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

[Imaro]

Should I ask you the same question?

Or has it already been established that telling people to "play how they want" makes 99.99% of all conversations on this forum pointless?

Because creating and laying out a mechanical framework for the fall of paladins is something I am paying the game designers and writers to do when I purchase the book... on the other hand, telling a player it doesn't apply takes no design work and very little word count... Do you pay for non-exsistant mechanics and missing wordcount?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Not to mention, if a civilian did the same they'd be stripped of their status and incarcerated as well.

But a citizen wouldn't lose privileges that a police officer would. Like the ability to carry a firearm in places civilians can't, the ability to arrest people, etc. With great power comes great responsibility.

By saying 'walks down the street' you've narrowed your example down to such an extent that it no longer properly applies to what you are comparing it to. A policeman doesn't get stripped of his powers if he starts murdering people, only when he gets caught.

Right, that could never happen, EVER: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner

The paladin only gets punished when he gets caught, as well. By his deity. There is no difference. Both the paladin and the policeman get their powers stripped by those who granted the power in the first place.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I think a poor, often abused rule which adds nothing mechanically relevant to the game, is good enough reason for it's removal.

Sure, let me know when you find one, because a paladin losing his powers for being decidedly unpaladin-like ain't it.

 

[herrozerro]

But a citizen wouldn't lose privileges that a police officer would. Like the ability to carry a firearm in places civilians can't, the ability to arrest people, etc. With great power comes great responsibility.

Oh, a civilian would lose plenty of privileges for crimes like that. Just not the same ones. The point was you are describing consequences which everyone would fall subject to. but that doesn't happen. A wizard doesn't lose his power because he doesn't act wizardly, but if he were to go around killing people yes he would lose some social privileges, just like any other character.

 

[Imaro]

Sure, let me know when you find one, because a paladin losing his powers for being decidedly unpaladin-like ain't it.

This...

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Oh, a civilian would lose plenty of privileges for crimes like that. Just not the same ones. The point was you are describing consequences which everyone would fall subject to. but that doesn't happen. A wizard doesn't lose his power because he doesn't act wizardly, but if he were to go around killing people yes he would lose some social privileges, just like any other character.

But the police officer has priviliges that a civilian doesn't have and WILL NEVER have. Much like a fighter can't project a protection from evil circle. These powers are stripped by they who grant them. In one case, by the people, in the other, by a deity. I fail to see the difference.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sure, let me know when you find one, because a paladin losing his powers for being decidedly unpaladin-like ain't it.

But having no guiding line for making those decisions other than the DM's gut is exactly WHY we have a rules system in the first place. We don't create rule systems so that we can ignore them, a rule system that says essentially "ignore me" is a rule system we shouldn't have.

 

[Imaro]

But having no guiding line for making those decisions other than the DM's gut is exactly WHY we have a rules system in the first place. We don't create rule systems so that we can ignore them, a rule system that says essentially "ignore me" is a rule system we shouldn't have.

The code, the descriptions of alignments, the descriptions of gods, etc. are all guidelines for the player and DM, beyond that it can be discussed... warnings can be given and so on. The rule system is not supposed to adjudicate for a DM... It's the same way the rules don't force a DM to set a specific DC for a task and don't dictate the outcome for the results of the attempt at said task... it provides a framework, examples and guidance then lets the DM go from there. I'm sorry but more and more your objections seem to be more a case of "I had a bad DM who gave me a bad experience"... well I, and many others didn't so why should we get penalized because some jerk DM's were jerk DM's??

EDIT: I mean let's be honest here, a DM can strip any character of his "agency" in the game if he wants... impossible DC's, encounters that are 20 levels above and so on. So why are his powers over the paladin falling considered special in all of this?

 

[jonesy]

Right, that could never happen, EVER: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner

The paladin only gets punished when he gets caught, as well. By his deity. There is no difference. Both the paladin and the policeman get their powers stripped by those who granted the power in the first place.

I don't get what you are saying in the first sentence there. Seems to me you are agreeing with what I said, but the capitalized tone suggests the opposite, which doesn't make any sense. What does the link have anything to do with anything?

As for the second, there is a difference. A rather large and inescapable one. The policeman gets his powers stripped only after what we all would hope was a suffieciently thorough investigation into the events that took place. The paladin gets his powers stripped by his deity on the spot. From the meta-pov the powers are taken by the DM and one would hope there was a discussion about the actions taken, but from an ingame pov the diety supposedly does a perfect decision (at least from the diety's moral pov).

 

[billd91]

As for the second, there is a difference. A rather large and inescapable one. The policeman gets his powers stripped only after what we all would hope was a suffieciently thorough investigation into the events that took place. The paladin gets his powers stripped by his deity on the spot. From the meta-pov the powers are taken by the DM and one would hope there was a discussion about the actions taken, but from an ingame pov the diety supposedly does a perfect decision (at least from the diety's moral pov).

Oh, I have no problem with discussion even though the final decision is mine. I may be persuaded by a good point or two. And sometimes the violation comes up because of an honest misunderstanding of the ongoing situation. Ideally, I'd like to be asked before adjudicating the actions if the player is unclear on the situation, but it's certainly possible the player thinks he understands the situation, the GM understands the situation his way with his wider information, and those two understandings aren't in accord entirely by accident. I'm reasonably tolerant of misunderstandings.

I am, however, a lot less tolerant of rash behavior without any appearance of an honest attempt to understand the situation.