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

[Campbell]

I'm a little confounded. This is a tabletop RPG, which means that the other person is sitting right across the room from you. Why wouldn't you talk to them and see what they are trying to do with their character? There's a living breathing human at the other end.

 

[Starfox]

In fact there are plenty of stories about the bumbling, or short-sighted wizard with plenty of power he uses unwisely...

My boldface.

Well, it is common for wizards to be lacking in WISDOM, both as character builds and as persons in RPGs and fiction. Wisdom is not something they need much of.

Sorry, this was kind of a low blow, but it confers a point - we can never agree on how a certain RPG character is to be played. And generally, that disagreement has only small repercussions. Except in the case of the paladin (and to a lesser extent other divine classes), where the rules (Pre 4E) gives the DM special license to mess up the character (beyond the license to do anything the DM always has). Again, I see no special reason to single out these classes for punishment.

 

[Imaro]

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.



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 problem is that in D&D your ability to cast magic is directly influenced by your intelligence score... so you tell me how can you be one of the most powerful wizards in the land but also bumbling and not so smart when it comes to things outside the purview of magic in D&D? Outside of that, nothing inherent to the wizard class (because class is what's being discussed) and thus the wizard archetype intrinsically states wizards are paragons of intelligence... correct?

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?

If you are rolepaying him correctly there is no punishment... also nice way to move goalposts, again we are talking about what is inherent to a class... now all of a sudden feats, abilities, etc. have been added to the mix. As to why the paladin should be punished vs. other classes... because the very archetype of the paladin is supposed to be one who holds himself to a better standard of behavior than anyone else.

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.

So it's better for the DM to arbitrarily decide that a paladin (or any class for that matter) looses his powers or isn't playing correctly as opposed to having the game default to a neutral set of guidelines that both parties can examine, hash out any problems beforehand and agree too... color me confused.

 

[Imaro]

My boldface.

Well, it is common for wizards to be lacking in WISDOM, both as character builds and as persons in RPGs and fiction. Wisdom is not something they need much of.

Sorry, this was kind of a low blow, but it confers a point - we can never agree on how a certain RPG character is to be played. And generally, that disagreement has only small repercussions. Except in the case of the paladin (and to a lesser extent other divine classes), where the rules (Pre 4E) gives the DM special license to mess up the character (beyond the license to do anything the DM always has). Again, I see no special reason to single out these classes for punishment.

Did you also note I said bumbling and short-sighted??

EDIT: Because these classes are based on being beholden to a higher power or set of ideals and that defines the archetype and grants their abilities... it really is that simple.

 

[Starfox]

Did you also note I said bumbling and short-sighted??

"bumbling and short-sighted" being synonyms for lack of wisdom in my vocabulary... Or perhaps for low Dexterity.

Shall we start a new thread about which attributes govern which personality traits?

 

[Imaro]

"bumbling and short-sighted" being synonyms for lack of wisdom in my vocabulary... Or perhaps for low Dexterity.

Shall we start a new thread about which attributes govern which personality traits?

No, I'll just assume that instead of approaching my argument disingenuously, and understanding my point regardless of the exact examples... It was my fault for not communicating my main point clearly enough. My point being the wizard archetype in and of itself doesn't necessitate vast intelligence.

 

[Balesir]

If you are rolepaying him correctly there is no punishment...

Would that that were so, but it isn't because of two serious issues:

1) There are no categorical imperatives for roleplaying - even for roleplaying a paladin - only conditional ones. I.e. there is no single "correct", here.

2) It's not "roleplaying correctly" that avoids punishment - it's roleplaying the way someone else thinks you should that will avoid punishment.

As to why the paladin should be punished vs. other classes... because the very archetype of the paladin is supposed to be one who holds himself to a better standard of behavior than anyone else.

So, if the paladin holds himself to a better standard of behaviour (for some chosen value of "better"), why is it necessary to have a third party slap him if they think he has not met whatever standard it was that he set?

This really gets to the nub of my problem with the 'old style' paladin. How can you be virtuous about holding yourself to a set of standards if you will lose power for not meeting those standards? Where's the "virtue" (as opposed to expediency) in that? And what is the point of setting out in the (as yet untested) belief that "an ethical and honourable warrior is superior to an unethical, dishonourable warrior" if the question you are posing the universe has already been answered? The answer is "yes", and that warrior had better stick to the (universe imposed) standards or s/he'll get nerfed...

 

[Imaro]

Would that that were so, but it isn't because of two serious issues:

1) There are no categorical imperatives for roleplaying - even for roleplaying a paladin - only conditional ones. I.e. there is no single "correct", here.

2) It's not "roleplaying correctly" that avoids punishment - it's roleplaying the way someone else thinks you should that will avoid punishment.

Not if, as many have suggested, we have a well defined code for the paladin...

So, if the paladin holds himself to a better standard of behaviour (for some chosen value of "better"), why is it necessary to have a third party slap him if they think he has not met whatever standard it was that he set?

Because the paladin doesn't grant himself power for following the code... if this was the case there would be no fallen paladins or anti-paladins. The paladins power ultimately comes from a higher being (except in 4e) that judges said paladins actions against said code.

This really gets to the nub of my problem with the 'old style' paladin. How can you be virtuous about holding yourself to a set of standards if you will lose power for not meeting those standards? Where's the "virtue" (as opposed to expediency) in that? And what is the point of setting out in the (as yet untested) belief that "an ethical and honourable warrior is superior to an unethical, dishonourable warrior" if the question you are posing the universe has already been answered? The answer is "yes", and that warrior had better stick to the (universe imposed) standards or s/he'll get nerfed...

So are clerics of good deities... just self-serving power mongers? I'm not getting the whole one cannot be virtuous because one receives a gift for it. Secondly, as long as the paladin is acting in accordance with the code he is in fact being restrained and since his power has to be used to serve that cause (or he looses it) then it seems more like accepting a burden in return for power. As for proving whether "an ethical and honourable warrior is superior to an unethical, dishonourable warrior" ... it hasn't been proven... Otherwise paladins would always win... anti-paladins and fallen paladins wouldn't exist, no evil warrior could stand against a paladin, and so on... but none of that is the case.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So it's better for the DM to arbitrarily decide that a paladin (or any class for that matter) looses his powers or isn't playing correctly as opposed to having the game default to a neutral set of guidelines that both parties can examine, hash out any problems beforehand and agree too... color me confused.

Abritrarily? No. But *if* the paladin in a particular campaign/world/game *can* lose his abilities due to not following his oaths... that should be an agreement made between the player and the DM at the start of the game. All that can be hammered out between the parties involved at the time it is decided to go with that decision.

That DOESN'T need to be the province of the game as a whole... simply because many other campaigns/worlds/games won't WANT to have paladins lose their abilities for not following oaths.

It really isn't that confusing at all.

 

[Imaro]

Abritrarily? No. But *if* the paladin in a particular campaign/world/game *can* lose his abilities due to not following his oaths... that should be an agreement made between the player and the DM at the start of the game. All that can be hammered out between the parties involved at the time it is decided to go with that decision.

That DOESN'T need to be the province of the game as a whole... simply because many other campaigns/worlds/games won't WANT to have paladins lose their abilities for not following oaths.

It really isn't that confusing at all.

So if you don't want the paladin to loose his abilities for the actions he takes... why can't you just ignore it since many other campaigns/worlds/games will want the classic paladin? In other words, why should the default be the free reign paladin as opposed to the restricted one? Especially since only one edition ever presented the paladin as such.