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

[pemerton]

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.

I agree with Obryn here. It's not about trusting the GM - I GM much more than I play, especially these days. For me, it's about trusting my players. Why am I a better author of their characters' ideals than they are themselves?

Or to come at it differently - I don't see that the player of the paladin has a conflict of interest in adjudging his/her alignment, unless you're playing a "paladin's code is an actual disadvantage in play" game of the sort that [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] has described upthread. But that's not the only mode of D&D play, and I'm not sure it's even been the default since sometime in the early-to-mid 80s.

I'm not really seeing how "policing" the paladin's restrictions are any different from adjudicating consequences of PC actions. You step off the bridge, you fall in the river. You steal from the royal treasury, you risk the ensuing man hunt. You break your oaths or transgress against your code, you must atone.

The difference is, surely, that what counts as "breaking your oath" or "transgressing your code" is more frequently and more hotly contested. There's a whole intellectual field, moral and political philosophy, devoted to ascertaining what counts as breaking oaths and transgressing codes. And as a professional participant in that field, I can tell you that agreement is not widespread and the contests is hot. To the best of my knowledge there is no comparable field devoted to what counts as stepping off the bridge (that's at best a fairly uninteresting example in the metaphysics of vagueness).

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.

<snip>

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.

For me, this captures my response perfectly.

Again, I can understand Libramarian's gamist approach. But I don't feel the pull of the GM-control model outside that gamist approach to play.

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."

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?

I agree with Hussar. Where are all these players of orphanage-burning, shop-keeper killing paladins? And do we have any data that shows how successful alignment mechanics are at curing them of their problems?

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.

We're talking about a player who chooses to play a paladin, and then (in the example given) burns down an orphanage! Why would I waste my time playing with that person? What are they adding to my game? And what would make me think that enforced mechanical aligment is going to beat them into being a good player?

Agreed.

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.

But why shouldn't this be up to the player. To put it another way, why can't the GM put it to the player "That wasn't very honourable, was it?" If the player agrees, they play out the consequences. If they don't agree - if they thought that what they did was a permissible choice in the circumstances - why second guess?

This connects more broadly to other issues of playstyle, too, like "fail forward" adjudication. I would prefer that D&Dnext accomodate a wide range of styles, including my own!

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.

This is why I don't regard the deities as NPCs in the strict sense. They are shared characters. The player of the divine PC has a say too. Sometimes, their say is the most important.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I agree with Hussar.

No way!

Where are all these players of orphanage-burning, shop-keeper killing paladins?

Well, the rules don't allow that. But, the claims of "player abusing self-policing his powers" are about as hollow as "GM setting up gotcha moments for Paladins", in my opinion. Both rather point to much larger problems than the Paladin fall mechanic, and both are probably extremely in the minority.

And do we have any data that shows how successful alignment mechanics are at curing them of their problems?

Again, the fall mechanics isn't the main issue, here. It's a problem player whether or not the fall mechanic is there, just like a GM who sets up "gotcha" moments for the Paladin PC is a problem GM whether or not the fall mechanic is there.

But why shouldn't this be up to the player. To put it another way, why can't the GM put it to the player "That wasn't very honourable, was it?" If the player agrees, they play out the consequences. If they don't agree - if they thought that what they did was a permissible choice in the circumstances - why second guess?

For me, it's immersion. The GM handes the NPCs (in most games it's a god granting permission, while in my games it was Good itself doing it), so that I can focus on reacting to things outside of my power as a character. In other words, the meta nature of it might infringe on my immersion, and, personally, I'd rather avoid it.

But, again, I do see a valid argument for wanting this to be in the hands of the player(s), not solely the GM.

This connects more broadly to other issues of playstyle, too, like "fail forward" adjudication. I would prefer that D&Dnext accomodate a wide range of styles, including my own!

Me too, even if I (for sure) won't use it as my main game. If my brother runs a 5e game, I'd much rather be willing to play it than say "sorry, no interest in it." To that end, hopefully they make some pretty optional notes about the Paladin.

This is why I don't regard the deities as NPCs in the strict sense. They are shared characters. The player of the divine PC has a say too. Sometimes, their say is the most important.

Play style preference, etc. In my epic level 3.5 game (and just before epic), the players interacted with the gods. They were most certainly NPCs, there. And, of course, this comes up somewhat with things like Commune, or religious visions, etc.

I do see where you're coming from, but I see things like deities or even a rather nebulous "powers of Good" as more NPC-like than player-like. That's because, personally, I don't like deciding how things other than my character acts, unless my character literally forces it (moves people, controls them, etc.). But, once again, it's just play style, and I get where you're coming from. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

It's a problem player whether or not the fall mechanic is there

So how, then, does it provide a reason for the fall mechanics (which is how you seemed to present it)? Or are you saying that the fall mechanics should be in the game, but not actually used?

 

[JamesonCourage]

So how, then, does it provide a reason for the fall mechanics (which is how you seemed to present it)?

I presented it as one extreme example for why I'd like the GM deciding who falls and who does not.

Or are you saying that the fall mechanics should be in the game, but not actually used?

I have no idea how you got here, but no, it's not what I'm saying. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

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.

I agree that a code sets a paladin apart from a fighter, although cavaliers are actually not set apart from paladins in 1e - a paladin is just a special kind of cavalier.

But, as far as adjudicating violations goes, you absolutely have to police the paladin's restrictions. After all, how can you adjudicate something you aren't policing? The DM has to decide if a given act is violating the code. Then the DM has to apply the consequences of that violation.

IOW, the DM is both prosecutor and judge. The player doesn't get to decide how NPC's react to actions. There isn't a DM on the planet who would accept a player telling the DM, "No, sorry, your NPC doesn't really act that way". But, it's perfectly acceptable to you for the DM to tell the player, "Sorry, your action is in violation of your code, even if you disagree."

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.

I've always wondered about this one. What's the point of a magic item that basically lets the DM tell the player, "Sorry, you are playing your character wrong."?

 

[Hussar]

But, JC, we're not talking about Gotcha DM's. That's not the issue.

The issue is that the DM decides whether or not the player is playing his character right. The DM feels that the player has violated his code. The player disagrees. It's not a cut and dried situation where the paladin was burning down orphanages, but, something that could actually go either way. Which does come up all the time. Orc babies being a good example. Treatment of prisoners. Heck, in this thread alone I've had two different DM's tell me complete opposite things about whether or not the paladin could kill on sight with a detect evil. If I play with one DM, then I can do it no problem. If I play with the other DM, I fall.

That does not make for very consistent experiences. And it gets right to the heart of the matter. Playing a paladin becomes an exercise in Mother May I. The paladin player not only has to satisfy his own interpretation of the code, but also the DM's interpretation as well. And, at any point in time, the DM can over rule the player's interpretation to the point of stripping the fundamental elements out of the character.

Even with a good DM and a good player, this is a pretty easy to come by situation.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But, JC, we're not talking about Gotcha DM's. That's not the issue.

Well that's good. I'll stop talking about problem players, so we're on the same page.

The issue is that the DM decides whether or not the player is playing his character right.

Didn't read the rest of the post. I already addressed this. I'll reread the rest once this wording disappears. As always, play what you like

 

[Imaro]

We're talking about a player who chooses to play a paladin, and then (in the example given) burns down an orphanage! Why would I waste my time playing with that person? What are they adding to my game? And what would make me think that enforced mechanical aligment is going to beat them into being a good player?

No, those arguing against the paladin falling mechanics are talking about players who burn down orphanages full of children and other extreme examples (of course now that I'm thinking about it Anakin slaughtered a ton of young padawans in his descent to the dark side so maybe a burned orphanage isn't too out there). That said I and others arguing for paladin falling mechanics have given more nuanced situations where the conduct of the paladin comes into question and no matter how you cut it... kicking a player out of the game is excercising complete control of his character and makes the (temporary) loss of his characters abilities pale in comparison.

Agreed. But why shouldn't this be up to the player. To put it another way, why can't the GM put it to the player "That wasn't very honourable, was it?" If the player agrees, they play out the consequences. If they don't agree - if they thought that what they did was a permissible choice in the circumstances - why second guess? This connects more broadly to other issues of playstyle, too, like "fail forward" adjudication. I would prefer that D&Dnext accomodate a wide range of styles, including my own!

Because the DM ultimately deides what LG is or what deities think in his world. Now that doesn't preclude discussion (in the same way a DM could discuss a DC a character might feel was or is too high for a particular action, or an NPC a player feels should have reacted differently)... but ultimately it is upto the DM to make the final call. LG, deities, etc... aren't (in default D&D) nebulous things that are subject to relative morality... they are forces and beings that are defined and exist in the world, and when a player chooses to play a paladin he is choosing to pledge himself to an objective force, created by the DM, in the gameworld.

 

[Imaro]

The DM has to decide if a given act is violating the code. Then the DM has to apply the consequences of that violation. IOW, the DM is both prosecutor and judge. The player doesn't get to decide how NPC's react to actions. There isn't a DM on the planet who would accept a player telling the DM, "No, sorry, your NPC doesn't really act that way". But, it's perfectly acceptable to you for the DM to tell the player, "Sorry, your action is in violation of your code, even if you disagree."

How is this different from any other time a DM must adjudicate an action attempted by a character by assigning a DC (judge) and determining the result (executioner) if said action fails? As to your second point...It's acceptable for the DM to do this because your code is not a part of your character. Taking your example about NPC's further... why is it ok for a PC to decide how the version of Bahamut in your campaign world judges certain actions? Why is it ok for him to determine what the inscrutable forces of law and good deem acceptable. He has agency over his character, and thus the choice to act in a certain way or not... what he doesn't have is agency over the beings and forces in the campaign world who he has pledged himself to and grants him his power.

 

[billd91]

I agree that a code sets a paladin apart from a fighter, although cavaliers are actually not set apart from paladins in 1e - a paladin is just a special kind of cavalier.

Only if you had Unearthed Arcana. Before that the paladin was a subclass of fighter, exactly what the cavalier should have been as well. But that's neither here nor there. The paladin is distinct from either because of the specific nature of his code.

But, as far as adjudicating violations goes, you absolutely have to police the paladin's restrictions. After all, how can you adjudicate something you aren't policing? The DM has to decide if a given act is violating the code. Then the DM has to apply the consequences of that violation.

I still don't understand what the difference is between "policing" and adjudicating consequences for actions. They're they same thing.

I've always wondered about this one. What's the point of a magic item that basically lets the DM tell the player, "Sorry, you are playing your character wrong."?

It's not about the DM telling the player he's playing the character wrong. It's about the DM telling the player that the PC is going to do something that could jeopardize his alignment standing or deity standing. If the player is fine with the PC receiving the results of those violations, no problem. If he didn't realize the repercussions of his chosen action, he gets to change his decision. In any event, the information enables the player to make a choice without being ignorant of some of the consequences.