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

[Elf Witch]

I think it's different when the DM has to monitor Joe's every action because any little slip could cost him is powers, as opposed to monitoring Bob's actions because it could piss off the locals.


I think any feature of a class should be clear enough to warrant minimal explanation. Any aspect of a class or race or background that will require significant effort on the part of the DM to explain how it works in his particular game in this particular setting and so on and so forth is a feature that needs to be reconsidered. The discussion of the Paladin code of conduct should be a simple and straight-forward discussion, but not so concrete as to be immutable. There will be times when the player's understanding of the code and the DMs understanding of the code will differ not based on in-game concepts...but upon personal morality. Those are times that both sides need to be able to look to the rules as a neutral third party and come to an agreeable conclusion.

This is one reason I advocate deity-based codes, because "don't lie" is a terrible rule that leads to paladins who can't adventure properly with regular adventurers, but "don't lie except to protect the innocent and defeat evil." is a much clearer ruing that allows paladins to have some realistici breathing room. No LG patron of a LG paladin is going to approve of the paladin refusing to lie to the evil demon bent on killing the farmers when the demon asks him "where are the farmers!?" I would expect the paladin to reasonably be able to say "I'll never tell! You must kill me first!" and not get backhanded for not saying "over in the barn."


Both sides need to be clear with their DM about how they are going to play. Too often DMs change their mind and claim "I'm the DM, deal with it!" and players become sneaky so that their op build will be accepted before the DM can say otherwise...which then leads to DMs having to become more aggressive in the face of unethical players.


I have always wondered why clerics were never similarly limited, require a diety(any alignment), must adhere to that god's portfolio/alignment. Clerics get insane power....but have few limitations, I don't want that repeated.

I don't think it really calls for the DM to monitor every little slip. I certainly have never really done it that way. But I am listening and responding to what they are doing so if it is something noticeable I will respond the and it is the same for every character. I keep a little sheet where I jot down notes of what they do that I need to consider. Because I bring back consequences for what they do. Both good and bad they may not know they had an effect yet but often things they do will impact the game later on. This way the players see that their actions matter. I love the look on their faces when later something comes out of an action. Both the oh crap look when it is bad but also the pleased look when it is something good.

Playing in games where players are sneaky and DMs are power hungry are not really fun for anyone. All the well written rules won't save that kind of game.

In the games I play in clerics suffer the same as paladins if they stray to far. That is how I run games and most of the DMs I have played with do the same. We play a lot in Kalamar and it is written in the setting rules that clerics have to be the same alignment as their gods.

 

[Elf Witch]

This has always been my experience.

I don't thinkk anyone disagrees with that. But that has no bearing on whether or not the GM has the power to take away the paladin's powers.

I mean, someone who builds a PC with the backstory "I'm an honourable warrior of virtue" who then play a snivelling, cowardly brute is someone who is not serious about the character they're playing. I don't need alignment rules to deal with that player; I can talk to him/her GM-to-player and find out what s/he s looking for in an RPG, and whether or not I want to keep playing with him/her.

But if the player doesn't agree that his/her PC is a cowardly brute, why should I as GM have the last word? It's up to my players to play their PCs, not me.

I don't know - you tell me! After all, you're the one who seems worried that, unless the GM has the power to override players' conceptions of their paladin PCs we are going to be overrun with such players.

I don't feel the force of this at all. First, I have played games in which either their are no alignments (Rolemaster campaigns) or in which alignment does very little work other than acting as a personality and cosmological descriptor (4e). Yet in these games paladins - honourable, holy warriors who have taken vows of loyalty and dedication - make perfect sense.

Second, why would a paladin accept an order to slaughter his/her opponents' village? Or rather, why would the player of a paladin declare such an action for his/her PC? Is it because s/he's not actually interested in playing an honourable holy warrior who has taken a vow of loyalty and dedication? Then see my comments above. Is it because s/he feels railroaded into doing so by the GM? Then giving the GM the power to take over the player's PC is hardly to fix that problem! Is it because s/he takes the view that slaughtering his/her opponents' village is not actually dishonourable (s/he is playing a more historically-influecned Crusader-style paladin rather than a romantic Arthurian-style paladin)? Then why is it my job, as GM, to substitute my judgement for that player's playing of his/her PC?

No. It means that I want my character to be a PC, not an NPC. It is my character, not the GM's, and I want to play my own character.

And to see how easily well-intentioned persons can disagree on moral and ethical matters, consider this post:

I think that "don't lie" is a completely tenable rule for a paladin. It states an important matter of honour. It is consistent with Kant's injunction against all falsehoods. But I also don't think that "don't lie" is remotely equivalent to "answer all questions." When the demon asks the paldin "Where are the farmers?" the paladin is quite entitled to reply "I won't tell you." That is not a lie; in fact, it's a true statement! It doesn't deceive the demon at all, nor seek to. And the requirement of honour is above all a requirement not to deceive; that's why you can't lie, can't poison, can't assassinate and hope to keep your honour.

The question is not whether it's inherently evil - as in, something whose occurence makes the world worse than it otherwise would be. The question is whether it nevertheless is sometimes permitted. Some say yes, other say no. Why should the game build an answer to that question into its rules? Particularly when that answer, in any event, has application only to a very narrow category of characters.

I addressed this upthread: it doesn't require that the GM be able to strip the player of their paladin abilities. Another way is to give the player some authority over the playing of the deity (ie the diety is not fully an NPC). That is my preferred approach.

Nothing wrong with a paladin converting into an anti-paladin. But why should that be a matter of the GM's choice? I prefer the player to take the lead in that sort of character development. Which means, if I'm going to play D&Dnext, it has to make room for my preferences as well as those of others. Which precludes building paladins with a GM-adjudicated alignment/code as a core feature.

I tell you what why don't we make all games where there is a referee give the players all the power to say no ref I was not out of bounds. . Somebody has to have the final say on the rules and how the game world works. That should be the DM he is the referee. I am not saying he should be a tyrant but there are times a decision needs to be made and in my experience players are not the most objective when it comes to their character especially if they might be losing something. I know for myself as a player I way more protective of my character than I am as DM of my NPCs.

First of all I don't expect most people I play with to go into it with the mindset of not playing the paladin in line with the code they help develop. But I have seen as the game progresses players may start to change in reaction to the game. When that happens the DM needs to address the situation with the player. I have found that 99% of the time when this happens the players knows it is happening and is making a decision to play like this. And most willing accept the consequences that come with it. Some like the idea of having to atone others want to go blackguard. Some just change gods.

The only time I have seen it be a major issue is with a player who wanted all the goodies of playing a lawful good paladin of Pelor but also being allowed to lie, cheat, steal, rape and refuse to save innocents because they could not pay gold. There is no way Pelor would let someone like this get powers from him. With players like this you either have to boot them out of the game by first choice or be able to say look it in the rules. Players like the abuse the rules and suck the fun out of the game for everyone.

I also kind of resent the implication of your post that DMs who use the rule or house rule ones that can take away a players character power somehow don't take into regard the players desire on how to play their character. I have never played with a good DM who just looked for every chance to strip powers. are there bad DMs out there well yes just like there are bad players. As a DM I always work with my players to make their characters choices matter but sometimes I have to say no to some. Sorry in my game you can't buy and sell slaves and be a paladin of the god of freedom.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think it really calls for the DM to monitor every little slip. I certainly have never really done it that way. But I am listening and responding to what they are doing so if it is something noticeable I will respond the and it is the same for every character. I keep a little sheet where I jot down notes of what they do that I need to consider. Because I bring back consequences for what they do. Both good and bad they may not know they had an effect yet but often things they do will impact the game later on. This way the players see that their actions matter. I love the look on their faces when later something comes out of an action. Both the oh crap look when it is bad but also the pleased look when it is something good.

Playing in games where players are sneaky and DMs are power hungry are not really fun for anyone. All the well written rules won't save that kind of game.

In the games I play in clerics suffer the same as paladins if they stray to far. That is how I run games and most of the DMs I have played with do the same. We play a lot in Kalamar and it is written in the setting rules that clerics have to be the same alignment as their gods.

On the last bit, I heartily agree. Playing a cleric should be every bit as stringent as playing a paladin.

But, it's not about someone power gaming or being sneaky or anything else. That's a whole other issue. The primary issue here is that no two people are going to agree on morality all of the time. Good grief, we've got a couple of thousand years of history proving that. So, what do you do when there is a conflict in interpretation.

Take Gorgoroth for a second. He has flat out claimed that torture is evil. But, then the question becomes, what is torture? If my paladin smacks the bad guy around a bit to get some information, is that torture? If I grab the guy and hang him by his foot over a cliff until he talks, is that torture? Is gas-lighting torture? It's certainly psychological torture. I remember in my army training, they would take someone, blind fold them, throw them in a locker in the ground and start throwing dirt on top during PW training. Is that torture?

Who gets to draw the line? Torture, according to Gorgoroth is flat out evil. But, it rarely works like that. Sure, if you're getting out the whips and Iron Maiden, no problems. But, there's a whole lot of grey area out there.

Do you really want your RPG to take a stand on any of this? I don't. I've seen way too many hard feelings and games head wahoonie shaped because of this sort of thing.

 

[Elf Witch]

All right. Let's accept for a moment that a Paladin must act in a manner consistent with Lawful Good. If he strays, he will fall. Fair enough.

Now, paladin detects evil on someone and that someone is, in fact evil. Can that someone be killed?

Thing is, you can make a very good argument either way. So, who decides? The DM gets final say? So, the player, despite truly believing that he has not done anything evil, is forced to lose his status because the DM decides so? What if it's the other way? The DM feels that whatever the player has done isn't worthy of losing status, but the player does?

This is just a recipe for disaster and has been for thirty years.
[MENTION=6674889]Gorgoroth[/MENTION] - if the only reason that your paladin players were playing paladins in a certain way was because of the stick, then perhaps the problem isn't with the rules.

In that situation the paladin should fall back on the law. What does the law say he is allowed to be judge jury and executioner? If he is then what is the problem if the law of the land says everyone gets a trial in front of the magistrates then if he kills instead of bringing the person in then yes I can see why he is in trouble.

The whole I detect evil and then kill is really bad playing imo. How about playing smart and if someone detects evil then investigate and find out exactly why they are detecting as evil. It seems that any paladin or cleric would at least be familiar of items and spells that can change an alignment also if you just kill the person out right how do you you know that you got all the evil. The person maybe a Xena like character on the road to redemption.

In player who plays so recklessly as just to kill anyone detecting as evil deserves what ever falls on his head.

I have seen it used to see if a prisoner should be freed and as a DM I have no issue with the paladin or cleric detecting evil and if they were evil killing them. As a DM I would never screw with a player that way by making it a gotcha.

 

[Elf Witch]

On the last bit, I heartily agree. Playing a cleric should be every bit as stringent as playing a paladin.

But, it's not about someone power gaming or being sneaky or anything else. That's a whole other issue. The primary issue here is that no two people are going to agree on morality all of the time. Good grief, we've got a couple of thousand years of history proving that. So, what do you do when there is a conflict in interpretation.

Take Gorgoroth for a second. He has flat out claimed that torture is evil. But, then the question becomes, what is torture? If my paladin smacks the bad guy around a bit to get some information, is that torture? If I grab the guy and hang him by his foot over a cliff until he talks, is that torture? Is gas-lighting torture? It's certainly psychological torture. I remember in my army training, they would take someone, blind fold them, throw them in a locker in the ground and start throwing dirt on top during PW training. Is that torture?

Who gets to draw the line? Torture, according to Gorgoroth is flat out evil. But, it rarely works like that. Sure, if you're getting out the whips and Iron Maiden, no problems. But, there's a whole lot of grey area out there.

Do you really want your RPG to take a stand on any of this? I don't. I've seen way too many hard feelings and games head wahoonie shaped because of this sort of thing.

This is why players and DMs need to be on the same page. And why I believe the DM has the final say. Like you said people don't agree so someone needs to have the ability to say it is going to be like this.

As a DM and a player it would ruin the game for me if a players was allowed to behave in a way that just made no sense I have played in a game where that happened and the DM didn't want to take away any goodies from the player and the rest of us just got to the point where we didn't want to play anymore. So both doing it and not doing it can ruin games.

I said earlier that absolutes makes it impossible to play a paladin. Take torture I let my players know what I consider torture. In my eyes as god of the world torture is causing someone extreme physically discomfort. Dangling some one off a cliff if you you really have no intention of dropping them is not torture in my world you better have a good bluff to pull it off. I also take into consideration who it is happening to if it is some terrified villager who was just a witness then hanging him by his feet might depending on the god involved kind of pissy.

But something like waterboarding, peeling off their flesh, beating them all evil acts.

The biggest issue I see is this getting into arguments with the DM about the morality of the world. That should not be happening you are not arguing real world morality but fantasy world morality. If your DM says upfront in my world this is an evil act why argue with him in his world it is an evil act. I view as the same as a DM saying there are no elves in my world would you piss and moan about that.

This is why Dms and players need to have open communication if I saw a player doing something I consider evil in my world I would stop the game and talk to the player privately so that we are on the same page. And I say privately because open table discussion often derails into everyone voicing an opinion when the only opinions that matter should be the DM and the player.

 

[pemerton]

I see the restrictiveness and artificiality of the D&D morality system as a good thing--it allows you to do a little bit of moral reasoning but it puts it into a D&D-labelled box so you don't forget that you're just playing a game rather than actually debating these issues irl.

I can see the logic of this in B/X (with its Law, Neutrality, Chaos spectrum) and in 4e (which is pretty similar to B/X except it enriches the spectrum a bit and anchors it more tightly to a cosmology: LG - G - U - E - CE).

I even do a bit of what you describe in my 4e game - ie use the ingame cosmological elements as devices to ground the morality debates in the fiction rather than real life, so as to avoid too much real-life confilct (for instance, in the fiction no one cares about the political economy of the Nerathi empire, and so issues of serfdom, economic justice etc just don't figure into the moral conflicts/decisions to which teh game gives rise).

But I think AD&D's 9-point alignment breaks out of the box you describe without anyone needing to push it very hard - look at Gygax's description of "Good", which expressly ties it to certain modern political conceptions related to liberal democracy and human rights. And this is compounded by building, around it, a cosmological structure (the "Great Wheel") which rather than being specific like 4e's, or implicitly specific like B/X's Morcockian framework, claims to be able to incorporate any set of mythical or moral perspectives, finding them a home somewhere or other in the Outer Planes.

I've been thinking a bit today about Margaret Thatcher. In B/X, or 4e, it doesn't make sense to ask what Thatcher's alignment was. The political controversies that defined her career have no foothold in the implied B/X cosmology, or the explict 4e cosmology. But the 9-alignment system, as cosmologically expressed via the Great Wheel, presents itself as having a home for every outlook, including Thatcher's. Which I think is absurd, but which I also think means that the alignment system can't do the "keeping things in a box" job that you describe.

Which is part of why I really really dislike AD&D alignment, and see both the B/X and the 4e systems as not just minor tweaks, but very different and better systems. (Though as I've made clear, I'm just as happy without alignments and getting by on cosmology and mythic history plus character personalities and backstories.)

 

[pemerton]

I keep a little sheet where I jot down notes of what they do that I need to consider. Because I bring back consequences for what they do. Both good and bad they may not know they had an effect yet but often things they do will impact the game later on. This way the players see that their actions matter.

This is good GMing but has no bearing on alignment or "code" systems, or whether the GM should have the power to rewrite the sheet of a paladin player.

When the PCs honoured their pacts with the duergar in my game, this led the duergar to be well-disposed to them later, and the PCs and duergar ended up teaming up against some demons. But I don't need alignment rules to do any of this.

why don't we make all games where there is a referee give the players all the power to say no ref I was not out of bounds. Somebody has to have the final say on the rules

Football is a competitive sport. The players have an obvious conflict of interest in adjudging their own compliance with the rules. Hence, we have a referee.

In what way does the play of a paladin or cleric look anything like that? Where, in the typical contemporary D&D game, is the conflict of interest? What advantage does a player get from deciding his-/herself what morality requires of his/her PC? ( [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has argued cogently that in very trad D&D there is an advantage in being Lawful, of more reliable party support and better access to Raise Dead; and the price for this is the need to adhere to a code. I don't think these are features of any non-OSR D&D play today, however.)

I have seen as the game progresses players may start to change in reaction to the game. When that happens the DM needs to address the situation with the player. I have found that 99% of the time when this happens the players knows it is happening and is making a decision to play like this. And most willing accept the consequences that come with it. Some like the idea of having to atone others want to go blackguard. Some just change gods.

So then we don't need a GM-enforced code. We need a better system for changing class from paladin to anti-paladin; or a better system for players to bring their PCs into Atonement situations.

Somebody has to have the final say on <snippage> how the game world works.

I believe the DM has the final say. Like you said people don't agree so someone needs to have the ability to say it is going to be like this.

I believe that you are confusing "need" with "want". You want to play a game in which the GM has the final say. That's fine by me. I want to play something different - where the player has the primary say on how their PC works, and where anything that needs to be coordinated across the group (perhaps a deity, if more than one PC serves that diety) is worked out by the group.

A "big umbrella" game like D&Dnext needs to allow for both approaches to authorship of the gameworld. Which means it can't build either into its default structures.

As a DM and a player it would ruin the game for me if a players was allowed to behave in a way that just made no sense

If my players were to behave in ways that made no sense, I would discuss that with them as people. For me, this is not an issue about game rules. It's about the social aspect of gaming. I'm not interested in playing with people whose company I don't care for, and I don't need the game rules to tell them "By the way, make sure you're decent company". For me, that's not an ingame matter.

The only time I have seen it be a major issue is with a player who wanted all the goodies of playing a lawful good paladin of Pelor but also being allowed to lie, cheat, steal, rape and refuse to save innocents because they could not pay gold

I have played in a game where that happened and the DM didn't want to take away any goodies from the player and the rest of us just got to the point where we didn't want to play anymore.

How does "taking away goodies" help here? Are you trying to train the player like Pavlov's dog? Are you hoping to drive the player out of the game? - in which case, surely you can just kick them out. Are you trying to send signals like "We don't mind how you play your assassins, but your paladins really suck?" - in which case, surely you can just tell them. I'm puzzled by this desire to sublimate social disagreements into ingame matters.

The biggest issue I see is this getting into arguments with the DM about the morality of the world. That should not be happening you are not arguing real world morality but fantasy world morality.

I have zero interest in exploring fantasy world morality. Admittedly I'm not that well versed in fantasy literature, but the reason those authors I have read like Tolkien or REH have something interesting to say on moral matters, or the reason that a film like Excalibur or Hero can be emotionally stirring, is because they are dealing with real questions of value.

REH, for instance, is not writing his Conan stories as an attack on fantasy "civilisation" - it's an attack upon the actual trappings of a certain sort of modern, urbanised, commercial life. Tolkien is not writing about "Shire morality" and Sauron is not a picture of "Middle Earth Evil" - Tolkien is sharing his conception of real moral matters, like the fall, the relationship between humans and nature, the nature of authority and rulership, the value of creation, etc.

My RPGing is hardly great literature, but I want it to be focused on the real. (For various reasons, in my games that often ends up being to do with values like loyalty, sacrifice and tradition. One reason, I guess, is that these are the paradigmatic romantic values, which are therefore, at least arguably, inherent in heroic fantasy as a genre.)

 

[Hussar]

I have seen it used to see if a prisoner should be freed and as a DM I have no issue with the paladin or cleric detecting evil and if they were evil killing them. As a DM I would never screw with a player that way by making it a gotcha.

Fair enough. Can you make that claim of every DM?

Because, when you have even a fairly minor break down in communication, because the effects are so strong, it can blow up really, really quickly. I mean, heck, there's a very good reason for the no-politics/no-religion rules on En World. People can get pissed off very, very quickly. Make a thread where you try to peg the alignment of some famous character and watch that circle around the drain almost immediately because no one can agree on what the alignments actually mean.

This is just a really, really rough area which causes all sorts of problems at tables. That you have worked around it at your table probably means that you have a fairly stable group that has gamed together for a long time. Imagine sitting down with five strangers and flat out telling them what is good or evil and expecting that to stick. Not going to happen.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

When the designers created these restrictions they assumed the DM would be fair and not put the paladin in a no win situation. I don't want another edition that takes all that away because of some bad DM that may be out there. 4th edition was a system that tried to protect the players from the DM and it wasn't necessary.

 

[pemerton]

When the designers created these restrictions they assumed the DM would be fair and not put the paladin in a no win situation. I don't want another edition that takes all that away because of some bad DM that may be out there.

Let's add to this that the game shouldn't be written around the assumption of bad players either.

Now, with that in mind, what's the point of the rule? We don't need it to empower bad GMing ego trips, and we don't need it rein in bad players (because we're designing our rules for good GMs and good players). All we need is a general rule, somewhere in the books, that at some tables the GM won't agree with a players choice about what religion or morality requires of their PC, and at that point may direct the player - especially if the PC is a clerical or paladin type - to play in accordance with the GM's directions; and we could add that in such circumstances the player may instead choose to suffer some mechancial penalty or change to the PC that the GM imposes.