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

[Starfox]

But a fighter does lose any abilities granted by a diety, just like a paladin. And the dm is not "stepping in." The dm is merely playing the part of npcs just as he's always done. Insult the innkeeper's daughter, and you're liable to lose your inn privileges and be sleeping in the street. Insult your deity and lose your spellcasting privileges. If a paladin jumps in a lake, the dm is not punishing him by declaring his lantern no longer works. Nor is he punishing him by stripping his powers after he burns the orphanage down. He is merely adjudicating the npcs of the world's actions. Actions have consequences, else why even play? If a thief gets caught stealing the crown jewels, should the king just shrug and do nothing? It's the same premise.

Is a deity really an NPC is a setting? If so, it is unique for divine origin characters to have their power completely dependent on an NPC. (Except possibly for the Warlock 3.5, not really familiar with that). A wizard apprentice can find another master, a thief can change guilds. And a fighter can multiclass or get magic gear that allows spellcasting. None of them have the dependency on a GM-controlled agency divine characters (and especially the Paladin) has.

It gives the DM an unprecedented amount of control over the character, which I guess is part of the reason many players shy away from divine classes.

 

[Mournblade94]

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.

That IS what happens. It is enforced from table to table. If a DM does not want to enforce it at his table then the Paladin player is on his spree of having no restrictions. If the DM enforces it then the player has the RP restrictions.

It is absolutely no different than it was before. I have played with DM's that do not care about paladins and I have played with the ones that care about it. Nothing has ever stopped the non-enforcing DM from doing that. DM's like me that enforce it, do not go up to OTHER DM's and rat their player out.

It has always been enforced from table to table.

 

[Mournblade94]

My paladin (1e) detects evil on someone and gets a ping. He kills that someone. Does he lose his status or not?

That would depend on WHO the paladin serves. How far on the law scale is he to the good scale.

In the Forgotten Realms if you are a paladin of Tyr you would lose your status for that (justice). If you were a paladin of Ilmater he would not care (killing him reduced suffering of the innocent.)

 

[Dragoslav]

Nor is he punishing him by stripping his powers after he burns the orphanage down. He is merely adjudicating the npcs of the world's actions. Actions have consequences, else why even play? If a thief gets caught stealing the crown jewels, should the king just shrug and do nothing? It's the same premise.

It's not the same premise because people are advocating mechanical restrictions (Paladins must be X alignment) with mechanical consequences (you lose all of your powers), while what you describe here is a strictly narrative consequence that's left completely up to the GM to adjudicate (is the king forgiving? how many guards does he have to call on?).

Secondly, the rogue class isn't more powerful than other classes and balanced by RP restrictions (which is the main source of contention over Paladin alignment restrictions). Imagine if one of the features of the rogue class was, "A rogue can pick anything of any size from anybody's pocket, is completely invisible and inaudible while in shadows, and can kill anyone in one hit while attacking from behind. However, he must always try to steal anything of value after he sees it; if he doesn't, he immediately loses all of his powers."

I don't have a problem with a paladin losing his powers of good if he stops being a valorous exemplar of good; I do have a problem with the paladin class being more powerful and having it "balanced" with the "paladins must be X alignment" rule, which amounts to, "If you play the class the way you're supposed to, you get an overpowered character; if you play the class the way you're not supposed to, you get a useless character."

 

[Balesir]

That IS what happens. It is enforced from table to table. If a DM does not want to enforce it at his table then the Paladin player is on his spree of having no restrictions. If the DM enforces it then the player has the RP restrictions.

I confess I find this a bizarre outlook, at once full of delicious irony and warped fantasy. Under this paradigm, it seems, the paladin - or rather its player - is not a shining beacon of good, but rather is assumed to be a chittering, murmering imp intent on vile evil just as soon as it can get away with it. The true hero of the piece, meanwhile, is the valorous and flawless DM, his silver armour glittering in the sunlight and his shining sword, straight and pure, held aloft, keeping the restless swarms that sit at the heart of all supposedly "good" characters in their place. This is not a fantasy I have ever wanted to entertain, never mind wanted to play out.

I just don't buy that many or even several players of paladin characters are out to despoil the game world at the earliest possible opportunity; that's not how the games I play have ever worked. If we ever came across such a childish little gimp, I think we'd just throw him out - life's too short to play with jerks.

 

[Imaro]

I confess I find this a bizarre outlook, at once full of delicious irony and warped fantasy. Under this paradigm, it seems, the paladin - or rather its player - is not a shining beacon of good, but rather is assumed to be a chittering, murmering imp intent on vile evil just as soon as it can get away with it. The true hero of the piece, meanwhile, is the valorous and flawless DM, his silver armour glittering in the sunlight and his shining sword, straight and pure, held aloft, keeping the restless swarms that sit at the heart of all supposedly "good" characters in their place. This is not a fantasy I have ever wanted to entertain, never mind wanted to play out.

I just don't buy that many or even several players of paladin characters are out to despoil the game world at the earliest possible opportunity; that's not how the games I play have ever worked. If we ever came across such a childish little gimp, I think we'd just throw him out - life's too short to play with jerks.

Ok, so... taking away a players imaginary powers because they acted a certain way (with the possibility of atonement) is totally wrong... but kicking a player out the group for good because they acted a certain way is totally good... Uhm, ok.

My second point would be just because a player doesn't roleplay a paladin well doesn't make him a jerk. D&D also has a strong gamist slant and there can be times where a player is faced with a better chance for survival and/or expediency vs. playing a character like the paladin true to its archetyype... If he chooses expediency and survival at some point over the archetype... it doesn't make him a jerk, but he's also not playing the paladin archetype correctly.

 

[Imaro]

Is a deity really an NPC is a setting? If so, it is unique for divine origin characters to have their power completely dependent on an NPC. (Except possibly for the Warlock 3.5, not really familiar with that). A wizard apprentice can find another master, a thief can change guilds. And a fighter can multiclass or get magic gear that allows spellcasting. None of them have the dependency on a GM-controlled agency divine characters (and especially the Paladin) has.

It gives the DM an unprecedented amount of control over the character, which I guess is part of the reason many players shy away from divine classes.

Can't the Paladin choose to atone for his actions and regain his power??

 

[Mournblade94]

I confess I find this a bizarre outlook, at once full of delicious irony and warped fantasy. Under this paradigm, it seems, the paladin - or rather its player - is not a shining beacon of good, but rather is assumed to be a chittering, murmering imp intent on vile evil just as soon as it can get away with it. The true hero of the piece, meanwhile, is the valorous and flawless DM, his silver armour glittering in the sunlight and his shining sword, straight and pure, held aloft, keeping the restless swarms that sit at the heart of all supposedly "good" characters in their place. This is not a fantasy I have ever wanted to entertain, never mind wanted to play out.

I just don't buy that many or even several players of paladin characters are out to despoil the game world at the earliest possible opportunity; that's not how the games I play have ever worked. If we ever came across such a childish little gimp, I think we'd just throw him out - life's too short to play with jerks.

Most players of the paladin are not what you describe above. I am glad to read you realize that alignment enforcement on the paladin is not a problem, unless the player is a problem. So we agree then.

I'm not sure how you derived all of that from a remark that the alignment enforcement is something done from table to table. That in itself is a rather far jump to a conclusion. Still I would have to agree if a player like that was at my table I would kick them (and have uninvited people before) for that very reason.

 

[Tovec]

I know that wading in here is a terrible idea but I just had to add a couple things..

Why is no one addressing the comparisons to Druids (who can't use metal armor) and Clerics (who lose their spellcasting or otherwise need to stay strict to their god's tenants)?

As far as the "it is easier to [add/remove] something than to [opposite] it," this is FALSE. It needs to die in a fire of over-simplicity. Sometimes it is easier to add things, other times it is easier to remove them.

In this case, it would be harder to add in these little bits of background/roleplay elements like paladins can fall and how they do so. It may also be hard to extract a class without it (not true to my experience but I can understand the problem of expectations.)
Flip this around and it feels like a houserule where the DM is enforcing behaviour unfairly, similar to all the problems I see to fix casters. Now if it is the core/standard rule then people can fight it but the DM can also point to the book. In this model if people want an easier time with the class, to ignore those restrictions, the only thing that stops them is a conversation with the DM (instead of having to add in a stricter system).
Imagine trying to add in surges in a non-surges system? Same deal, it is a restriction that MANY see a huge benefit and balancing factor but it seems overly harsh if you are adding it in.

I think the real solution needs to be a hybrid of both (keep it in and exclude it). I would like to see it mentioned in the class, that they can fall and lose their powers, then I would like to see in a sidebar (similar to 3.5's domain clerics or specialty wizards) how that happens. The mechanics of how they fall/atone need to be good, simple and clear so that those of us who do use them can do so simply, and those that don't want them can just ignore that section/sidebar in the book.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Why is no one addressing the comparisons to Druids (who can't use metal armor) and Clerics (who lose their spellcasting or otherwise need to stay strict to their god's tenants)?

I think because the paladin is the poster boy of these kind of restrictions, due to having the strictest and the narrowest. For example on the odd occasion I play in a pre-4e game, I might play a druid. Sure, the metal armor restriction is poorly thought-out, but it's easy to avoid. I might also play a cleric because, sure I have to follow the tenets of my god and stay within one alignment-step of him, but that leaves me with a lot of cleric options and a safe amount of freedom. So I can play a cleric of say, Heironeous, and know that even if the DM doesn't think I'm quite Lawful enough or quite Good enough I'll remain a cleric. Or I can play a cleric of any other god and alignment.

Whereas I don't play pre-4e paladins because I'm arbitrarily restricted not only to one particular alignment, but to one specific brand of that alignment. And if I take one little step outside of that narrow archetype, I lose what makes me a paladin. Essentially, I have to play Galahad and if I don't play him right, I have to pay some holier-than-thou to put in a good word for me to Him. (Who is, ironically, under much less severe restrictions than I am!)

So while I and many others don't care for any restrictions, the paladin is the one who gets discussed because he's the poster boy.

PS: Like your sig, btw!