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

[Mournblade94]

An enforceable code would add nothing to the game session I just described. In fact it would wreck it; because it would no longer be about the player engaging with the situation and making a judgement about the values to which the PC in question is committed. It would be come about the player making a judgement about what I as GM thing is acceptable.

I have to disagree with that. I think don't think it would have changed a thing. The characters can be paladin's behaving in very different ways.

it is the severe misconception that Roleplaying restrictions restrict roleplaying. It does not and would not have made a difference in the situation.

 

[billd91]

What, then, is the point of the phylactery of faithfulness that was being discussed upthread?

Not all DMs are going to be up front with telling the player what the consequences are. Some, I suppose the impartial referee types, will even do that because they dont want to interfere or prejudice the player's decisions or role playing. Some may just prefer to have an in-game reason to make that metagame intervention and warn the player that they're approaching an alignment/deity violation. From my perspective, those are all just variations in DMing style. I tend to inform more beforehand so the phylactery of faithfulness is less necessary in my games, yet it's there for other styles of play.

 

[billd91]

Both the (literal) paladin and the dwarven "paladin" in that episode of play were PCs labouring under restrictions. From the point of view of the players there was a roleplaying challenge (and, in my own view, a more interesting challenge than the challenge of having to keep to the GM's mandated guidelines - I don't see that as much of a challenge, especially once you pay your 1000 gp for a phylactery of faithfulness).

An enforceable code would add nothing to the game session I just described. In fact it would wreck it; because it would no longer be about the player engaging with the situation and making a judgement about the values to which the PC in question is committed. It would be come about the player making a judgement about what I as GM thing is acceptable.

Chalk me up as not having any clue why an external and enforceable code, either within the paladin class or the specific religion he's adhering to, would have affected the situation one bit. Did either PC violate their restrictions? The dwarf appears to have not done so and I'm not seeing enough information on the paladin to even tell he's actually under one - unless it's just about the Raven Queen being anti-undead. So how would the enforceability of an external code be involved at all in the situation, much less wreck it?

 

[Imaro]

I don't agree with this. Controlling someone's character is a move in the game. Parting ways with another player isn't a move in the game at all. It's a social thing.

When I led my group in a coup against our GM 20-something years ago, that isn't comparable to a player exercsing authorial control over the GM's gameworld. It's sending a real-life message to the GM that we don't like his style. But if can find some players who do like it (and that GM did, I think) then he can go to town.

Likewise if I part ways with a player who sets out to play a paladin, and then has his/her PC burn down orphanages and/or rob and kill innocent shopkeepers. That player is welcome to play his/her PC however s/he likes - just not in the same game as me!

What is a "move" in the game (hoping this isn't some obscure forge terminology). Secondly, if you've created a situation where a character is no longer allowed to play in a game... you have exerted control over that character. You can play word games all you want, but that really is what it boils down to.

The reference to relative morality doesn't add anything, I dont think. Morality might be as absolute as you like - people can still disagree over what it requires.

You do realize in D&D that deities, alignment, etc. are tangible things. I can argue the sun is a shiny penny... doesn't change the fact that I am objectively wrong, it is not made out of copper and it does not have a picture of Abe Licoln stamped on it. Just as a paladin who serves Bahamut and takes an action that Bahamut disapproves of is objectively wrong... regardless of how he tries to justify it.

But anyway, the broader claim - that it's all about the GM adjudicating the gameworld - is certainly one approach. I don't see how it gets to be default D&D, though. It's not default in 4e, for instance. And in practice there have been a range of approaches to alignment for as long as people have been playing D&D.

Because 4e is the abberation here. There were 3 (and even more if you count the alignment restrictions on paladins in BECMI) editions before 4e that treated the paladin with the GM adjudicating the paladins code/alignment... I'm not against there being a sidebar saying "Ignore the falling mechanics if it doesn't sit right with your group... but there is no way I agree that one edition should set the precedence vs. 3 or more. So please tell me why shouldn't it be the default?

 

[Balesir]

I have to disagree with that. I think don't think it would have changed a thing. The characters can be paladin's behaving in very different ways.

Chalk me up as not having any clue why an external and enforceable code, either within the paladin class or the specific religion he's adhering to, would have affected the situation one bit.

Well, if I were playing either "religious type" in that situation it would absolutely have made a huge difference, and I'm at a loss to account for why you can't see how, so it's obviously a matter of outlook/point of view.

If no GM judgement is present, I am exploring my character's morality from the inside - immersively - at least if I want to. If it's all, ultimately, up to GM decision then the only thing I can explore is the GM's view of what my character's code actually is. I'm sat there, as a player, wondering what the GM thinks, rather than exploring "what my character thinks" in the imaginary world.

Secondly, if you've created a situation where a character is no longer allowed to play in a game... you have exerted control over that character. You can play word games all you want, but that really is what it boils down to.

The character isn't being affected in the slightest, here - it's the player who is being chucked out. That is all the difference in the world.

You do realize in D&D that deities, alignment, etc. are tangible things. I can argue the sun is a shiny penny... doesn't change the fact that I am objectively wrong, it is not made out of copper and it does not have a picture of Abe Licoln stamped on it. Just as a paladin who serves Bahamut and takes an action that Bahamut disapproves of is objectively wrong... regardless of how he tries to justify it.

Deities are tangible things, sure - but "alignment" isn't - at least, not in any game I've ever played. The concept of that is so flawed that I can't see it ever working; the (real world) controversy over who or what might be said to be a "moral authority" tells me this. It's not that philosophers can't agree on who might be a moral authority, it's that they can't agree on what the term should mean!

Example: earlier on, you said that the GM decides what LG is. Does that mean that, if the GM decides that it's "Lawful Good" to burn down orphanages and slaughter innocents, then that's what "Lawful Good" is? That's one long, slippery slope...

 

[Gorgoroth]

It should be based on what a reasonable person would think would constitute lawful or good. Lawful is much more problematic than good/evil, especially in morally complex situations regarding loyalty, potentially (i.e. likely, given they're modelled on feudal) unjust legal systems, a good king who's turning tyrannical in his old age, etc. We don't need to get into super deep questions of philosophy about what's good or not, if you can argue your point to the DM that your motivations were good / lawful, based on your understanding of them, that should totally mitigate the alignment penalty (given your DM not being a dick). If anything, complex moral quandaries could be intermediated by a higher-up in-game in the church, and I really don't see why the paladin should be left all alone to navigate these waters with no sunstone to set him right. It just beggars belief that he wouldn't understand or be made to, that his next action of a certain nature would put him out of "alignment" with his religious teachings.

It's really not a DM fiat thing, most of the other PCs often chime in and see failings in the paladin's in-game behavior, and also the player's failings for not actually role-playing him well. The game is a role-playing game, there should be rewards and penalties for playing it well. That's about as uncontroversial a thing as can be in a game where you can die merely from a dice roll, let alone from explicitly doing something stupid that angers the gods / DM's interpretation of those gods. And yes, DMs create the world, I really don't see how it's in any way controversial that they'd be puppet masters holding the strings to the godly powers they allocate based on guidelines. It's the grey areas that make the game interesting and not a videogame. But even in a greyscale image, you can still go from darkest to brightest, and there has to be a cutoff point. That point, is the DM's prerogative, IMO. If it's the player's, that creates a conflict of interest because they will always vote/argue/finagle a way to keep their powers, rather than lose them. That's just common sense.

 

[Imaro]

The character isn't being affected in the slightest, here - it's the player who is being chucked out. That is all the difference in the world.

Yes and it's the player's agency being affected by the loss of a paladin's powers not the character, since the character doesn't technically exist... see, we can all play word games!!

Deities are tangible things, sure - but "alignment" isn't - at least, not in any game I've ever played. The concept of that is so flawed that I can't see it ever working; the (real world) controversy over who or what might be said to be a "moral authority" tells me this. It's not that philosophers can't agree on who might be a moral authority, it's that they can't agree on what the term should mean!

By certain definitions, alignment is tangible...
Tangible: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind; capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate

Alignment is tangible and objective, in the default D&D world (with the possible exception of 4e). We have spells/abilities that can detect it... these spells, without specific countermeasures do not have a chance of being wrong... thus alignment isn't relative, it is objective in default D&D. It is a tangible and defineable force.

Example: earlier on, you said that the GM decides what LG is. Does that mean that, if the GM decides that it's "Lawful Good" to burn down orphanages and slaughter innocents, then that's what "Lawful Good" is? That's one long, slippery slope...

Yep. Perhaps it's one of those opposite planes or dimensions so popular in cheesy sci-fi, or maybe abandoned orphanages spawn demons from the left over misery of un-adopted children and innocents are the only people susceptible to said demons (of course IMO, this is again one of those absurd hyperbole infused examples to try and prove a point by taking an extreme to a level of ridiculousness). The above is fine but the GM is responsible for letting his players know beforehand that the assumptions of LG are different in his campaign world... especially if they chose to play a champion of said alignment... of course this is what he should be doing with most assumptions of the campaign world that aren't in line with the default.

 

[billd91]

If no GM judgement is present, I am exploring my character's morality from the inside - immersively - at least if I want to. If it's all, ultimately, up to GM decision then the only thing I can explore is the GM's view of what my character's code actually is. I'm sat there, as a player, wondering what the GM thinks, rather than exploring "what my character thinks" in the imaginary world.

From my perspective, I don't see playing paladins as second-guessing what the GM is thinking. Rather, I'm trying to square what I want to do with the situation, immersively, with the tenets and requirements of the religious organization I choose to join -as embodied in the code of behavior. And I know that if I cross that code of behavior, I expect to pay for it. And sometimes, I may take on that burden although usually the paladin's code actually does support doing the right thing from a moral perspective, if not always the expedient thing, so I don't need to.

 

[Mournblade94]

Well, if I were playing either "religious type" in that situation it would absolutely have made a huge difference, and I'm at a loss to account for why you can't see how, so it's obviously a matter of outlook/point of view.

If no GM judgement is present, I am exploring my character's morality from the inside - immersively - at least if I want to. If it's all, ultimately, up to GM decision then the only thing I can explore is the GM's view of what my character's code actually is. I'm sat there, as a player, wondering what the GM thinks, rather than exploring "what my character thinks" in the imaginary world.

The character isn't being affected in the slightest, here - it's the player who is being chucked out. That is all the difference in the world.

Deities are tangible things, sure - but "alignment" isn't - at least, not in any game I've ever played. The concept of that is so flawed that I can't see it ever working; the (real world) controversy over who or what might be said to be a "moral authority" tells me this. It's not that philosophers can't agree on who might be a moral authority, it's that they can't agree on what the term should mean!

Example: earlier on, you said that the GM decides what LG is. Does that mean that, if the GM decides that it's "Lawful Good" to burn down orphanages and slaughter innocents, then that's what "Lawful Good" is? That's one long, slippery slope...

Alignment forces are definitely tangible forces in the D&D world. Aura's, smite abilities, Holy Word Spells, all show mechanically that Alignment is a tangible force. That is why it cannot be mistaken with real world morality anymore than we can equate magic to the real world.

A paladin smiting evil is giving their enemy a tangible punch of Law and Good. Raw says even the planes were written that way. Planescape people observed alignment phenomenon all of the time.

In D&D (I can't speak for 4e) the Alignments are real and they are tangible. You can protect against them with a force (tangible) and you can detect it as an aura (tangible).

 

[Imaro]

An enforceable code would add nothing to the game session I just described. In fact it would wreck it; because it would no longer be about the player engaging with the situation and making a judgement about the values to which the PC in question is committed. It would be come about the player making a judgement about what I as GM thing is acceptable.

If no GM judgement is present, I am exploring my character's morality from the inside - immersively - at least if I want to. If it's all, ultimately, up to GM decision then the only thing I can explore is the GM's view of what my character's code actually is. I'm sat there, as a player, wondering what the GM thinks, rather than exploring "what my character thinks" in the imaginary world.

How does playing a paladin with no mechanical restrictions in any way enhance this type of morality play? I mean what makes him more interesting or a superior choice to any class that is roleplayed as devoted to a code/deity/alignment/etc. ? IMO, EVERY player, regardless of class can make judgements about the values to which their character is committed or explore their morality. the paladin is supposed to be the archetype who knows what his morality, devotion, etc. already is and is striving to exemplify it... In a dangerous and oftentimes dark world.