...hell the alignment restricted ANYTHING. Alignment is often so narrowly defined as it generates what was termed "lawful stupid", where a player isn't actually lawful good, but are so terrified of losing 99% of their class features because actually doing good could be outside the law. That's the paradox of "lawful good", because really, lets look at many "good" historical figures. Ghandi. MLK JR. Rosa Parks. etc...
These people are generally considered champions of "good" and even fair laws, but all of them had to break existing laws in order to achieve their goals.
How do we differentiate between a "good" law that should be followed, and a "bad" law that shouldn't? The DM plays both the PC's god, and sets the social norms of the society the party is in. This is a clear conflict of interest. Obviously if LG Paladin Bob is in the LE Kingdom, then there are pretty much guaranteed to be laws and morals and social systems that are utterly repulsive to the concept of "good". But it is still a lawful kingdom, even if it's nature is evil. How does bob reconcile this? Does he follow the laws, thus being "lawful stupid", ie: the law is the law, no exceptions, and therefore not do good things? Or does he do good things, even if they are in violation of the law? Who determines if Bob is being lawful? Who determines if Bob is being good? I'll tell you who it's not: It's not Bob! It's Bob's DM.
Which is the ENTIRE problem. Bob is required to follow an alignment code that he gets NO SAY in. He doesn't get to decide between a good deed and a lawful one, the DM decides if his deed was good or lawful. So Bob stops thinking. Bob falls back into "lawful stupid", where Bob does whatever the DM says will allow him to keep his powers.
I LOVE that 4e eliminated this. 4e was the first edition that I could honest-to-goodness play a Paladin who was both lawful AND good. Because my Paladin could follow a code that I derived from the domains of my deity, not a code set down by my DM. My paladin believed in a fair rule of law, that bad laws should be broken, ignored, and overturned. My paladin believed in doing good, by smiting the wicked but not doing so out of anger or vengeance, but out of a desire to protect others. It was the best paladin I ever played because I actually got to play it!
So this is the problem with alignment restrictions, in short they either:
A: are meaningless because they're too ill-defined to matter.
B: force players to stop thinking because they're so narrow and their punishment so extreme as they make players not want to take the risk.
And that's not even getting into the subject of polarized DMs or those who actively try to challenge a party morally.
The powers of a Paladin are not even in the eensey-weensey, tiniest way cool or powerful enough to warrant the kind of BS that alignment restrictions cause. In any game where the DM has even a vague inkling of moral leanings, you're better off just playing an honorable fighter...who honestly will play much better and never even have to blink an eye at alignment restrictions, even if that fighter is lawful to a fault and good through and through, a LG Paladin gains nothing of value from their alignment compared to other classes, while they lose everything if they aren't.
That isn't fun. That's stupid.
tuxgeo
Adventurer
Apparently I have given XP too recently to shidaku and am unable to do so again. Foo.
FireLance
Legend
IMO, one way to have both a balanced base class and a more powerful character who loses his additional abilities if he fails to live up to his code or ideals is to use the 4e concept of boons. That way, DMs who want more powerful paladin characters can allow them to start out with one or more boons, and if the PC fails to live up to the standards and restrictions of his oath, he just loses the boons and can fall back on his regular class abilities.
I am very hostile to alignment rules, for many reasons.
One reason is that the 9-point alignment system is descriptively hopeless. It purports to be a more-or-less universal system of classifying moral outlook, whereas in fact it bears almost no relation to any serious system of moral classification.
A second reason pertains especially to paladins, and came out upthread (eg in [MENTION=1165](Psi)SeveredHead[/MENTION]'s comments on lying). Knights in shining armour follow a code that bears only a limited resemblance to contemporary moral expectations. Lancelot or Galahad, for instance, would never tell a lie even to an enemey - and in romantic adventures, the story will be framed in such a way that this virtue brings them glory, not failure! Whereas a contemporary RPG scenario is likely to be set up so that the players will have trouble unless they're prepared to have their PCs lie.
For these reasons, plus plenty of others, I think the game would be better to leave this sort of stuff to individual groups (and a sidebar explaining various approaches would help with that).
One reason is that the 9-point alignment system is descriptively hopeless. It purports to be a more-or-less universal system of classifying moral outlook, whereas in fact it bears almost no relation to any serious system of moral classification.
A second reason pertains especially to paladins, and came out upthread (eg in [MENTION=1165](Psi)SeveredHead[/MENTION]'s comments on lying). Knights in shining armour follow a code that bears only a limited resemblance to contemporary moral expectations. Lancelot or Galahad, for instance, would never tell a lie even to an enemey - and in romantic adventures, the story will be framed in such a way that this virtue brings them glory, not failure! Whereas a contemporary RPG scenario is likely to be set up so that the players will have trouble unless they're prepared to have their PCs lie.
For these reasons, plus plenty of others, I think the game would be better to leave this sort of stuff to individual groups (and a sidebar explaining various approaches would help with that).
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
I think the best solution is to print something like this:
Oath of the Cavalier: You have taken an oath to defend the values of valor, justice, and chivalry. If you break this oath, you may lose your supernatural abilities. Talk with your DM to determine the details of this oath.
Oath of the Cavalier: You have taken an oath to defend the values of valor, justice, and chivalry. If you break this oath, you may lose your supernatural abilities. Talk with your DM to determine the details of this oath.
Last edited:
FireLance
Legend
IMO, that is a problem with contemporary RPG scenarios, and not with alignment per se.
Similar Threads
