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

[Imaro]

...Maybe. But the player's gone, so what does it matter?

Well the original point got lost in the tons of pages, but it was the fact that a DM having control over whether a paladin falls was a big deal and shouldn't be allowed... but having the power to kick someone out the game wasn't and should be the answer to someone playing a paladin "wrong". Sorry, I just can't wrap my mind around that.

Edit: Then somehow the argument became... well in one you're affecting his character... but in the other... it's the player. Which again, IMO misses the point entirely since both are a form of power over the player (and character) that a DM can exert.

 

[Sunseeker]

And you should!

And I have. The problem is that it quickly devolves into either A: a serious moral debate...which isn't why I play D&D, or B: the DM says "No I'm right and your wrong"...basically claiming that my moral compass is incorrect and then we go on to explore his ideas of morality, which is really no fun when he's put his morality on a pedestal.

 

[Imaro]

And I have. The problem is that it quickly devolves into either A: a serious moral debate...which isn't why I play D&D, or B: the DM says "No I'm right and your wrong"...basically claiming that my moral compass is incorrect and then we go on to explore his ideas of morality, which is really no fun when he's put his morality on a pedestal.

Why do you choose a paladin to explore your morality? There are a multitude of classes that you could do this with... but I'm trying to understand the need for the paladin to be ( along with almost every other class) one of these.

 

[Mournblade94]

I'm currently planning on it. Halfling paladin of Sarenrae, PFS-Andoran Faction, seriously thinking of taking 3rd level as a bard in order to pick up some broader class skills. But then, I'm not really concerned about not picking up the 20th level capstone abilities since the organized play campaign only goes to 12th level.

Right, that is what I mean, there is multiclassing for character concept and for mechanical advantage. Multiclassing in bard would offer a pretty good advantage for a campaign capped at level 12, though it sounds more like this is a conceptual advantage for the 'cool'. I could definitely picture it.

 

[Mournblade94]

And I have. The problem is that it quickly devolves into either A: a serious moral debate...which isn't why I play D&D, or B: the DM says "No I'm right and your wrong"...basically claiming that my moral compass is incorrect and then we go on to explore his ideas of morality, which is really no fun when he's put his morality on a pedestal.

It doesn't have to though. situation A above a discussion is warranted, but it does not have to be a debate, it never was with me anyway, if a player makes a good case I am going to tend to favor the player. He has to make a good case though. I have been challenged before and conceded, and I have held my ground just as much.

Situation B I think is that problem DM everyone keeps talking about. I have played with those DMs before, and they are usually quite adversarial.

 

[Sunseeker]

It doesn't have to though. situation A above a discussion is warranted, but it does not have to be a debate, it never was with me anyway, if a player makes a good case I am going to tend to favor the player. He has to make a good case though. I have been challenged before and conceded, and I have held my ground just as much.

Situation B I think is that problem DM everyone keeps talking about. I have played with those DMs before, and they are usually quite adversarial.

Yeah, I mean if I can have a good discussion about how my character sees a certain choice as in-line with their god's ideology, with the DM being treated as the god who may not think so, but may find my character's argument reasonable, especially since D&D does not rely on the concept of "distant gods", most are quite involved with the world and seem to be reasonable, albiet very powerful, folks), then that's good.

Why do you choose a paladin to explore your morality? There are a multitude of classes that you could do this with... but I'm trying to understand the need for the paladin to be ( along with almost every other class) one of these.

I don't really. I don't play the Paladin for it's "moral challenge" component. I play it to be an honorable, divinely-empowered warrior who goes around doing good things, righting wrongs, and so on.

 

[Hussar]

I honestly don't see a problem with it because every DM runs their table different.

Its almost like improvised actions. I allow you to slide down on your shield and shoot arrows at the orcs, but Bill won't (I have no idea if he would or not). The fact is if every referee could all be consistent, there would be no reason to "run the tape" in sports.

Evaluations have to be made. It is the same problem in school or university with 2 professers teaching the same subject. Some might grade easily than others, or maybe I take off of your Ecology exam because you (A random student you) write with poor grammar. Maybe I let an arithmetic error go, but the other guy doesn't yet won't penalize you for grammar.

True. But, two different professor's grades should not be so wildly different that I ace one exam and fail the exact same exam with a different prof. If that was true, then the tests have absolutely no meaning. All that is being tested is my ability to answer questions for that specific professor.

 

[Hussar]

I'm currently planning on it. Halfling paladin of Sarenrae, PFS-Andoran Faction, seriously thinking of taking 3rd level as a bard in order to pick up some broader class skills. But then, I'm not really concerned about not picking up the 20th level capstone abilities since the organized play campaign only goes to 12th level.

LOL.

The irony of this statement when combined with your statements in the other thread about elf wizards just makes me giggle.

 

[Hussar]

Why do you choose a paladin to explore your morality? There are a multitude of classes that you could do this with... but I'm trying to understand the need for the paladin to be ( along with almost every other class) one of these.

Really? What classes come parceled with built in conflicts between what you want to do and what you are permitted to do.

Jeez, moral conflicts are the meat an potatoes of holy knight stories. That's the whole point of the Arthur stories. Playing a paladin to explore morality is hardly a strange choice. It's hard wired right into the class.

Only, the game is rigged. Because I cannot actually do any exploration under the current rules because if I differ in interpretation from the DM's interpretation, we must follow the DM's interpretation. So, you're right in a way. Paladin's are a terrible class for exploring morality, despite the presentation of the class, because the way the mechanics are set up now, there can be no exploration. You must do what your DM decides you must do.

 

[billd91]

LOL.

The irony of this statement when combined with your statements in the other thread about elf wizards just makes me giggle.

PF's balance isn't substantially based on the whole level lifespan like it was with 1e/2e. You're finding irony that isn't there. Besides, halfling melee combatant, going to multiclass for flavorful skill investment, losing a bit of BAB and hit points in the process - I'm not exactly playing for power in the first place.