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

[teitan]

I think the big issue in this debate is more what lawful implies and that isn't necessarily the law. I would call Superman the epitomy of lawful good but he will fight tyrants an tyrranical laws. He stands up for the little guy and those who seek to subjugate them for tyrannical purposes. How is this different from chaotic good though? Wolverine is chaotic good and he does these things right? Its the methods used to handle these conflicts. Superman will work with the police etc usually to do what he needs to do. He seeks to create a greater world and is liberal in his views. Taking care of people and laws that protect people and work towards the common good. Wolverine works outside the law and is more libertarian. He savors his freedom and while superman would accept certain laws that might appear restrictive like a registration act for super powered people, wolverine would fight against that law. Depending on how it is implemented so would Superman but while it is serving to protect people and working towards a common good he would support it.

LAwful good isn't about following laws but the greater good for the people, chaotic good is about preserving freedom. It is groups vs. Individuals. Both are society.

I prefer the of&d and basic approach to alignment with its three axes representing real elements like in the Elric stories that they were lifted from. Without the defined pantheon alignment takes on a different feel and without the good/evil vertix law vs. Chaos as a moral compass in a world where monsters dedicated to chaos as a force becomes more iconic and with clerics represents a real struggle as opposed to the fuzzy (though not really all that fuzzy) moral philosophies of modern and advanced d&d where they were role playing guideline. Except in planescape. PS is awesome lol. Funnier though is how much alignment is hard coded into advanced and modern d&d and barely plays a role in the magic of original and basic. When you embrace alignment as a real thing it can really have an impact on the game that can be a load of fun.

 

[Obryn]

They are not guidelines, they are cosmic dilineations.

When it's "obey your alignment or lose your cool stuff lol" then I fail to see the difference.

-O

 

[Dausuul]

I'm open to the idea of a paladin code, as long as that code does not use the alignment system in any way. Define specifically what kind of deeds the paladin is forbidden to do (or required to do!), and the consequences for violating the code.

Requiring the DM and the player to do this is a cop-out. You might as well just say, "If you want a paladin code, homebrew it." If paladin codes make an appearance in the book at all, they should work out of the box. DMs and players can always tweak the specifics if they don't like them.

 

[jonesy]

Alignment was never meant as a guide for roleplaying. You can have a wide variety of characters within any of the 9 alignments. The alignments are cosmic forces in the D&D world, and characters tend to have traits that reflect those forces. It is inspired by Michael Moorcock who goes into the philosophy in great depth albeit on the LAW vs. CHAOS scale.

It used to be law vs chaos in D&D. You'd have adventuring parties with both good and evil character working against the forces of chaos. At some point the axis shifted to evil vs good where you'd have both chaotic and lawful characters working together against the forces of evil. But really, nothing changed except the labels. They were still the same opponents, the same heroic goals. And that to me meant that the labels were wrong. The alignment system in D&D doesn't and never has represented what it thinks it does.

 

[jonesy]

I'm open to the idea of a paladin code, as long as that code does not use the alignment system in any way. Define specifically what kind of deeds the paladin is forbidden to do (or required to do!)

That's another thing right there. I continually see people talking about the things they must not do. I rarely ever see them talking about what they should do. Maybe the whole character design should be flipped on its head. Make the paladin a normal fighter, but give him extra abilities when he does the things his code says. Turn it from a punishment-based system to a reward-based system?

Edit: hang on a minute, wasn't that how it started? The paladin was a reward. It wasn' something you started the game with.

 

[Mournblade94]

When it's "obey your alignment or lose your cool stuff lol" then I fail to see the difference.

-O

The Paladin is a force for beneficial civilization. If the paladin does something evil, which really is usually pretty obvious, he is not supporting the benefit.

Where people get wrapped up is the LAWFUL violations, not realizing that lawful does not mean follows the ten commandments. If a paladin steals he should have to atone. IF a paladin lies to his comrades he should have to atone. If a paladin lies to the goblin boss, who cares?

 

[Mournblade94]

People don't ever seem to have this problem when they play Star Wars, and the Jedi code is even stricter than the paladin code I think.

WHat makes it different? IF you want to play a Jedi you have to follow the code, if not you are no longer a Jedi. Add the alignment in there, and a bunch of people suddenly get all twisted up over it.

If you can play a Jedi, you can play a Paladin.

 

[jonesy]

People don't ever seem to have this problem when they play Star Wars..

What.

 

[Gorgoroth]

It used to be law vs chaos in D&D. You'd have adventuring parties with both good and evil character working against the forces of chaos. At some point the axis shifted to evil vs good where you'd have both chaotic and lawful characters working together against the forces of evil. But really, nothing changed except the labels. They were still the same opponents, the same heroic goals. And that to me meant that the labels were wrong. The alignment system in D&D doesn't and never has represented what it thinks it does.

Really? Since when is good synonymous with lawful? or evil with chaos? Lawful evil is definitely the worst kind, since it's more meticulous, focused, and industrious. These things aren't merely labels. I'm not entirely sure any paladins would team up with an evil person to fight "chaos" in an abstract sense. Uphold the law, protect the weak, maybe. But yeah, there could be situations where that'd happen, and those are interesting roleplaying moments. The enemy of my friend is my enemy is more a lawful ideal than a good one. Good should distinguish. But in a game where PC alignment axes are optional, it makes sense to focus paladins on a "code", even if that "code" means to "do good acts". Which in the end, amounts to the same thing. Having the flexibility to define what the oath is, specifically, opens up tons of paladin subtypes, which are very easy RP hooks (especially for beginners).

I also hated chaotic stupid, and think Batman should have killed Joker a long time ago. How many have died because Superman refuses to kill the evil-doers?

 

[Starfox]

I quite like the alignment system. It works for me and my group. I can see how it would NOT work for some people, but to me it is not broken.

I feel there should be a code for paladins in the book, and I don't mind if it is alignment-based. An alignment-based code can be ignored or changed just as easily as a non-aligned code. Just as long as the paladin is balanced regadless of the restrictions, I am fine with it. Changing the paladin's code to fit your setting really is very simple.