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

[Bluenose]

But, even that's problematic. A foe that is unconscious and bleeding to death for example. Do you patch him up and take him prisoner? Let him bleed out? After all, the paladin is the one who's stuck pointy metal bits into that foe, so, the paladin would certainly be responsible for his death. Has that target surrendered or not?

No, they haven't surrendered. They've been battered into defeat, and chose not to surrender before that happened. What happens to them is their responsibility. You could choose to heal them, and if they then surrendered you would be responsible for stopping them being killed. You don't have to, though.

And a rule that says you have to commit genocide? All goblins must be killed? That's about as far from Lawful Good as you can possibly be.

Perhaps. It's somewhat arbitrary but that doesn't mean it's not a rule and obeying your god's commands is a Lawful thing to do. That it's Evil is perhaps true, though that depends somewhat on the nature of goblins. If it referred to Evil outsiders, part of whose nature is to be evil, would it still be controversial?

 

[Balesir]

By naming "evil" as an action or event it is already codified. The association of action to meaning, the action of "naming", is codification.

I think this skirts the core of the problem, for me: "good" (and "evil", for that matter) is not an action or an event - it's an ideal. As in a hazy, indistinct but (in the case of "good") shining something that we try to emulate, to aspire to, rather than to do or use.

In most - maybe even all - religions, the god(s) do(es) not decide what good is or isn't, (s)he/it/they can merely see it far more clearly than mortals ever will. It is surpassing knowledge of good, not control over it, that makes a divinity a "moral authority".

For a character with a "code", I can see a few options:

- Make your premise "I can be good just by following this code"; more or less doomed, it's abundantly clear that a code alone does not a good person make.

- "I can be good despite following this code"; a bit odd, in the context of how we normally think about paladins, but I could see it working as a premise, even or especially if breaking the code brought punishment. Following the code is not an end in itself in this case, so punishment for breaking it (in the sense that it represents some sort of "deal") might be required, but that wouldn't apply to all potential characters.

- "I am good; the code is just a simplification of the precepts upon which my life is based"; what I normally think of the paladin as being, can work fine with the player being the arbiter of "the precepts". If the GM is the arbiter of the precepts, then either the player is not actually playing the character, there is something metaphysical that means the character is living a lie or the situation is simply misconceived.

Anyone got any more?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Some interesting stuff here (sent some XP your way), and this is something I can get behind. Take my RPG, for example. It has a meta resource called Luck Points, and they can be spent to reroll, force rerolls, add to or subtract from a roll, etc. Luck points can be awarded in a variety of ways, including taking a risk (socially, in combat, etc.), pursuing your Driving Force (what drives you to act), being inhibited by your Challenge (something that inhibits your character), or exploring your Mystery (something you don't know but want to find out).

So, let's roll up a random DF/CH/MY, and see what we get: DF: Protect nature, CH: Code of conduct, MY: Is the world wicked? So, this guy is driven to protect nature, follows a code of conduct (let's say it's your "honorable in combat" example), and wonders if the world is wicked. Every time he acts to protect nature, he'd get a Luck Point for pursuing his Driving Force; every time he lets his honorable nature hurt him (letting the orc retrieve his weapon, not ambushing someone when he could, etc.), he gains a Luck Point; and every time he explores whether or not the world is wicked (in his eyes), such as by seeing if a captured enemy will redeem himself, he gets a Luck Point.

I like this type of mechanic, and it's not dissimilar to your "traits" description. You could have a Driving Force of "Do good" and then play that as it makes sense to the table / your character. Same for a Challenge that is "Do good", really; if you refuse to commit an evil act even though it would greatly help you, you'd gain a Luck Point.

Of course, we can make the mechanic more in-tune with the game world (your divine intervention take), or leave it more meta-based (my Luck Point mechanic). And, yes, we can even let people affect the world around them, giving them some amount of control over the story (I have something called Fame points that fill this role).

It's not a bad alternate system, in my opinion, but I'm curious what you'd tweak. As always, play what you like

Yeah, you've nailed it down a bit more. BW (well, Mouse Guard at least, which is mostly the only BW I'm super familiar with) does that too, but a totally 'free descriptor' type setup is also possible (IE your DF/CH/MY can simply all be attributes in terms of the core mechanics, though you can still utilize them as you describe). Anyway, I think Luck Points would also work with attributes in an alignment system. If you assigned numerical values to the attributes you could also measure just HOW LG a character was for instance, so in that sense you'd be able to decide if they're worthy of the boons of a paladin if you wanted to go that way. Of course I am skeptical Mike and Co are interested in this sort of stuff in DDN, they seem very conservative really... Oh well.

I'll have to write something up and add it to my idealized target game write up. Its been one of the things I've been thinking about for a while.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All but one of the PCs in my game is Unaligned - from time to time the odd one out like to remind everyone that he's the only Good character in the party. But I think he's also rules non-compliant - he is a fighter multi-class cleric and paragon path Warpriest of Moradin, and by the rules I think he has to be LG.

Of the unaligned, one is a chaos-wielding demonskin-wearing Primordial Adept; one a devotee of the Raven Queen in her Fate aspect; one a devotee of the Raven Queen obsessed by death; and one a deva invoker who serves a whole range of gods (Erathis, the Raven Queen, Ioun, Vecna, Bane, and Levistus) and wields the Sceptre of Law.

So alignment is certainly not playing a very big role among the players - I use it more as a GM, because I treat the alignment of creatures as a shorthand personality and cosmological allegiance descriptor.

My players might query the "pawn" descriptor, but otherwise I agree and I think what I've just described bears out what you say. It's the cosmic allegiances that matter, and alignment is at best some sort of proxy for or pathway into that.

Yes, well, 'pawn' might get them revved up, yes, lol. I'm happy if the players use alignment for their own purposes and yeah I will glance at what it says in the MM now and then to see what notion the designer might have had, but in the end its at best a sort of one word summary "orcs are chaotic evil, they attack!" sort of thing.

 

[pemerton]

its at best a sort of one word summary "orcs are chaotic evil, they attack!" sort of thing.

Yes.

 

[Hussar]

No, they haven't surrendered. They've been battered into defeat, and chose not to surrender before that happened. What happens to them is their responsibility. You could choose to heal them, and if they then surrendered you would be responsible for stopping them being killed. You don't have to, though.



Perhaps. It's somewhat arbitrary but that doesn't mean it's not a rule and obeying your god's commands is a Lawful thing to do. That it's Evil is perhaps true, though that depends somewhat on the nature of goblins. If it referred to Evil outsiders, part of whose nature is to be evil, would it still be controversial?

Now, again, though, this is the problem. You've interpreted it one way and I have another. If we're playing together, the only interpretation that matters is the DM's. So, instead of trying to figure out what these restrictions actually mean in the game world, all I do is play out what the DM wants me to play out.

Trying to come up with ironclad codes that aren't subject to interpretation is impossible.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Trying to come up with ironclad codes that aren't subject to interpretation is impossible.

I agree. I say give good advice on how to deal with the codes. Like, say that PCs with a code probably know what will break their code, so the GM should warn them. Or, if they're meant to be a little hazy at times (optional rule for people that may like that), maybe allow Wisdom checks, certain knowledge checks, etc., to see what they know. But, in my opinion, I don't want perfection to be the enemy of good. Makes things as clear as you can, and give some advice to GMs on letting players know stuff about their code. Give some example hazy situations, and have the GM tell you his interpretation.

Again, this would be for people that are using the code. I'm totally fine with other options, etc. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

JC, I'd agree with that.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree. I say give good advice on how to deal with the codes. Like, say that PCs with a code probably know what will break their code, so the GM should warn them. Or, if they're meant to be a little hazy at times (optional rule for people that may like that), maybe allow Wisdom checks, certain knowledge checks, etc., to see what they know. But, in my opinion, I don't want perfection to be the enemy of good. Makes things as clear as you can, and give some advice to GMs on letting players know stuff about their code. Give some example hazy situations, and have the GM tell you his interpretation.

Again, this would be for people that are using the code. I'm totally fine with other options, etc. As always, play what you like

Sounds reasonable, I've thought Codes were much better than AlR's(alignment restrictions) from the start, given that they expanded the breadth of what a paladin could be, and also gave them some sort of moral compass.

 

[jasper]

I...If the alignment ideals are meant to be real ideals, than the GM's authority seems to become harder to explain - why is the GM a moral arbiter for the table?

Game Master = moral arbiter for the game.