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

[Sunseeker]

Because we like them. A paladin who follows the straight and narrow path of righteousness, bound by his oaths before his god. That's awesome mojo to play, right there. It's about art. It's about the meaning of the class. The mechanics are secondary.

Who's "we"? You and a mouse in your pocket? Why do we need the game to ENFORCE this? Why can't this be something enforced from table to table? If the mechanics are secondary, then we DONT NEED mechanics to enforce meaning.

 

[billd91]

Who's "we"? You and a mouse in your pocket? Why do we need the game to ENFORCE this? Why can't this be something enforced from table to table? If the mechanics are secondary, then we DONT NEED mechanics to enforce meaning.

By that token, why can't it be a game element you house rule away at your own table? Why shouldn't the game present some characters classes with their own, inherent identities and the limitations those involve? Personally, I have doubts that the paladin would have ever been nearly as compelling over the course of D&D if it didn't have its distinct restrictions.

 

[Obryn]

And thank you for adding such succinct points to the conversation.

Look, if you want to equate "paladins don't lose their powers because of code violations" with "nothing the PCs do has any impact and no actions have any consequences," that's on you. Not a single person is arguing that actions shouldn't have consequences. We're arguing whether or not the specific case of a paladin falling adds anything to the game.

I don't think it does. I think it's unnecessary baggage for the class. It's not even remotely the same premise, for reasons described at length in this thread.

-O

 

[Campbell]

I admit I have a strong play-based bias against paladins who lose their powers at a drop of a hat. It's not based on my experiences as a player though. My issue is with players who use playing a paladin as a special snowflake flag. When I was still a fledgling DM I had quite a bit of trouble dealing with a high school buddy who thought playing a paladin meant he was due more consideration, more plot hooks and more DM energy directed his way than the other players.

No character concept should be special. You are not due more consideration because your concept called for a different class. D&D should not encourage this behavior. I don't think those of us who are old cards really need the rules to support us one way or the other. The primary concern should be how the game is presented to new players.

 

[Sunseeker]

By that token, why can't it be a game element you house rule away at your own table? Why shouldn't the game present some characters classes with their own, inherent identities and the limitations those involve? Personally, I have doubts that the paladin would have ever been nearly as compelling over the course of D&D if it didn't have its distinct restrictions.

Because adding is easier than removing. That's the whole point of DDN(which they seem to be losing sight of). Layer on additional elements that expand or restrict gameplay, instead of being presented with one, huge complex system that must be gone through with a fine-toothed comb and analyzed several times over when we adjust one simple thing.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Not "just like." A Fighter doesn't lose his Fighterhood for doing unFighterly things. A Wizard doesn't lose his Wizarding for acting unWizardly. At least, the rules don't encourage this.

-O

But he could cause trouble by doing something stupid and end up jailed or even dead, along with the rest of the party.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I actually trust my DM when it comes to playing my Paladin/Inquisitor in PFS. Any DM that will screw you over will do it with any class so you can't blame the class nor it's restrictions.

The restrictions and possible repercussions are part of what makes the class and identifies the class. I'm seeing more and more generic qualities being given to the classes and I'm just not happy with that. I play paladins because of their abilities and their restrictions, take some of that away and you are left with a fighter/cleric that I have no interest in.

 

[Obryn]

But he could cause trouble by doing something stupid and end up jailed or even dead, along with the rest of the party.

Sure he could, and not a single person is arguing otherwise.

I actually trust my DM when it comes to playing my Paladin/Inquisitor in PFS. Any DM that will screw you over will do it with any class so you can't blame the class nor it's restrictions.

I've trusted my DMs in the past, and I endeavor to be a trustworthy DM. None of this matters in this context. It's an ugly and unnecessary mechanic; the arguments here aren't based on bad DMs.

The restrictions and possible repercussions are part of what makes the class and identifies the class. I'm seeing more and more generic qualities being given to the classes and I'm just not happy with that. I play paladins because of their abilities and their restrictions, take some of that away and you are left with a fighter/cleric that I have no interest in.

Why does this (interesting, I agree!) roleplaying hook need a mechanical consequence like de-paladinizing?

-O

 

[billd91]

Because adding is easier than removing. That's the whole point of DDN(which they seem to be losing sight of). Layer on additional elements that expand or restrict gameplay, instead of being presented with one, huge complex system that must be gone through with a fine-toothed comb and analyzed several times over when we adjust one simple thing.

In my experience, it's the opposite. It's easier to take something that's there and ignore it than it is to add.

 

[Mournblade94]

So, if the DM doesn't monitor the character, why does the DM then enforce falling? If the DM has no need to monitor, then the paladin player is the one who determines whether or not his actions are in keeping with archetype.

I totally agree that a DM should never, ever babysit his players and ever tell them, "You are playing your character wrong."

Its obvious when the player steps out of bounds. That is not babysitting. Nor is it saying you are playing your character wrong.

It is saying you have broken your oath as a paladin and now you must atone. If it was intentional that is great. If it was unintentional the universe makes you atone. I realize consequences for actions are a bad thing for some players and doing whatever they want is the right action because they are playing.