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

[Hussar]

/snip

Now, there's a good debate as to who dictates when the "fall" kicks in, but sometimes it should be obvious, and the GM should have the final say, in my opinion (as with all things). For instance, if the Paladin kills a Good shopkeeper in cold blood to take his stuff without paying for it, and the player says "no, I don't fall," we have a problem with the class living up to how it is fictionally supposed to function. Thus, the GM should be able to say "um, no, you committed blatant murder so you could steal. You lose your powers." Again, in my opinion.
/snip

I guess I'd much rather play with players who would turn to me, the DM and say, "Yup, that was an evil act. I fall." rather than force me into the role of judging the player's interpretation of his character.

Then again, I wouldn't play with people whose grasp of the fundamentals of their character were so bizarre that they would possibly think that cold blooded murder would be in character for a paladin. No amount of mechanics is going to help that player.

I mean, have you ever seen a player playing a paladin who is that far out of touch with the definitions of the class that they would actually do this? We're talking about someone who's got some serious issues.

I think it's far more likely that the player performs an act which is open to interpretation, but because the DM has final say, the player's interpretation carries no weight. I don't like that style of mechanics.

Teach people how to play the character rather than try to bludgeon them into behaving a certain way.

 

[billd91]

You're basically saying, "there are consequences to action," which is still the same strawman from earlier. Nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be consequences to the PCs' actions.

The fact that actions in RPGs have consequences in no way justifies the Paladin's specific weird list of behavioral restrictions and the consequences for transgression. You're not in any way providing any argument that the Paladin's falling mechanics deserve to exist; you're pre-supposing that they exist and then saying, "well of course if you break those vows, bad stuff happens!"

You're putting the cart before the horse.

-O

I think you're completely misunderstanding me or are assuming that I'm trying to make some argument that I'm not. I'm not presenting any straw man at all. I'm just pointing out that, with a paladin's restrictions in place, adjudicating any violations of it isn't any different from applying consequences to actions. There's no more policing of the paladin's restrictions than there is adjudicating consequences for actions. That's not a straw man.

Nor am I using the the whole consequences of actions thing to justify why a paladin's restrictions deserve to exist. They deserve to exist because they're part of what makes the paladin a paladin in D&D, distinct from fighters, cavaliers, and clerics alike. They set the class apart and are a strong part of its charm and attraction.

 

[Obryn]

Sure, you don't have to do it this way when designing the class. But, if the world you want includes "step off this path and lose these powers," then you need a "fall" mechanic.

That's pretty much the key right there. I don't find that sort of setting anywhere near as interesting. You do; that's fine. I'd like to see falling mechanics as an optional sidebar; that way folks who want to bring in the heavy-handed mechanical consequences to playing your character "wrong" can get what they want.

Is a "fall" mechanic absolutely necessary? Well, for the Paladin that I want to play, absolutely. For many (most?) others? Not so much, and I get that. I'm not sure how they're going to resolve it in 5e, but I think it's not a strawman at all to say "the fiction works this way, so we make mechanics match, and following consequences from actions can determine a fall." Just my thoughts, though. As always, play what you like

That's not the strawman. The strawman is, "well, actions have consequences." Which nobody disagrees with, and nobody is arguing against, but it's at least the third or fourth time it's been posted on this thread as if it's conclusive. The fact that falling in a river gets you wet does not in any way justify that a paladin doing (insert non-specific dishonorable/immoral thing here) makes them lose their paladin stuff. That's not how logic works.

-O

 

[billd91]

Really?

When I step off the bridge, the rules have pretty exact rules for what happens. I fall and take XdX damage per 10 feet. If I steal from the royal treasury, the DM adjudicates the reactions of the NPC's based on a shared understanding of how the game world works. But, breaking my oaths or transgressing my code requires an extra step. The DM must first believe that I have, in fact, transgressed my code.

If the player disagrees? Too bad. The DM is final arbiter and must police the paladin's actions. The paladin player must play his character according to how the DM feels the character should be played, not how the player feels his character should be played.

You honestly don't see the difference?

No, I don't. The player may disagree that NPCs might react in the ways I choose to have them react when they rob the royal treasury too. Player disagreement is irrelevant on the topic of adjudicating consequences for actions.

What you're missing is that a DM and player should hash out what it means to be lawful good, and what the paladin's code means when the player chooses to play one. And, if you were to ask me about it as a potential player, I'd darn well tell you that killing a guy on the streets just because he pinged your detect evil-o-meter will violate your code and lead to a one way trip to the executioner. The gods of law and good don't condone mayhem on the city streets.

 

[Obryn]

They deserve to exist because they're part of what makes the paladin a paladin in D&D, distinct from fighters, cavaliers, and clerics alike. They set the class apart and are a strong part of its charm and attraction.

Okay. I disagree. I think the falling mechanics are unnecessary and damaging baggage that throws serious mechanical consequences into conflicts that are sufficiently interesting without them, if the group is serious at all about playing their characters. (And if they're not serious about them, I don't think the system should browbeat them into submission.)

Paladin vows and codes are interesting. They're dramatic. They're a great way to introduce compelling conflict into the game. And none of that requries the paladin's falling mechanics. In fact, I think it does the opposite by making it a binary choice.

So now we're back to chocolate and vanilla.

-O

 

[JamesonCourage]

I guess I'd much rather play with players who would turn to me, the DM and say, "Yup, that was an evil act. I fall." rather than force me into the role of judging the player's interpretation of his character.

And I'd rather trust my GM to handle it while I immerses in-character, only coming out of character when I absolutely need to. Just a play style difference, and yours isn't wrong.

Then again, I wouldn't play with people whose grasp of the fundamentals of their character were so bizarre that they would possibly think that cold blooded murder would be in character for a paladin. No amount of mechanics is going to help that player.

Well, I wouldn't play with a GM that is going to screw my Paladin over, either. Again, just play style difference.

I mean, have you ever seen a player playing a paladin who is that far out of touch with the definitions of the class that they would actually do this? We're talking about someone who's got some serious issues.

I think it's far more likely that the player performs an act which is open to interpretation, but because the DM has final say, the player's interpretation carries no weight. I don't like that style of mechanics.

Thus, my statement of there being a debate to be had for who decides the fall, followed by my preference and reasoning.

Teach people how to play the character rather than try to bludgeon them into behaving a certain way.

I don't consider it bludgeoning them, personally; I consider it the mechanics upholding the fiction, which helps me immerse. As always, play what you like

That's pretty much the key right there. I don't find that sort of setting anywhere near as interesting. You do; that's fine.

Yep. Your preference is fine, too. Just play style difference.

I'd like to see falling mechanics as an optional sidebar;

I'd be okay with that. Same for Clerics, Druids, etc.

that way folks who want to bring in the heavy-handed mechanical consequences to playing your character "wrong" can get what they want.

I wanted to comment on this; when you "fall" as a Paladin, you aren't playing your character "wrong" so much as you made a decision. It could be a mistake (this happens with all characters and all classes), or you could've made a conscious decision to step off that path. Either way, it'll be interesting during the course of play at my table. It's not
"playing your character wrong" to make mistakes, or work against everything you've idealized up to this point. It's character depth, or even character growth. I highly value those things, and a "fall" mechanic is a tool for that (for my group).

As a quick example, the last D&D session I ran* ended with Brock (a longtime Cleric of Pelor, now in epic levels) losing his powers, taken away by Pelor himself. The player loved this development. The drama for him was fascinating. Brock had worked for this one ideal (serve Pelor, no matter what), but his faith finally wavered at the end of the campaign / session, and his god (who was grieving at the time) took his power away, in-person. This was a great hook for this player, and the aftermath of how this gets resolved is incredibly important to this player. He's very much looking forward to resolving this, and he's wondering where he'll go with Brock. Will he find his faith? Break off? Follow another deity? He's not sure yet, and that makes for an interesting game for us.

*(which was a while back, as I don't run D&D games regularly; they're closer to 1-shots or 2-shots)

Again, I get that you don't like that style of game, but I think "playing your character wrong" is just loaded wording, and is probably best avoided. As always, play what you like

 

[Balesir]

Thinking on this a bit, I don't think that I find the whole "fall" thing intolerable as such (although I still find it uninteresting, but that's just a taste thing), but rather the whole "the DM decides what 'moral' is" aspect is outside the pale.

I wonder if there is a compromise system, like this:

- A paladin has a 'fall threshold' of 20 (say)

- Dubious acts can be awarded 1d6 to 3d6 "transgression points", either by the DM, by a vote/allocation across the group as a whole or by the paladin player (so that the mechanic can be adapted easily to suit different tastes).

- When "transgression points" exceed the "fall threshold", the paladin falls. Maybe beyond a second level atonement is impossible. Atonement can remove TPs at any time, allowing the paladin to avoid falling altogether.

Would that sort of system work for everyone?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

 

[JamesonCourage]

Thinking on this a bit, I don't think that I find the whole "fall" thing intolerable as such (although I still find it uninteresting, but that's just a taste thing), but rather the whole "the DM decides what 'moral' is" aspect is outside the pale.

I wonder if there is a compromise system, like this:

- A paladin has a 'fall threshold' of 20 (say)

- Dubious acts can be awarded 1d6 to 3d6 "transgression points", either by the DM, by a vote/allocation across the group as a whole or by the paladin player (so that the mechanic can be adapted easily to suit different tastes).

- When "transgression points" exceed the "fall threshold", the paladin falls. Maybe beyond a second level atonement is impossible. Atonement can remove TPs at any time, allowing the paladin to avoid falling altogether.

Would that sort of system work for everyone?

I wouldn't be opposed to it for my style, as long as the GM had the ability to take powers away when things as dubious, and are rather straightforward. Again, that's for my style. But, the "fall threshold" and "transgression points" don't bug me at all. As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

I wanted to comment on this; when you "fall" as a Paladin, you aren't playing your character "wrong" so much as you made a decision. It could be a mistake (this happens with all characters and all classes), or you could've made a conscious decision to step off that path. Either way, it'll be interesting during the course of play at my table. It's not
"playing your character wrong" to make mistakes, or work against everything you've idealized up to this point. It's character depth, or even character growth. I highly value those things, and a "fall" mechanic is a tool for that (for my group).

By the way, there's been a magic item in the game since 1e at least that will help with this sort of thing. The phylactery of faithfulness. It tells you if you're going to jeopardize your standing with your alignment and deity in time to choose something else to do. And in 3e, it's cheap at 1000 gp. A pretty small expenditure to not be blindsided by a fall.

 

[JamesonCourage]

By the way, there's been a magic item in the game since 1e at least that will help with this sort of thing. The phylactery of faithfulness. It tells you if you're going to jeopardize your standing with your alignment and deity in time to choose something else to do. And in 3e, it's cheap at 1000 gp. A pretty small expenditure to not be blindsided by a fall.

Yeah, my players never saw one (but magic items were very rare to begin with). But, they never made one, either. Besides, most of the time I'd let them know when they were bordering on stuff for free, and Knowledge checks, Wisdom checks (memory), or past experience could let them know more (it's shady but you won't lose your powers, etc.).

The item is a good thing to note, though. As always, play what you like