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

[am181d]

I don't get people who say they can't tell the difference between the cleric/fighter and Paladins.

Clerics are the priests, Paladin's are Knights that are invested with divine authority, fighter are soldiers.

I believe the issue is that this isn't how they're generally represented in the rules. Clerics are armored warriors who cast spells. Only 2nd edition (and some of the alternate classes of 3rd) provided a good alternative limited combatant priest.

And as has been pointed out elsewhere, Paladins aren't necessarily knight-themed in 3rd and 4th edition.

I'm all for replacing the Cleric with the Priest, with more emphasis on spell-casting and less on fighting, but that's clearly not the direction 5e is going in...

 

[Sunseeker]

Well that's just the wrong way to DM this. Paladins should never fall for struggling between Law and Good. You're supposed to be pulled between the two axes sometimes when you're on a diagonal alignment. A Paladin should only fall if they forsake Good for Evil or Law for Chaos.

Again...how are we defining "lawful"? Is a lawful person one who follows the law because the law is the law therefore it is right and must be followed? Are we talking about a "higher law" passed down through deistic/church dogma that the paladin follows regardless of the laws of the area?(ie: your Church says "slay those who do immoral things *insert list of immoral things*, even if the local law says killing outside of their own law is bad.) Perhaps "lawful" is really just the laws of your homeland, you follow the law there and elsewhere as best as their laws would apply to new places, or maybe not at all? Maybe "lawful" means following your personal code of conduct that you have determined to be the guiding principles of your life?

And then how are we defining good? Is it Church doctrine? Deistic commands? Helping people in need? Again, these things often conflict with "law", and the "law" above can conflict with "good".

The two-dimensional nature of the alignment system, law vs chaos, good vs evil is great for a highly trope-tastic fantasy world where good is obvious, evil is clear, and laws are always righteous. Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that such worlds do NOT make up the majority of D&D games. Even classic D&D-based material such as the Dragonlance books, good is not obvious, evil is not clear, and laws are not always righteous. In the face of the fact that this can be found in almost every book referenced in the dreaded "Appendix N", the fact that D&D would rely on a system that so clearly does not represent it's source material is absurd. To enforce restrictions upon players on the basis of such a flawed system that doesn't contribute jack towards representing the source or generating creative new material is even more absurd!

In a D&D world where things are black and white, yeah, the alignment system is fantastic. In any other kind, the vast majority kind of D&D worlds? It's so much beyond horrid that it's not even funny.

 

[pemerton]

If a paladin lies to the goblin boss, who cares?

Me. Lancelot and Galahad and Arthur are honourable. That their foes are dishonourable, incapable of conducting themselves in a fitting way is a burden on those foes, not on them. They won't sully themsleves with lies and deception, however base those with whom they must deal!

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.

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?

Thus do I prove that it's often not very obvious at all!

Paladins aren't necessarily knight-themed in 3rd and 4th edition.

I don't know 3E well enough, but a 4e paladin wears Full Plate, typically carries a shield, and is a selfless defender who specialises in interposing him-/herself between enemies and allies. In the Essentials version she is dedicated either to Virtue (like a knigh) or to Vice (a black knight).

There's no steed in 4e, true, but that's a function of the fact that (i) it doesn't care much for pets, and (ii) like many fantasy RPGs, it's mounted combat rules aren't all that smooth.

I guess you could do funky stuff with a hybrid who didn't take Paladin Armour Proficiency, but that's a bit of a corner case.

This right here... without the code I'm finding it hard to discern the difference between a cleric (martial champion of their deity) or cleric/fighter and a paladin (uhm... more martial champion of their deity???).

There's never been any difference, other than the mechanical. Clerics are modelled on crusader knights. Paladins are, virtually by definition, crusading knights. It's the same thing.

Of course, you can amp up the behavioural restrictions around the paladin if you want, but that is just another mechanical difference. Do we really think that Edward the Confessor, or Roland, or Aragorn, took his obligations to god more seriously than did the prophets on whom many of the more iconic cleric spells are modelled, or than the Knights Templar who are said by Gygax to be their archetypical inspiration?

 

[Starfox]

There's never been any difference, other than the mechanical. Clerics are modelled on crusader knights. Paladins are, virtually by definition, crusading knights. It's the same thing.

A large part of the blame here falls on the multi-classing rules. A fighter-cleric will never quite be a paladin, feeling like a gimped fighter or gimped cleric. In a classless system, the border can blur a lot more. Its part of the price we pay for easily recognizable class/roles.

 

[Balesir]

You see I've always found the interesting part of playing the paladin deciding exactly what is or isn't worth risking the loss of one's power and divine grace over. If I can do whatever I want and still retain my power... where are the hard choices and interesting atonements?

What makes for "hard" choices or interesting ones, anyway? For me, the root of the problem of including moral codes and questions into the mechanics is that the game is naturally limited by its participants. I the arbiter of "what act qualifies as sufficiently evil for me to lose my powers" were an actual god, or at least a true moral authority, it might be interesting. But when it's just my mate Steve deciding based on how he feels at the moment, it's not the same. I'm no longer addressing an interesting question about ethics or the nature of good and evil - I'm just testing how well I know the GM's opinions and views, at least as they pertain to the game world.

It's not that I dislike exploring moral issues in a roleplaying game - quite the opposite - but if the issue is codified into the rules mechanics, I don't think that's what you end up doing. To explore such things, systems like Dogs in the Vineyard tend to be a better bet.

 

[Mournblade94]

Me. Lancelot and Galahad and Arthur are honourable. That their foes are dishonourable, incapable of conducting themselves in a fitting way is a burden on those foes, not on them. They won't sully themsleves with lies and deception, however base those with whom they must deal!

It depends on the code your god wishes you to follow. Galahad and Arthur are written as the pinnacle of Chivalry as defined by the Christian sensibilities and Courtly Love. A god like Kelemvor would not necessarily hold his knights to the same standard. Ilmater another LG good is far more concerned with suffering and if lying to that Goblin King will alleviate that suffering than so be it.

If you were playing a paladin emulating the Knights of the Round Table no you should not lie to the goblin king, but there is room to move, and the Oath can take care of that.

Thus do I prove that it's often not very obvious at all!

Not in this case. Batman and Superman not killing the villain is not an evil act at least according to Judeo Christian sensibilities which the paladin is based. YES killing the villain would ensure some people don't die, but we all know the slippery slope arguments that have been posed in literature that covers that, i.e. Captain America, Superman, Frodo not killing Gollum.[/quote]

Of course, you can amp up the behavioural restrictions around the paladin if you want, but that is just another mechanical difference. Do we really think that Edward the Confessor, or Roland, or Aragorn, took his obligations to god more seriously than did the prophets on whom many of the more iconic cleric spells are modelled, or than the Knights Templar who are said by Gygax to be their archetypical inspiration?

Roland served the realm well, not just -od. Edward the Confessor served his realm with Piety. The prophets served no realms and only served their religion.

It is difficult to draw analogy to historical figures because they are merely where the inspiration for a concept derived, not the model of the concept.

 

[Visanideth]

I think an interesting angle of the discussion that has been somewhat omitted is that divorcing paladins from alignement wasn't a one step process in D&D.
We actually have 3 states of being:

A) the paladin is alignement-bound, and has to be Lawful Good
B) the paladin is alignement-bound, and has to match his deity's alignement
C) the paladin is not alignement-bound, and the nature of his oath is left to agreement between him and the DM, and to roleplay


Aside from 4E (which followed C), D&D has juggled quite a bit between A and B. A is, in my eyes, problematic, because it implies that either:

a) only lawful good deities can have paladins
b) paladins don't have to follow their deity's alignement

The implications here are interesting. a) is a somewhat archaic approach, and narrows down the paladin concept the most. But b) does too, because it removes the breath of different paladin concepts that could stem from different religions and deities, and turns the Paladin (divine warrior) into a Knight (morally flawless warrior).

So unless what you want is Knights and not Paladins (as in, you want pseudo-christian mythical noble warriors rather than exalted servants of any deity who excel at martial combat), the entire alignement coding makes very little sense. If Paladins have to be Lawful Good, how would a paladin of Lolth look like? Would a paladin of Kord be really Lawful?


In the end I think 4E had the right approach. The paladin was bound to the alignement that stemmed from his background, but that alignement could be any alignement and not just one. Every individual paladin maintains the quirks of the paladin type, but the breath of different paladins you could create was preserved.

 

[Imaro]

What makes for "hard" choices or interesting ones, anyway?

Well I can honestly say for me and my group... do whatever you want with no consequences isn't a hard choice.

For me, the root of the problem of including moral codes and questions into the mechanics is that the game is naturally limited by its participants. I the arbiter of "what act qualifies as sufficiently evil for me to lose my powers" were an actual god, or at least a true moral authority, it might be interesting. But when it's just my mate Steve deciding based on how he feels at the moment, it's not the same. I'm no longer addressing an interesting question about ethics or the nature of good and evil - I'm just testing how well I know the GM's opinions and views, at least as they pertain to the game world.

Doesn't the DM create and arbitrate most things in the game world? Why is this different? IMO, if this is Steve's campaign then he's in the position to define good/evil/law/chaos in it (and contrary to how you are presenting it... these don't have to be Steve's particular views). Now he should of course lay out these views for the players pre-campaign, and once that is done then you have the information you need to determine whether you want to explore those issues and hard choices (play a LG paladin) or not (play one of the numerous classes that don't interact with alignment on that level).

It's not that I dislike exploring moral issues in a roleplaying game - quite the opposite - but if the issue is codified into the rules mechanics, I don't think that's what you end up doing. To explore such things, systems like Dogs in the Vineyard tend to be a better bet.

IMO, these are two different ways to explore moral issues...

It's been a while since I read Dogs but if I remember correctly...with DitV you are the moral authority, so it isn't a question of whether what you did was right, wrong or worth sacrificing your power or authority for... it's more about what lengths you are willing to go to in order to enforce your moral beliefs on others.

With a paladin, it's about what you are willing to sacrifice (atonement, permanent loss of power, etc.) when your idealized code is put to the test in the real world.

YMMV of course.

 

[Visanideth]

With a paladin, it's about what you are willing to sacrifice (atonement, permanent loss of power, etc.) when your idealized code is put to the test in the real world.

This is a common outlook, but isn't it a bit of a paradox, tho?

If the crux of the paladin's dilemma is that he inevitably has to pay a price for breaking his code, the moral of the story is that paladinhood is a failure.

Explaining: the paladin may be breaking the code for 2 reasons.
He fails to comply to it - he acts in self-interest against the code, to gain something or avoid some unwanted effect. Bottom line: he's not much of a paladin. He's failing. That can be fun, but it should be a choice, not something hardcoded into what it means to be a paladin.
Alternatively, the code doesn't stand the test of actual application. Ie, the paladin is put in front of the dilemma of doing the right thing or following the code. Another common situation. Here is the code that is tarnished in the process. If the paladin did good in breaking the code... it isn't much of a code to begin with, no? If my paladin broke his code because he refused to put to death a 5 years old girl who was possessed by a demon, and risked lives and a potential holocaust by saving her through a lenghty quest, he is bound to question the code. He will take his punishment and then probably move away from paladinhood.

The bottom line is that it's fine to want to play a paladin to play a tormented hero who has to struggle with his ideals, but it's equally fine to play a paladin to be Fantasy Judge Dredd and never have to question once your perspective on life.

 

[Xmarksthespot]

I'd be happy to see not only alignment but stat restrictions comeback too for paladins.