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

[Sunseeker]

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?

The better question is, what do Paladins gain for constantly being under the pressure to perform in a LG manner? Paladin powers are no longer strictly superior to a Fighter or a Cleric. Mathemtically, a Paladin is 1+LG, but this equation still only equals 1. Because the Fighter, the Cleric, the Rogue and everyone else is also a 1. But none of them have this extra component tacked on to them. So if the Paladin equation is 1+LG=1, then LG must equal 0. Zero value, zero benefit, zero relevance.

 

[Imaro]

The better question is, what do Paladins gain for constantly being under the pressure to perform in a LG manner? Paladin powers are no longer strictly superior to a Fighter or a Cleric. Mathemtically, a Paladin is 1+LG, but this equation still only equals 1. Because the Fighter, the Cleric, the Rogue and everyone else is also a 1. But none of them have this extra component tacked on to them. So if the Paladin equation is 1+LG=1, then LG must equal 0. Zero value, zero benefit, zero relevance.

No it's not the better question.

Why should the player of a paladin gain anything for those pressures since it is a choice to play a paladin? he didn't get better stuff in 3.x or Pathfinder... but apparently there were enough people that wanted to play one (with the pressures and no extra stuff) that it apparently caused some major discussions.

No one forces you to play a paladin, I would say play one because you want the alignment challenges and the archetype of the paragon of good... and not because you want more power. If you don't want to play that archetype... be a divine mercenary (fighter who has pledged himself). IMO, it's the same way I wouldn't play a pre-4e Ranger if I didn't want a nature based character, I mean what extra power does he get for having his abilities focused around nature as opposed to them being more general in nature? In other words you play it because it's the archetype you are interested in... otherwise why does the fighter-as-divine mercenary not work for those who want to fight for a deity and do as they wish?

 

[Sunseeker]

Why should the player of a paladin gain anything for those pressures since it is a choice to play a paladin? he didn't get better stuff in 3.x or Pathfinder... but apparently there were enough people that wanted to play one (with the pressures and no extra stuff) that it apparently caused some major discussions.

And I'll tell you that most of them went Greyguard as soon as they could.
But the alignment restrictions date back further than that, and their existence in 3.x is a holdover from when paladins DID get more cool stuff.

No one forces you to play a paladin, I would say play one because you want the alignment challenges and the archetype of the paragon of good... and not because you want more power. If you don't want to play that archetype... be a divine mercenary (fighter who has pledged himself). IMO, it's the same way I wouldn't play a pre-4e Ranger if I didn't want a nature based character, I mean what extra power does he get for having his abilities focused around nature as opposed to them being more general in nature? In other words you play it because it's the archetype you are interested in... otherwise why doesn't the fighter-as-divine mercenary not work for those who want to fight for a deity and do as they wish?

Honestly that's still a stupid argument. "Lets make the basics for this class stupid, irrelevant and oppressive to gameplay, but hey it's your choice to be stupid illrevent and oppressive!" Moral challenges suck because the DM rarely reads from the same rulebook on morals as you do, or your paladin does. Making moral challenges no challenge at all, you just pick the option that lets you keep your powers. There's no depth, no thinking, no real consequences, and if the DM decides to place you in a situation where your only options are "lose your powers" or "lose your powers", then the only choice is to sit back and refuse to make any choice.

 

[Imaro]

And I'll tell you that most of them went Greyguard as soon as they could.
But the alignment restrictions date back further than that, and their existence in 3.x is a holdover from when paladins DID get more cool stuff.

Yeah... because you played with most of the people who selected paladins over the years... anecdotal and all that. It doesn't matter why the alignment restriction was there originaly, it has become a (I would say "the") defining feature of the D&D paladin... until 4e.

Honestly that's still a stupid argument. "Lets make the basics for this class stupid, irrelevant and oppressive to gameplay, but hey it's your choice to be stupid illrevent and oppressive!" Moral challenges suck because the DM rarely reads from the same rulebook on morals as you do, or your paladin does. Making moral challenges no challenge at all, you just pick the option that lets you keep your powers. There's no depth, no thinking, no real consequences, and if the DM decides to place you in a situation where your only options are "lose your powers" or "lose your powers", then the only choice is to sit back and refuse to make any choice.

I love how you present your opinion as fact... of course if it was true that the alignment restrictions for paladins were objectivley "stupid, irrelevant and oppressive to gameplay"... again then why would anyone have played one in 3.x and still play them in both 3.x and PF? how about we keep the hyperbole to a minimum and just keep it clear that those are your opinions about the class and this thread wouldn't exist if your opinion was objective or even universally true.

As to moral questions... it seems you're ideas on the type of moral questions that can be played out by paladins is pretty limited thus I can see why you might feel the way you do about the class. However I think first, it's interesting to explore the morality of the particular campaign setting that the DM has created, (what is it to be good in this particular world? What actions am I free to take, which must I atone for and which are unforgiveable? ). Secondly I think choosing whether something, someone, an ideal, etc... has become important enough for me to forsake my oath and/or alignment and suffer the reprecussions (temporarily or permanently) is interesting to explore as a character.

But then I guess nothing beats the excitement of exploring your own morality that you make the rules for and set the code for and decide if you fail at and suffer no penalties for violating (of course since you created it, how can you violate it just change it)... wait, why is this exciting again, it's like having a conversation with myself... Honestly, your issues seem more wrapped up in the DM's you've played under than the paladin class itself. It's a shame but then that's why you can choose to play a divine mercenary (fighter) as opposed to a paladin if the DM wants to be a jerk.

 

[Starfox]

One of the main reason's for being strict on Paladins on 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.

Yes, this is (was?) the basic problem - having classes mechanically balanced by role-playing restrictions was not a good idea. Basically, you get 2 cases:

A The role-playing restriction is not a problem, and the class is underpowered. Sure, you might play it act differently because of your code, but as long as this is not a clash between the player and DM, this does not really affect how you compare to other players.

B The role-playing restriction cuts in, and the character is deadlocked in a DM/Player headbutt contest.

 

[Starfox]

But then I guess nothing beats the excitement of exploring your own morality...

My experience is that exploring morality in-game is best left out of the rules. The players who are interested in morality will explore it regardless of class, those who are not will ignore it regardless of class.

What CAN be done about a paladin-style class it to give it powers that are focused to align with what the class is to achieve. Smite Evil is pretty useless if you are in conflict with good creatures. That does make a traitor paladin a very powerful and desirable mercenary in an intra-evil conflict (say the blood war), which might not make sense from an ethical standpoint, but explains why everyone is so keen on corrupting them.

 

[Manbearcat]

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?

Through the fictional positioning in play.

We have a paladin. He is a fortress of his ethos, imbued with divine power and trained in martial arts to defend those virtues. How do we know this? Well, in 4th edition we know this because the thematic archetype that you don when you choose the class says that is what you are.

4e PHB
Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.
To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.
Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory!

And the mechanics match/support this archetype:

- All armor and shields.
- Prayers and Melee attacks tagged with Divine, Healing, Implement, Radiant, Weapon Keywords. Suite of Features that expect you to sacrifice (give up your surges to heal others), Smite your enemies, be in the thick of melee and punish those foes with raw Divine power who would dare hurt your allies in your stead, Utility powers that provide fearlessness and allow you to extend it to your allies, and to speak with the tangible Divine backing of your God.
- Skills that promote this archetype.

The fiction and the mechanics match; the fictional positioning is coherent.

Secondary to that is the balance question. In AD&D the Paladin was a more powerful class and thus had to deal with the steeper gradients of XP gain for progression and being subjected to the DM's interpretation of your ethos and your actions with respect to it. In current editions of D&D, there is no mechanical advantage to be invoked when you say the word "Paladin" when you choose your class. As such, due to having no advantage, there is implicit trust that when you pick paladin as your class that you are accepting the thematic rigidness and coherency of the fictional positioning above...otherwise, just pick another class (such as your recommendation; a Fighter who does not possess the fictional positioning above but has the color and mechanics of a sellsword who believes in an ethos but is not divinely imbued/sponsored by the god of said ethos).

The same question could be asked of any player who wants to play a character that has incoherent fictional positioning (eg the thematics and mechanics are in discord); a Wizard with an Int of 20 and several knowledges played as a drooling, ignorant idiot...a Bard with a Charisma of 20 and all the social skills who has no understanding of the human condition and is utterly, socially inept. We don't feel inclined to formulate a system to punish them for these incoherent renderings of the fictional positioning. We don't because there is no need to. It is implicit (in a balanced system) that they wouldn't be building a character with those loaded thematics backed by game mechanics if they weren't interesting in playing it as such. And if they are or if they don't understand the dissonance, then you have "extra-game" issues in which the player is running afoul.

 

[Starfox]

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Manbearcat again."

Very well put, liked your finale there.

 

[Imaro]

Through the fictional positioning in play.

We have a paladin. He is a fortress of his ethos, imbued with divine power and trained in martial arts to defend those virtues. How do we know this? Well, in 4th edition we know this because the thematic archetype that you don when you choose the class says that is what you are.

Yes but there is very little (outside of combat mechanics) inherent in 4e that matches this particular archetype to the mechanics that are presented. Let's take a look at the passage you posted...

Paladins are indomitable warriors who’ve pledged their prowess to something greater than themselves. Paladins smite enemies with divine authority, bolster the courage of nearby companions, and radiate as if a beacon of inextinguishable hope. Paladins are transfigured on the field of battle, exemplars of divine ethos in action.
To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy’s charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice. Where others waver and wonder, your motivation is pure and simple, and your devotion is your strength. Where others scheme and steal, you take the high road, refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations.
Take up your blessed sword and sanctified shield brave warrior, and charge forward to hallowed glory

Now if we ignore all the description that is purely about combat and instead focus on the characteristics of a 4e paladin we see that...

Paladins are supposed to be "exemplars of [their] divine ethos"... yet can perform actions totally contrary to said ethos whenever they want...
Paladins devotion is supposed to be their strength... yet they are just as strong without it...
Paladins refuse to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade [them] from [their] obligations... yet a 4e Paladin can indulge in all sorts of temptation without reprecussions.

And the mechanics match/support this archetype:

I disagree...

- All armor and shields.
- Prayers and Melee attacks tagged with Divine, Healing, Implement, Radiant, Weapon Keywords. Suite of Features that expect you to sacrifice (give up your surges to heal others), Smite your enemies, be in the thick of melee and punish those foes with raw Divine power who would dare hurt your allies in your stead, Utility powers that provide fearlessness and allow you to extend it to your allies, and to speak with the tangible Divine backing of your God.
- Skills that promote this archetype.

Being able to use all armor and shields, is about combat and doesn't speak to the actual archetype's characteristics since any character with an expenditure of feats can match this. Prayers and melee attacks are cool but they're generic and not centered around the Paladins ethos and serve in no way to reinforce it... as an example a Paladin of the Raven Queen can just as easily use his helpful powers on an Orcus cultist, if he declares them an ally... why can someone who is supposed to be an exemplar of the Raven Queen's ethos, and whose power comes from his devotion do this? As to skills... let me know when this indomitable warrior of such prowess gets athletics...

The fiction and the mechanics match; the fictional positioning is coherent.

I guess if the only fictional positioning that matters is how he fights... you're right. Otherwise I find that the mechanics are pretty neutral to the fictional positioning and archetype of the 4e paladin

Secondary to that is the balance question. In AD&D the Paladin was a more powerful class and thus had to deal with the steeper gradients of XP gain for progression and being subjected to the DM's interpretation of your ethos and your actions with respect to it. In current editions of D&D, there is no mechanical advantage to be invoked when you say the word "Paladin" when you choose your class. As such, due to having no advantage, there is implicit trust that when you pick paladin as your class that you are accepting the thematic rigidness and coherency of the fictional positioning above...otherwise, just pick another class (such as your recommendation; a Fighter who does not possess the fictional positioning above but has the color and mechanics of a sellsword who believes in an ethos but is not divinely imbued/sponsored by the god of said ethos).

Yet D&D, and even 4e, is also gamist... which means at least part of the play experience is about surviving and overcoming challenges. What happens when that implicit trust to play the paladin correctly bumps against a player's desire to succeed in gamist play (and I have actually seen this happen in encounters play)? He may choose to staty true to the paladin but he may also choose to disregard the fictional positioning alltogether in order to survive and/or prosper. One of the things the Paladin restrictions protect against is the degredation of the archetype for convenience. If there is an implicit trust, why not be transparent and make it explicit?

The same question could be asked of any player who wants to play a character that has incoherent fictional positioning (eg the thematics and mechanics are in discord); a Wizard with an Int of 20 and several knowledges played as a drooling, ignorant idiot...a Bard with a Charisma of 20 and all the social skills who has no understanding of the human condition and is utterly, socially inept. We don't feel inclined to formulate a system to punish them for these incoherent renderings of the fictional positioning. We don't because there is no need to. It is implicit (in a balanced system) that they wouldn't be building a character with those loaded thematics backed by game mechanics if they weren't interesting in playing it as such. And if they are or if they don't understand the dissonance, then you have "extra-game" issues in which the player is running afoul.

These character's archetypes are not paragons of the things you list. Wizards are defined by the ability to use magic... not by their intellect. In fact there are plenty of stories about the bumbling, or short-sighted wizard with plenty of power he uses unwisely (even the great and poweful Merlin, when it comes to certain women, falls into this category at times). A Bard is also not an exemplar of the human condition and social expertise... he is a magnificent preformer and just by looking at performers in the real world being the most socially adept and/or understanding the human condition is not a pre-requisite. The paladin is a different breed, the archetype and it's powers are defined by it's very specific behavior, it's ethos and it's devotion.

 

[DEFCON 1]

These character's archetypes are not paragons of the things you list. Wizards are defined by the ability to use magic... not by their intellect.

But if said wizard has an Intelligence of 20... then yes, that character's archetype is "Intelligent Wizard". And thus if you actually care about roleplaying your character the way you designed him... you won't play him as a bumbling idiot.

In fact there are plenty of stories about the bumbling, or short-sighted wizard with plenty of power he uses unwisely (even the great and poweful Merlin, when it comes to certain women, falls into this category at times).

And these wizards should not have an Intelligence of 20 then. And if they do... it's because the player just cares about the numbers and the attack/damage bonus than he does actually roleplaying the character he designed.

The paladin is a different breed, the archetype and it's powers are defined by it's very specific behavior, it's ethos and it's devotion.

No... he's actually the same breed as every other character in the game-- when you decide to play him and assign numbers, feats, skills, and abilities to him... you theoretically desire to roleplay him in that manner. If you end up not doing so... why should the game itself punish ONE class out of all of them for this error in roleplay judgement?

In my mind... that's the DM's job. If the DM doesn't like a player not roleplaying his character the way he designed it (whether that's the paladin not following his oath, or the wizard always played as an idiot when he has an Intelligence of 20, or the cleric of the lifegiver killing every single creature in his path with no rhyme nor reason, or the guild thief rogue deliberately ignoring his guild's requirements or contracts)... then it's up to the DM to decide on the repercussions in game and play those out.

The game itself does not need to do it. Or at the very least, not do for only one class.