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

[Balesir]

You didn't really answer the question... Your first paragraph could apply to any character class that is dedicated to something... again, what makes a paladin without mechanical restrictions different in play from any other class that dedicates itself to something?

I thought I answered as well as any who are advocating "the DM must decide when the paladin falls" have; to wit, I think that method is superior because I prefer it.

The paladin is the class that dedicates itself as both a "warrior for good" and a "moral examplar" while relying on powers driven by faith in the divine. In 4E there are actually alternatives to the paladin (the Avenger and Invoker, mainly), but in DDN it looks like it'll just be the paladin.

EDIT: Balesir, please tone back the hyperbole it would make your points easier to take seriously...

Reading the exchanges from this side, that sounds somewhat like pot calling kettle, but I'll try to be more exact and dispassionate - even though that doesn't seem to result in any increase in understanding...

"a lifetime second-guessing what the gods/the "powersofgood"/the DM thinks "lawfulness and goodness" means... Many on the side of the discussion for paladin falling mechanics have already advocated discussion and even joint creation of the paladin code and/or what the alignments mean. Some have even advocated meta-game and in-game warnings.

None of which really resolves the problem. Morality and ethics - even such aspects as 'honour' and the keeping of 'oaths' - are really not amenable to objective judgement. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] put it well: philosophers do not argue about what it means to fall off a bridge, but they have spent over 3,000 years arguing about what it means to break an oath.

That we don't need to take the argument to such fine points as philosophers do is also not the point. The reason they have been arguing about it for 3,000+ years is that it's really not an objective "thing".

The same applies with "moral authorities". The entire concept is fraught with difficulties; philosophical arguments rage on about what the phrase really even means. It's extremely hard to argue, in a polytheistic setting (as RPG worlds tend to be), that such a thing as a "moral authority" exists at all. The whole concept is, being kind, muddled thinking.

Oh, and I actually said "an imaginary lifetime second-guessing what the gods/the "powersofgood"/the DM thinks "lawfulness and goodness" means". Such "imaginary lifetimes" typically last only a few game months - perhaps 8-12 levels - so it's really not as extreme as you might have read it to be.

I don't think most players second guess the DM. That is why they are willing to take on the challenge of playing the Paladin who is the moral exemplar.

If some players want to play without taking account of the realities of their situation good luck to them. I and, I think, most of those I play with simply don't live our lives that way, let alone play games that way.

So tell the players of paladins in your games they cannot fall unless they choose to and let those of us who enjoy the mechanic continue using it... This could be done trivially in any of the earlier editions, so problem solved.

1) The same applies the other way about; if you want DM control over paladins falling just say "the DM can decide that you lose all your class abilities when you act in a way that (s/he thinks) is "evil" or "chaotic". Here is a summary guide as to the sort of thing that s/he might consider "evil" or "chaotic", but any actual judgements will necessarily be made on an ad hoc basis as the situation seems to warrant".

My worry is not, frankly, that the paladin will have a DM-controlled "fall" mechanic - that is, as you say, easily ignored - but that other game features will be designed to suit this. So the paladin, absent a fall, will be more powerful than other characters. And such muddled inanities as "Detect Evil" will be cemented into the class (and the system). These sorts of "features" would make the entire class - possibly even the entire system - unusable to me as written.

 

[Balesir]

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?

There is a critical difference, though, between the GM being able to take arbitrary and uncalled for actions ad hoc and rules that require the GM to make arbitrary decisions and distinctions ad hoc, in my view.

Can the GM say "the sky falls, everyone dies"? Sure - but it's pretty clearly an A-hole move.

But some rules - spells like Charm Person and illusions and things like the "Paladin's fall" rule in older versions of D&D - actually require the GM to make subjective and arbitrary decisions about how a player's character's powers and abilities work in the game world. Those are rules I am very glad to be without, and any such rules will make me at best unenthusiastic about using any rule set that includes them. I will certainly never GM using such a set of rules in future, since rule sets are (now) available without such 'features'.

 

[billd91]

But some rules - spells like Charm Person and illusions and things like the "Paladin's fall" rule in older versions of D&D - actually require the GM to make subjective and arbitrary decisions about how a player's character's powers and abilities work in the game world. Those are rules I am very glad to be without, and any such rules will make me at best unenthusiastic about using any rule set that includes them. I will certainly never GM using such a set of rules in future, since rule sets are (now) available without such 'features'.

Fortunately, the presence of them in the rules set isn't a mandate that you actually use them. With a rule set that has them, you may tailor the game to your own preferences by choosing the tools in the kit you want to use and still be served by the game. By contrast, their lack leaves me unserved in this area and much less likely to adopt the game.

 

[pemerton]

So what... so does a ton of fantasy literature... or are you trying to claim D&D is supposed to be a pure simulation of
medieval society?

The issue I see is that "human rights" and Benthamite morality are essentially modern moral/political notions; whereas the paladin is an essentialy pre-modern archetype.

In Chretien de Troyes's version of Arthur, Lancelot - upon fleeing Camelot - kills half-a-dozen odd knights, his friends and former comrades in arms, in making his escape. Under either human rights or Bethamite conceptins of lawful good, this would be flagrantly evil, and perhaps also chaotic. In de Troyes, it is barely worth a comment - it simply exhibits Lancelot's prowess. No honourable person would regard it as a wrong to be killed by Lancelot in that way.

Yet taking Gygax at his word, what Lancelot did - killing those knights without cause - should deprive him of paladinhood.

That's the problem.

 

[Hussar]

/snip 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.

Note, a paladin in 3e and forward does not have to serve a diety.

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.



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




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.

Player: I'm going to do X
DM: Your magic widget of evilness starts to vibrate. Your chosen action will result in me stripping you of everything that makes your character unique.
Player: Well, guess I'm not going to do X then.

How is that not the DM telling the player he's playing his character wrong?

 

[billd91]

The issue I see is that "human rights" and Benthamite morality are essentially modern moral/political notions; whereas the paladin is an essentialy pre-modern archetype.

In Chretien de Troyes's version of Arthur, Lancelot - upon fleeing Camelot - kills half-a-dozen odd knights, his friends and former comrades in arms, in making his escape. Under either human rights or Bethamite conceptins of lawful good, this would be flagrantly evil, and perhaps also chaotic. In de Troyes, it is barely worth a comment - it simply exhibits Lancelot's prowess. No honourable person would regard it as a wrong to be killed by Lancelot in that way.

Yet taking Gygax at his word, what Lancelot did - killing those knights without cause - should deprive him of paladinhood.

That's the problem.

In Deities and Demigods, which included a section on Arthurian heroes, Lancelot was a fallen paladin. His fall may have been before the events written in de Troyes's version, but Lancelot's flaws weren't exactly unknown to the game designers. Fallen paladin in 1e fits him pretty well.

 

[Hussar]

Fortunately, the presence of them in the rules set isn't a mandate that you actually use them. With a rule set that has them, you may tailor the game to your own preferences by choosing the tools in the kit you want to use and still be served by the game. By contrast, their lack leaves me unserved in this area and much less likely to adopt the game.

Spoken like someone who is always a DM and never a player.

If you cement falling rules into the rules, then every time I change tables, which in the past was virtually every year, I have to go through the same rigamarole of trying to convince this DM that I'm old enough to police my own character and I don't need the DM to sit on my shoulder judging my actions.

If you put falling rules into a module, then great. Everyone is served. You want it in your game? Use the module. You don't, then don't.

But don't cement it into the baseline of the class. Baselines are much more difficult to change.

 

[billd91]

Player: I'm going to do X
DM: Your magic widget of evilness starts to vibrate. Your chosen action will result in me stripping you of everything that makes your character unique.
Player: Well, guess I'm not going to do X then.

How is that not the DM telling the player he's playing his character wrong?

Yeah, nice spin. One hopes that paladin powers aren't the only thing making the character unique.
And no, it's not telling the player he's playing his character wrong. It's telling him that the planned action has consequences that will significantly affect him.

 

[billd91]

Spoken like someone who is always a DM and never a player.

You'd be wrong. I play in 2 PF games, 1 3.5 game, and one heavily modified (by the GM) 3.5 game. Nevertheless, I also DM a lot and enjoy doing so. I like that D&D has been a toolkit from both a DM and a player's side. It widens the variety of games and their feel without having to completely learn new rules sets.

I could make a comment about what happens when you assume, like Felix Unger, but I'll leave that as an exercise for people up on their 1970s cultural literacy.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, nice spin. One hopes that paladin powers aren't the only thing making the character unique.
And no, it's not telling the player he's playing his character wrong. It's telling him that the planned action has consequences that will significantly affect him.

That's certainly a nice spin as well. He's not playing his character wrong, but, if he does what he is planning to do, you are going to strip him of everything mechanically unique about his character because you believe that he is doing something in violation of the concept of his character. That's apparently not telling him he's playing his character wrong, but, simply just applying consequences.

Granted the fact that these consequences are being applied solely because you, the DM, believe that he is in violation of his character concept, has nothing to do with it.