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

[Starfox]

I find that most DnD rules are written to allow the DM to be lenient. This applies to the paladins' code in previous editions as well. Yes, it says that if a paladin ever willingly commits an evil act, he is forever fallen. But no, the DM does not have to apply that strictly if it does not fit in the concept of the game and story. There are lots of rules written like this, and different DMs use them differently. Just another example is that Magic Missiles always hit, but they can never do anything but damage to creatures. "Targets up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart". Still, different DMs apply this differently - some would allow a magic missile to be used to cut a rope, others would not. Actually, in most ambiguous cases, I feel the DnD rules err on the side of caution, giving the DM the authority to say no. This was even more explicit in 4E, where the flavor text often showed the power as doing things the rule text would not actually let you do unless the DM was lenient (IIR).

This creates ambiguity in the game, but I still prefer it to "permissive" rules, where the DM is left to figure out the corner cases. Because it creates less squabbling at the table. It is generally less of a problem to permit more than a strict reading of the rules would than it is to prevent what would be permitted by the rules but goes against their spirit.

As I began with, I feel the paladin code of earlier editions (as well as the section on ex-clerics) is written like this. It is a rule the DM can show a quarrelsome player to shut them down in an argument. That does not mean it is meant to be used in every case wehere it could apply.

Of course, I game with a pretty permissive game style. I can see other DMs who see themselves more as neutral arbitrators than game-hosts having trouble with this, and if this really was the indented play-style, it would have helped if it said so in the DMG.

 

[jasper]

I wrote this over 6 years ago, and I may have posted it here before. But A DM and Players must agree on the morals of the campaign. Or at least accept the dm's version.
Sound of trumpets. Written during 3/3.5 rules.
Jasper Paladin thoughts
DMs must come up with a code of conduct for paladins. And allow the player to make adjustments. This needs to be done before the character is created.

The Detect Evil ability of paladins is not a problem. Detect Evil targets creatures, objects and spells. Humanoid are classified as creatures. A character with an evil alignment at tenth or lower level would have a faint aura of power. Up to twenty-fifth level a moderate aura. A priest of evil god who class level is one has a faint, second to fourth a moderate, strong at fifth to tenth, and overwhelming after that. Detect Evil is divination with V, S, Df, how ever it is spell like ability which has no components. Can the detect evil spell like ability be detected? It depends on the Dm handles spell like abilities, and if there are any spells up on the patrons.


So Paladin casts a spell in crowded bar and in eighteen seconds knows at table four there is one overwhelming aura, and three faint traces. He charges! After slaying the evil he is beheaded for murder. It is time for player to roll up his next paladin. A paladin is just another adventurer who can be cast into jail for violating the local laws.

However paladins are not cops.
Ex. Lawyer, Excuse me Bucky the Wonder Paladin, did you say halt I’m a Paladin before you attacked Orcus in the town square.
Bucky, No he was EVIL!
Dm, Boom There it is! No more paladin powers for you since you violated the law.
If this were to happen in a game, the dm does not understand paladins.

Also a paladin is not smite on sight sword slinger.
Ex. Bucky the Wonder Paladin while giving a class on justice, decides to detect evil on the Springfield Elementary fourth grade class. Suddenly he rushes over and starts choking Bart Simpson. With the aid of Ned Flanders, Principal Skinner was able to subdue Bucky. Bucky is now doing five to ten in the local pen. Hey that is it. Sideshow Bob is a paladin.

A paladin liberally using his Detect Evil every five rounds isn’t smart either and he is being tacky. Bucky the Wonder paladin arrives on noon stage coach to Tatoonie. He wanders into Jabba’s Bar and Grill (slogan you kill we grill for a small fee). Bucky starts detecting evil. He draws his sword. (sfx of mass blaster fire). A small droid rolls out of wall and vacuums up the ashes. The bartender adds another hash mark to paladins’ wasted wall.

What Bucky should do is something like this. Bucky the Wonder paladin and party are stop by Mr. Haney the road side vendor. While Mr. Haney goes into his pitch, Bucky detects evil and receives a faint aura. Bucky, “It sounds like a good deal on the +3 vorpal Ginzu set but I do not trust Mr. Haney. Mr. Haney are you sure this is a good deal?” etc. Bucky then notes Mr. Haney as a person to keep an eye on in the future.

Are paladins the law, Judge Dread of the land? Ask your Dm. IMC it varies with kingdom whether they are the law enforcement office. Now I once had a Paladin chase the party half way across the continent. Once she caught up with party and learned the facts of jail break, she charged them with the jail break. Fined them and made them pay the wergild for the slain guards. Then cut them loose since the party was fighting greater evil than the violation of kingdom laws.

Would Bucky the Wonder Paladin back stab Orcus in the back, when Orcus is shopping at Wal-Mart? It depends on the level and code of conduct of paladin. At first level just as he was going for his sword his cell phone would beep.
Bucky, “Hello, Bucky speaking.” Voice, “do not do it. You are not good enough yet.” Bucky, “but he is EVIL!”
Voice, “the boss does not employ stupid paladins. Help is on the way so just sit still and don’t get yourself nuked!”
Bucky, “What’s a nuke?”
Voice, “Never mind that!” click.
Now if Bucky was twentieth level, and Bucky was shopping for some new Underroos and spied Orcus in the shoe dept and he did nothing. His cell phone would beep.
“Bucky here. How may I help you?”
Voice, “Clean up on aisle five.”
Bucky, “Can’t you see I am shopping in peace here?” Voice, “Clean up on aisle five, now.”
Bucky, “Hey I am on vacation! Can’t you get someone else?”
Voice, “Clean up on aisle five, right now! Or how long can you tread water!”
Bucky, “Ok I’m going. You can’t take a little joke.” Click.


I allow paladins to drink, smoke, flirt etc depending on their CoC. Hey they can have gas if they want to. The CoC for each god is not necessary the same to give each religion and paladin some style. Also the player decides on how evil aura appears to the paladin. One player uses the taste of crisp bacon for faint, to burnt bacon, to spit it out. Another uses smell and still another uses color yellow, orange, then red.

A dm must never set up a no win dilemma for paladin. So no coming to intersection and having to choose between saving Grandpa Jones from the wolf or running into the burning hut to save Baby Huey.

A dm should give a clear warning that a propose action will result in lost of paladin hood. Either Bucky the Wonder paladin gets a cold shiver as he starts to plan the bank robbery. Or the dm speaks, “Jasper I will pull the paladin status of Bucky if you keep it up.” The warning should be clear enough for player to take five and decide to continue with the action or not.

A player needs to clearly understand how the dm views the CoC. Accept the fact that some players do not get along the dm’s views and play another class.

Now to srd
A Willing commit an evil act.
Respect legitimate authority. I sorry of Great Evil Mucky Muck but I must respectfully ask you step down from the throne. I have to lop off you head to pay for the thousands of people your secret police assassinated on your orders. No problems with this one.
Help the needy in good ways.
Punish those who harm others, or threaten harm.

Act with honor (No lying, no cheating, no poison use, insert dm views here). Ok here is where you need your dm’s input. Do I tell the border guards the truth, I here to toss Orcus off his throne or just say personal business? Is a bluff a lie?
Can I cheat a con man and win back the orphanage’s Christmas goose fund?
Can I use sleep poison to bring in Bad Bart Simpson for trial, or do I just hack him up when he is down for the count?

 

[pemerton]

A DM and Players must agree on the morals of the campaign. Or at least accept the dm's version.

I assume you mean that they must do this if the game is to be one that you would enjoy.

 

[jasper]

I assume you mean that they must do this if the game is to be one that you would enjoy.

Yes, I quit fighting people over the small stuff just to play. Ex poison use, evil party members.

 

[Imaro]

Can one of the posters who is against paladins having a code that is enforced by the loss of their abilities, please tell me how a paladin (without the alignment/code/etc. restrictions) is conceptually different from a fighter who decides to fight for a specfic deity's cause? In other words without the alignment restrictions/code of conduct/deity power over abilities... what makes the paladin archetype any different than a mercenary for a particular religion? Even in 4e his combat role occupies the same space as the fighter's .... that of defender. This is one of the reasons I find the claims of him having to fight valiantly and throw himself into danger (like many other defenders in 4e who aren't based around a valiant or noble archetype) kind of hollow as far as it being the differentiating factor for a paladin, so my question is what differentiates him in a narrative sense?

 

[Starfox]

Can one of the posters who is against paladins having a code that is enforced by the loss of their abilities, please tell me how a paladin (without the alignment/code/etc. restrictions) is conceptually different from a fighter who decides to fight for a specfic deity's cause?

It is not really different. Both are ways for a player to express the same concept, there is no difference except how they play in the game. Mechanically it is of course different - the fighter fights, the paladin paladins (whatever that is), but if both are expressions of the same underlying role, just expressed trough different in-game means, I see no real difference.

In other words, if a player tells the DM "I want to play Orlando, a knight in shining armor and sword who fights for a religious cause" the DMs reply is "These are the options: Paladin, fighter..." and explain how each option would work. One or the other may fit the "Orlando" concept better, but there is no value difference between them.

Now I do not espouse to be "against paladins having a code that is enforced by the loss of their abilities". I am a player who thinks a paladin can get into trouble if he breaks his rules, but as a valuable agent trained to channel divine energy into the prime material plane, that trouble would not be the loss of his abilities - some other power would step in to keep those going.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Can one of the posters who is against paladins having a code that is enforced by the loss of their abilities, please tell me how a paladin (without the alignment/code/etc. restrictions) is conceptually different from a fighter who decides to fight for a specfic deity's cause? In other words without the alignment restrictions/code of conduct/deity power over abilities... what makes the paladin archetype any different than a mercenary for a particular religion? Even in 4e his combat role occupies the same space as the fighter's .... that of defender. This is one of the reasons I find the claims of him having to fight valiantly and throw himself into danger (like many other defenders in 4e who aren't based around a valiant or noble archetype) kind of hollow as far as it being the differentiating factor for a paladin, so my question is what differentiates him in a narrative sense?

Unfortunately, by their mechanics.

 

[Imaro]

It is not really different. Both are ways for a player to express the same concept, there is no difference except how they play in the game. Mechanically it is of course different - the fighter fights, the paladin paladins (whatever that is), but if both are expressions of the same underlying role, just expressed trough different in-game means, I see no real difference.

In other words, if a player tells the DM "I want to play Orlando, a knight in shining armor and sword who fights for a religious cause" the DMs reply is "These are the options: Paladin, fighter..." and explain how each option would work. One or the other may fit the "Orlando" concept better, but there is no value difference between them.

Now I do not espouse to be "against paladins having a code that is enforced by the loss of their abilities". I am a player who thinks a paladin can get into trouble if he breaks his rules, but as a valuable agent trained to channel divine energy into the prime material plane, that trouble would not be the loss of his abilities - some other power would step in to keep those going.

I guess my only issue with your comments above are... is he/she really a "valuable agent" if he/she goes against the tenets that you are a deity of? Also why would another power trust this paladin who so easily disregarded the oath he took for another deity?

 

[Gadget]

One of the main reason's for being strict with Paladins in the earlier additions (particularly 1E), is that paladins were strait up better than fighters (Rangers were as well). It was the old 'Role playing restrictions for increased mechanical potency affair' that fell out of favour during the 3.X era. In modern D&D, there seems to be more of an effort to make classes more mechanically balanced, and so there is not as much of a need for this type of enforcement due to the fact that the paladin is not getting any 'extra goodies' to take away compared to other players. It becomes more of table/social contract/Role Playing issue. I don't think my conception of a paladin differs much from those that advocate keeping the old restrictions in, I just feel that the heavy handed mechanical enforcement is not need. Particularly with D&D's awkward 9 point alignment system which seems to offer more philosophical depth than the basic Law-Neutral-chaos standard, but really doesn't and just comes off as filling in the matrix.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Exactly. You should also be able to be swayed to a new Cause(tm), and part ways amicably (or not) too though. People's outlooks and motivations can indeed "evolve".

If a new deity or cause interests you more, jumping ship should be some kind of willing-atonement-esque procedure to prove yourself worthy to the new cause, just like being hired at a new job right after starting one. Sometimes things just don't work out, or aren't a good match. What happens if your god is dead? Ding dong...you should be able to re-atune to a new deity. Those rules need to be in there. Your LG god kicks you out? Maybe in the next session somebody from GC sect X needs a champion of their Cause(tm), but needs someone reliable and steadfast. I'm willing to concede "reliable" vs "flaky" are not necessarily tied to the Lawful vs Chaotic alignment axis, but they do often seem that way (at least in my experience). Perhaps jumping from one LG to another LG god would make more sense. You definitely should be able to switch from Paladin to Anti-paladin or Warden, *cue cool plotlines. A "fallen" paladin who did evil might go to Warden before anti-paladin perhaps, following his alignment.

Anyway we'll see what they come up with for next packet and how they allow some versatility in how one defines or doesn't the explicit / implicit alignments. I like they'd be tied to the god, that seems like the most logical way IMO. If you do evil or become evil or vice versa, you first lose your magic abilities, then you can atone or re-atune to a god of your new alignment if it changed.