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

[Imaro]

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

Any class that has a space on it's sheet for deity?? Any character that chooses to live by a code... If you are speaking inherently well there's the cleric, druid, monk, cavalier, barbarian, etc.

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.

Yep and those knights suffer consequences for those choices... and not only when they decide it's appropriate. Of course all this does is highlight the fact that D&D isn't a story simulator.

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.

Bull... you don't have to do anything. In fact, just like a samurai committing seppuku... a Paladin who goes forward with an action fully aware that it will cost him his power is making a statement of how important the choice he has made in that matter is. You're not pledging an oath to yourself or to a code your paladin created... so why would you be judged by your own concept of morality? In fact what exactly are you exploring since you already know whether you consider an action good, evil, lawful or chaotic? You aren't the deity your paladin may follow...so where is the exploration taking place?

Another point I want to make is that you aren't necessarily exploring your DM's morality either...A DM can easily think an action is morally good in real life but not acceptable to the Bahamut of his campaign world and vice versa... nothing forces the DM to fallback on his own beliefs.

 

[pemerton]

Also in games without alignment restrictions like MArvel Superheroes, I have seen very complex interaction between players playing Marvel characters IN CHARACTER, and still having situations like you described upthread. Talk about roleplaying restrictions? We played MSH with our own characters but the players often wanted to play the characters (usually in relation to something our characters were doing, to make it feel more incorporated in the MU). Nothing about playing Captain America like he should be played stopped complex character interactions.

I don't know MSH - but was it the player or the GM who decided that Captain America was being played properly?

This isn't about the intricacies of real morality or ethics... it's about following a pretend code dedicated to a pretend deity or cosmic force in a pretend world and who arbitrates whether you broke that code

<snip>

there is a fictional deity or fictional cosmic force that you have made the choice to pledge your character in the game to. We aren't talking about objective right or wrong... we are talking about whether you have broken the code of that fictional deity or fictional cosmic force.

As I've already indicated upthread, when you say "we", you mean "you" but aren't referring to me. I am not interested in exploring "fictional morality" - in fact, I personally doubt that it makes sense. (I mean, what would it mean to play in a campaign world where the square root of 4 is 3?, or where geometers can square the circle with compass and ruler?)

Fiction is interesting to me because it talks about real values, not imaginary ones. Tolkien isn't about "Middle Earth" evil - it's about real world morality. Likewise the Arthurian stories.

Why is it a problem? This isn't the Pendragon rpg, it's D&D... and D&D diverges from classsic arthurian tales, greek myths, sword and sorcery and various other fantasy in numerous other ways... And as others have pointed out, Lancelot is a fallen paladin.

(1) I want my fantasy RPGing to relate to the real world, like decent fantasy fiction does.

(2) As I said upthread, there is no suggestion that Lancelot's fall is connected to his killing of those half-dozen-odd knights.

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.

The US doesn't let non-citizens vote. But when citizens vote, the government doesn't tell them how to vote. Once you're in, the point of being in is to make your own decisions. It wouldn't make any sense to admit someone as a citizen on condition that they vote the way the government tells them to. That would defeat the whole rationale of citizenship in a liberal democracy.

At this broad level, an RPG is similar. If I don't want to play with someone, I don't want to play with them - but once someone's in the game, why would I (as GM) want to tell them how to play their character? That would defeat the whole purpose for having them in my game.

 

[pemerton]

In fact, just like a samurai committing seppuku... a Paladin who goes forward with an action fully aware that it will cost him his power is making a statement of how important the choice he has made in that matter is.

The question is - who gets to make that authorial decision? Different games, different tables, different players have different preferences. Hence the rules should be designed to accomodate them, in the sort of way [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] and I were discussing upthread.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This thread is moving fast. Didn't check here yesterday because I was running game, so sorry for the "late" reply.

I think pemerton (correct me if I'm wrong) DOES want to set up "gotcha" moments for a Paladin PC, in order to provoke character change and development. But he wants the player to be able to determine the path their Paladin takes through it and what it means, so he doesn't want a mechanic where the game and/or GM immediately determines the morality of the Paladin's action.*

*So a gotcha for the character, not for the player.

I get that. Not using the fall mechanic would suit him better. However, any calls of "gotcha" moments for GMs that do use the falling rule point to a much bigger problem than falling rules. And that was my point.

I think pemerton would like the type of the mechanic Manbearcat suggested to me earlier in the thread, where the paladin oaths are all bimodal--you get a bennie whether you stick to your oath or renege on it, because it can lead to an interesting story development either way.

Did his system propose losing your powers in any way (GM-decided or otherwise)? If not, it doesn't match the fiction I want in the game, and thus doesn't work for me.

As far as the "bonus either way" goes, it doesn't bother me as a mechanic. My game currently rewards you with a type of meta resource (Luck points) that you can gain for following your Driving Force (what drives you to act), hurting / inconveniencing yourself with your Challenge (something that inhibits your character in some way), or exploring your Mystery (something you want to know, whether philosophical or otherwise). (You can also gain Luck points by taking a risk, but that's just to get players to take risks.)

So, I definitely have nothing against a system that rewards people for doing things that hurt themselves (and definitely not help themselves). Without the fall mechanic, though, the fiction doesn't match what I want out of a Paladin.

My concern with that as the core Paladin mechanic (besides the fact that it would replace a game mechanic that I like) is that I would feel obligated to set up the Paladin player in these situations, when I ordinarily don't do much very much scene-framing at all. Someone earlier in the thread said that their Paladin player was upset because they expected more spotlight and attention--this could definitely happen in my game. I don't want to have to make the campaign about Paladinhood just because a player chose a Paladin. It's an interesting idea for a modular option that requires player-DM coordination before switching it on, though.

I agree with your reasoning, here.

I think the Paladin class could be written to accomodate both the gamist oath-as-challenge Paladin and the narrativist oath-as-premise Paladin with two modules. That would be a really interesting. However I don't see that happening. I foresee a compromise being made where there is no mechanical incentive to throw the Paladin into conflict, and no serious mechanical consequences for failing to follow their restrictions. The Paladin is perfectly balanced and becomes indistinguishable from a Fighter/Cleric. This is the process where D&D loses it flavor and gets blander and blander.

This is something they should keep their eye out for, yes. They've mentioned a "narrative" module, and I think if they brought in some outside help, it could turn out well, but I honestly doubt it'll scratch the itches that a lot of posters here want (since I doubt they mean "narrative" in a Forge sense). But, from my experience, most people choose Paladins to follow the code, not to break it, so I think the problems are going to be relatively small at my table anyways. But that's just my table. As always, play what you like

 

[Libramarian]

Agreed. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm asking for, and others who talk about "sidebars" with various options are I think gesturing towards the same sort of idea. You'd set out the basic idea of the class - chivarly, honour, oaths, etc - and then you'd have some discussion of the different ways of handling it and how these play out in different sorts of games.

It sounds easy, but can you think of any game that actually has great advice for using the same game element in different ways for different playstyles like this? Would this be a first in RPG history? I feel like something about this has to be more difficult than I'm imagining...

For me, what you say here resonated with the stuff you said in the Burning Wheel thread a little while ago about 4e not having the courage to put the idea of hard choices front-and-centre; that the game is just drifting into an emotionally light, high concept, fantasy hero simulator. If I'm reading you in this way am I on the right track?

Yes, I didn't get a narrativist metagame agenda from the 4e books at all, so changes like removing the alignment restriction from the Paladin came across to me as just making the game more bland (same thing with a lot of things 4e does differently from earlier editions: magic items as build elements rather than awards, XP as a pacing mechanic rather than an award, etc.). It seems to me that in general 4e modifies these mechanics so that they're not gamist mechanics anymore, but without going all the way towards making them narrativist mechanics (or by supporting them with pointedly narrativist advice)--they're just put into a sort of neutral position. I think I have a pretty good understanding now of why you find these changes to be helpful, or less unhelpful, for vanilla narrativist fantasy supers D&D, but I think the typical 4e game plays more like the typical 4e published adventure.

It's the same thing for me reading the opinions of people in this thread who support the idea of reducing restrictions and the GM's control over the player's portrayal of their paladin, but without making it clear what the point of that would be in their view. What is the player going to do with that extra freedom? Less restriction and more freedom for the player doesn't necessarily appeal to me if I don't know how that would make the game more interesting.

I think unless the designers of a game understand the value and importance of a metagame creative agenda*, then there's going to be a natural tendency over time to remove those game elements that strongly support one or another creative agenda, because those elements are going to be the most contentious to people of different tastes. Eventually you have a game that is very inoffensive and bland where almost all of the fun relies on the GM's particular campaign pitch rather than the game itself. I don't think that's good for the game--it hampers communication and networking between players of different groups, but more importantly it puts too much pressure on the GM to bring all the fun and creates a play culture where the GM's job is to entertain the players rather than play a game with them (the 4e DMG actually says somewhere that the DM's job is to entertain the players. I didn't like that.)

*which I don't think the DDN designers do, or at least I haven't read anything to give me the impression that they do. I think Monte Cook has a good feel for gamism, but he left the project unfortunately.

@JamesonCourage
here is Manbearcat's post if you would like to see it.

 

[airwalkrr]

It's an artifact of a different time. Paladins used to have awesome powers which was balanced by a code of chivalry and poverty. WotC tries to balance all the classes as well as they can now (spellcasters have gone back to being overpowered in the long run, but that's a different discussion). Paladins were also rare, as you had to have really lucky stats to even be one. But their place in the game has changed. In 3.5 they were a relatively weak class which was worsened by the alignment restriction. Many DMs house rules alternate alignments and codes to fight the character. I personally prefer the 1e AD&D paladin. But 5e can do its thing. I really don't care at this point.

 

[pemerton]

from my experience, most people choose Paladins to follow the code, not to break it

Agreed. But (and this relates back to [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION]'s "gotcha" comment about my playstyle), in my game I'm looking to put the paladin in situations where it's hard to follow the code without also breaking it. Loyalty vs justice is the main version of conflict I find I can set up without too much trouble: in the interrogation example, both chose loyalty/honour over justice; in another campaign that I think I mentioned upthread, the paladin abandoned loyalty to the heavens in pursuit of justice for mortals.

This idea, of conflicts between beliefs, is what Burning Wheel captures with the idea of Mouldbreaker.

 

[pemerton]

It sounds easy, but can you think of any game that actually has great advice for using the same game element in different ways for different playstyles like this? Would this be a first in RPG history? I feel like something about this has to be more difficult than I'm imagining...

I've never personally read an example, but according to Ron Edwards (in his "Step on Up" Essay) the TSR Marvel Superheroes game canvassed two modes: "Power and Responsibiity", for narrativist players; and "Clobberin' Time" for gamist players. So it wouldn't be a first, publishing wise, though it would be rare.

I think Monte Cook has a good feel for gamism

I mostly know him through his RM stuff, which was simulationism (process sim in service of genre gaming - before his organic tech stuff for d20 he released an organic tech sci-fantasy supplement for RM); and through Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, which reads, at least, pretty high concept sim.

Tell me more about his gamism.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This idea, of conflicts between beliefs, is what Burning Wheel captures with the idea of Mouldbreaker.

Not familiar with it. Can you sum it up using non-Forge terminology for me? I find that easier to understand when casually reading things. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Any class that has a space on it's sheet for deity?? Any character that chooses to live by a code... If you are speaking inherently well there's the cleric, druid, monk, cavalier, barbarian, etc.



Yep and those knights suffer consequences for those choices... and not only when they decide it's appropriate. Of course all this does is highlight the fact that D&D isn't a story simulator.




Bull... you don't have to do anything. In fact, just like a samurai committing seppuku... a Paladin who goes forward with an action fully aware that it will cost him his power is making a statement of how important the choice he has made in that matter is. You're not pledging an oath to yourself or to a code your paladin created... so why would you be judged by your own concept of morality? In fact what exactly are you exploring since you already know whether you consider an action good, evil, lawful or chaotic? You aren't the deity your paladin may follow...so where is the exploration taking place?

Another point I want to make is that you aren't necessarily exploring your DM's morality either...A DM can easily think an action is morally good in real life but not acceptable to the Bahamut of his campaign world and vice versa... nothing forces the DM to fallback on his own beliefs.

You are missing the point though. The Paladin who goes forward with an action is not fully aware that it will cost him his power because he doesn't get to determine how the code is interpreted. The paladin does something, and THEN the DM tells him that he has violated his alignment and is now a fighter.

The only exploration I can do is how the DM decides to interpret the code. My own interpretation is unimportant.