D&D 5E Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?

[M.L. Martin]

See, that's the thing. People forget that the reason for the code wasn't for rp. It was for mechanical balance. Remove the balance issues and you remove the need for a code.

And the code's balancing elements--and others--arguably relate to the whole model of play assumed by the older games. Playing someone strictly Lawful Good is going to be more of a limitation in an environment that assumes 'greedy, amoral ne'er-do-wells' are the standard than in the 'fight the dragon, save the princess' model of 2E (and in games where the rules of atoning for alignment violations are as crippling as they appear to be in the 1E DMG). Limitations on treasure, magic items, and followers likewise make more of a difference in games where GP=XP and the endgame is becoming a feudal lord.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

However the Oaths need repercussions for acting contrary to your Oath. Maybe a temporary disconnection to the magical powers granted for the Oath itself, would be fine. It's not so much a power balancing mechanic as a roleplay enhancing one, and I just don't believe in people taking Oaths with their fingers crossed behind their backs and still getting rewarded for that, and treated like they are still following the path. I would even go so far as to say you can't progress along the Oath. There should be a way to switch your Oath with a ritual or a lengthy change of religion. People do it that quite a bit, I don't see why D&D gods or magic need their followers to keep following them until they die, even over their objections. Others might jealously seek vengeance. Like if you betray a vow and go from paladin to anti-paladin, that's more serious than going from a champion of justice to a champion of freedom. I think changing along the good-evil axis is worse than the law-chaos one.

That's a classic approach - the "loss of power/atonement" approach - another roleplaying-oriented approach is to look at the social consequences of "going rogue". I think it's fair to assume that anyone who has magical powers as the result of a magical oath likely had that oath administered by a specific organisation - whether it is the church of a certain god, or organisation of holy knights, or whatever. They are probably not going to be happy about you abandoning their teachings, dishonouring the name of their god, and so on. They will likely want to hunt you down and bring you to justice (what form that justice takes, well, that depends on their alignment and your sins, I suspect).

In 4E, the fluff was that your Divine powers (as a Cleric, Paladin, Avenger, etc.) flowed from a infinitesimal spark of the Divine granted to you by your god, and that there was no automatic "take-backsies" on that spark if you became a bad little Paladin (or whatever).

But that didn't mean that there were no consequences, because as discussed, you've probably just pissed your god off, and if you're in a setting where the gods communicate at all, he's likely dobbed you in to his other Paladins etc. or at least the word is spreading. If they don't communicate, it's still likely that unless your sin was completely hidden (which is a cool plot thread by itself! Did anyone know? If a Paladin sins in the forest...), your order is going to find out and then...

Even if you're not part of an order, if you go around claiming to be a Paladin of so-and-so whilst doing bad things, his other Paladins may well find out and be less than amused.

 

[Ichneumon]

*snip*

It wouldn't surprise me to see something in the downtime mechanics, or related to them, for handling this sort of case. People would be reluctant to rally to the side of an oathbreaker, and it would be useful to have something to facilitate transitioning between oaths.

If you want something mechanical to hit an erring paladin with, try setting all variable healing & damage to the minimum result, for all the paladin's spells. The paladin simply cannot act with their normal conviction. This could be temporary if it's determined that the paladin only needed to be 'sent a message'. Other options are to declare that the PC cannot gain any more paladin levels, or even to convert all paladin levels to fighter or cleric. All while working with the player to determine the best result.

 

[Imaro]

That's a classic approach - the "loss of power/atonement" approach - another roleplaying-oriented approach is to look at the social consequences of "going rogue". I think it's fair to assume that anyone who has magical powers as the result of a magical oath likely had that oath administered by a specific organisation - whether it is the church of a certain god, or organisation of holy knights, or whatever. They are probably not going to be happy about you abandoning their teachings, dishonouring the name of their god, and so on. They will likely want to hunt you down and bring you to justice (what form that justice takes, well, that depends on their alignment and your sins, I suspect).

In 4E, the fluff was that your Divine powers (as a Cleric, Paladin, Avenger, etc.) flowed from a infinitesimal spark of the Divine granted to you by your god, and that there was no automatic "take-backsies" on that spark if you became a bad little Paladin (or whatever).

But that didn't mean that there were no consequences, because as discussed, you've probably just pissed your god off, and if you're in a setting where the gods communicate at all, he's likely dobbed you in to his other Paladins etc. or at least the word is spreading. If they don't communicate, it's still likely that unless your sin was completely hidden (which is a cool plot thread by itself! Did anyone know? If a Paladin sins in the forest...), your order is going to find out and then...

Even if you're not part of an order, if you go around claiming to be a Paladin of so-and-so whilst doing bad things, his other Paladins may well find out and be less than amused.

This approach seems problematic, IMO, for a couple of reasons...

1. The DM is suddenly a bully for bringing the full forces of a god's followers down on the player/PC's head... with a more than likely result of the PC (and his comrades) death.

2. The DM has to artificially regulate the amount of force he throws at the offending paladin (make it level appropriate) and thus the threat is not taken seriously since it is just an annoyance which would in theory just lead to more oath-breaking hijinks... why shouldn't he, the god or organization he pledged to isn't even strong enough to punish him...

3. It serves as a reward for the offending paladin's player by making a large chunk of the campaign now center around his crimes and his character.

I guess I find the loss of power/atonement route a much more manageable (and fair) way of dealing with a player/paladin character that chooses to break his oath that has fewer ramifications for others in the party.

 

[DDNFan]

That's a classic approach - the "loss of power/atonement" approach - another roleplaying-oriented approach is to look at the social consequences of "going rogue". I think it's fair to assume that anyone who has magical powers as the result of a magical oath likely had that oath administered by a specific organisation - whether it is the church of a certain god, or organisation of holy knights, or whatever. They are probably not going to be happy about you abandoning their teachings, dishonouring the name of their god, and so on. They will likely want to hunt you down and bring you to justice (what form that justice takes, well, that depends on their alignment and your sins, I suspect).

In 4E, the fluff was that your Divine powers (as a Cleric, Paladin, Avenger, etc.) flowed from a infinitesimal spark of the Divine granted to you by your god, and that there was no automatic "take-backsies" on that spark if you became a bad little Paladin (or whatever).

But that didn't mean that there were no consequences, because as discussed, you've probably just pissed your god off, and if you're in a setting where the gods communicate at all, he's likely dobbed you in to his other Paladins etc. or at least the word is spreading. If they don't communicate, it's still likely that unless your sin was completely hidden (which is a cool plot thread by itself! Did anyone know? If a Paladin sins in the forest...), your order is going to find out and then...

Even if you're not part of an order, if you go around claiming to be a Paladin of so-and-so whilst doing bad things, his other Paladins may well find out and be less than amused.

The whole idea of "no take backsies" screams player entitlement to me. Why shouldn't a god have the ability to remove that little spark of the divine he gave you, if you're constantly and seriously throwing it in his face?

And an intelligent player can easily hide his misdeeds from the public view or scrunity (who will tell on him from the depths of the dungeon? Probably not his teammates, who aren't under any oath). But nothing escapes the eye on the sparrow, neither deed nor even base thought or desire.

A subclass is about a third of a classes' features. If you violate your oath by committing an evil act, your oath becomes void, and you are then free to choose another one or atone to regain entry into this one.

I hope this becomes an optional rule, because I don't think it's up to a god's followers who conveniently are never around to bear witness to his misdeeds, to discipline his champions. If a god is the source of his spells and lay on hands and other magic, then it's just a matter of turning off the faucet until the paladin atones. I just do not buy it that a god can't sever a tie, temporarily or permanently. They are gods, treat them like gods. PCs are puny pawns, and not independent agents free of consequences. The only punishment for the paladin cannot be that his god mutters impotently at his misdeeds, unable to stop further misdeeds done in his name and with his power.

I'm fine with it being an optional rule to enable this, but I do not for one second buy the gameplay or fiction reason why there shouldn't be a severe punishment for Oath violation. Oaths aren't pillow talk. They are serious business, from serious powers (what's more serious than a God in D&D? The DM only, and those are effectively the same thing anyway).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The whole idea of "no take backsies" screams player entitlement to me. Why shouldn't a god have the ability to remove that little spark of the divine he gave you, if you're constantly and seriously throwing it in his face?

Because it's more interesting that way? By your logic, the gods should basically be engaging in mass mayhem, but generally in D&D settings, they aren't, because it's more interesting that way.

If the god can take it back, the whole thing is a trivial matter, akin to revoking the access rights of junior employee at an IT company. There's limited RP potential, especially if, as you've suggested, you only lose 1/3rd of your powers, and can get them back simply by getting re-hired by another IT company.

Also "entitled" is hysterical. Yeah, being hunted down by teleporting zealots with two-handed swords is definitely something "entitled" people seek out. How is it not more entitled to expect to just be able to regain your powers by apologizing, doing a ritual or getting re-hired? That seems obviously more "entitled", to me.

And an intelligent player can easily hide his misdeeds from the public view or scrunity (who will tell on him from the depths of the dungeon? Probably not his teammates, who aren't under any oath). But nothing escapes the eye on the sparrow, neither deed nor even base thought or desire.

You're assuming all D&D gods are completely omniscient, then? That goes rather against most D&D settings. If they are though, again, this is pretty interesting, because assuming they're omniscient not omnipotent (because no D&D setting has ever had omnipotent gods or even particularly potent ones), they presumably communicate the PC's sins (or NPC! This makes for GREAT badguys, you know!) to some senior figure in the church, who puts you on his list and sends people out to get you.

I hope this becomes an optional rule, because I don't think it's up to a god's followers who conveniently are never around to bear witness to his misdeeds, to discipline his champions.

What are you talking about? Seriously, did you read my post you're quoting? I'm suggesting this as one way things can work. I seriously doubt that it will be the default, and am not suggesting it should be, but you apparently believe I am. Care to explain how you came by that belief?

I'm fine with it being an optional rule to enable this, but I do not for one second buy the gameplay or fiction reason why there shouldn't be a severe punishment for Oath violation. Oaths aren't pillow talk. They are serious business, from serious powers (what's more serious than a God in D&D? The DM only, and those are effectively the same thing anyway).

I find it truly strange that you think having an entire religious organisation full of people with similar powers to the PC or NPC angry with them is "less severe" than, as you've suggested, temporarily losing access to 1/3rd of your class features. To me the former seems vastly more severe, and to have a vastly greater amount of both RP potential, and campaign potential. It seems to me that it's a lot easier, under the methodolgy you suggest, to just ditch your god and pick a new one, merely experiencing a period of undefined length where you are inconvenienced, than having to convince a whole bunch of zealots that, no, really, you have repented!

To be clear, I'm not suggesting it "should be" the 4E-style way - you don't even really need optional rules to make it the 4-style way, either, just a lack of them. But I do think it's actually the way that has far more campaign-impact, RP potential, and real threat to the PC than what you're suggesting. Which is not to say that your suggestion has no value - it's actually quite workable, and works well for campaigns where you want the possibility of falling, but you don't want severe consequences, or campaign-altering consequences, just a period of the PC being weaker.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This approach seems problematic, IMO, for a couple of reasons...

1. The DM is suddenly a bully for bringing the full forces of a god's followers down on the player/PC's head... with a more than likely result of the PC (and his comrades) death.

2. The DM has to artificially regulate the amount of force he throws at the offending paladin (make it level appropriate) and thus the threat is not taken seriously since it is just an annoyance which would in theory just lead to more oath-breaking hijinks... why shouldn't he, the god or organization he pledged to isn't even strong enough to punish him...

3. It serves as a reward for the offending paladin's player by making a large chunk of the campaign now center around his crimes and his character.

Your objections here are literally self-contradictory. You are simultaneously claiming that the PC will likely die, and that he is being rewarded by this.

Sorry, that makes no sense at all. You presumably don't honestly believe one of those things, and you need to decide which it is.

Yes, the DM decides what happens and what's best for the campaign. I'm not sure how that's different from DMing normally. In a sandbox, you will know the strength of the PC's religion, their likely response (I doubt it will be initially lethal unless they are Evil and he's turned to Good, and it may not even initially be violent, especially if they are uncertain and depending on the particular violation, but they are likely to want to take him in - and the other PCs, well, they can get involved or not) and so on, beforehand, and will run it appropriately, and in a non-sandbox, you'll do whatever you feel is best for the campaign.

Also, it may simply remove the PC from the campaign, either by his death, or by his being held. I don't buy that this is a huge problem unless you don't kill off PCs or have them otherwise removed from your campaign (which is pretty unusual).

I guess I find the loss of power/atonement route a much more manageable (and fair) way of dealing with a player/paladin character that chooses to break his oath that has fewer ramifications for others in the party.

Power losss does have fewer ramifications for others, sure (not none, though - it can make a key member of the party virtually useless, depending on the edition), and it's more manageable in a certain sense, but I think "fair" here is utterly subjective to the point of meaningless-ness. The poster immediately after you believes this is unfairly lenient. You believe it is unfairly harsh. You can't both be right. Maybe it's the goldilocks solution?

I'm not saying it's without problems, but nor is power loss. I think the way I've suggested is more interesting, and has more RP potential, but yes, I actually agree that in the hands of a clumsy or clueless DM, it's more likely to go affect other party members (beyond just weakening the party), and it's more likely to impact the campaign in a meaningful way. The problem is that clumsy and clueless DMs are ALSO the people who inflict power loss for tiny infraction or non-infractions, so if you have a bad DM, you're really screwed either way...

 

[DDNFan]

Whatever the solution is to a paladin acting poorly, it can't be "do nothing".

If the paladin is off on his own, and goes to loot the tomb of the fallen king for his magic armor or sword, and he comes back to his group and says it was handed to him by his God, who is to deny him? Since the god is an absentee landlord in the model of "you're only punishable if you get caught", presupposes very weak D&D gods, and that I find unbelievable. A weak, impotent, blind god with strong champions who are abusing his good will and there's nothing he can do about it (in the rules). Yeah, I've seen that happen lots over the years. The only reason I've seen people complain about having to atone are specifically those problem paladin players who want to literally get away with murder and thievery.

I don't think it's interesting playing a game where my god permits me to lay on hands and detect evil creatures, while still giving me enough leeway, that, so long as I'm not witnessed by anyone, can murder a prisoner in cold blood, or eat the last piece of bread of a dying old man.

Sounds like the kind of knights in Game of Thrones, secular ones, and servants of all-too-human kings and queens. Knights who pretend to pray, while being sinners.

If a paladin's god not only can't take away his powers, but can't even order his other followers to hunt down and kill him and bring him to justice, we do have to laugh at such meager gods, and scratch our heads at why anyone would pledge their lives to be their champions.

I agree with imaro, the class doesn't make sense without gods having at least some control over their followers.

The only thing we're even debating now is why we would want DMs to have in the DMG an optional rule to have classic paladins. But those of us who want them, are not going to stop wanting them because some people we've never met, nor will ever play with.

We've heard the arguments for years and years. To my mind, they are all variants of "let the players do whatever they want, because otherwise they will whine". I've never seen, not once, a paladin player who actually played the class well, I mean roleplay wise, even risk having to atone, unless it was deliberately because they were stuck, or it was part of their character. In that case, being a fallen paladin adds character to the character, and makes the overall story better, not worse.

Living in a world where there are paladins but they are all perfect specimens and therefore there are never any fallen paladins, tells me the gods are asleep at the wheel, and perhaps aren't even real. Certainly not gods of justice and decency, when they are so inept and powerless to even censure their own champions who are committing evil acts and never getting caught let alone stopped.

 

[Imaro]

Your objections here are literally self-contradictory. You are simultaneously claiming that the PC will likely die, and that he is being rewarded by this.

Sorry, that makes no sense at all. You presumably don't honestly believe one of those things, and you need to decide which it is.

There is nothing literally self-contradictory in what I posted, I think you need to re-read exactly what I wrote.

You do realize that these objections are not interdependent... right? One, two or all 3 could happen at different times during a campaign or even a single game and there is no contradiction. So yes, I do honestly believe all of these things could be objections to your suggested way of dealing with an oath breaking paladin character/player... and no, I really don't need to decide on believing only one, two or none could be the result.

Yes, the DM decides what happens and what's best for the campaign. I'm not sure how that's different from DMing normally. In a sandbox, you will know the strength of the PC's religion, their likely response (I doubt it will be initially lethal unless they are Evil and he's turned to Good, and it may not even initially be violent, especially if they are uncertain and depending on the particular violation, but they are likely to want to take him in - and the other PCs, well, they can get involved or not) and so on, beforehand, and will run it appropriately, and in a non-sandbox, you'll do whatever you feel is best for the campaign.

I find it funny that you start out claiming it's no different from any decision any other DM makes... but then list out "best practices" for it. Why wouldn't death before dishonor be the motto for some neutral and even some good religions? The world of D&D is violent, why would an oath-breaker be accorded respect or approached in a peaceful manner... especially one who regularly dispenses and deals in violence?

Will forcing the other PC's into a situation where they have to decide to back their friend and risk possible death or dessert him (due to no actions of their own)... and then we have to play out totally different games where they do whatever it is they are doing... but I also have to play out him being brought to justice make for a better game?

In other words I don't think it's anywhere as clear cut as you are painting it to be with the "DM fiat whatever is best for the campaign" line...

Also, it may simply remove the PC from the campaign, either by his death, or by his being held. I don't buy that this is a huge problem unless you don't kill off PCs or have them otherwise removed from your campaign (which is pretty unusual).

It's about the way in which it is done... how do you decide what is or isn't an appropriate force for the PC's god or affiliated order to send? It's about it being a head-ache for the DM and other players when really it could easily be decided and kept centered on the particular PC without this extra load on the Dm and other players by his personal loss of power.

Power losss does have fewer ramifications for others, sure (not none, though - it can make a key member of the party virtually useless, depending on the edition), and it's more manageable in a certain sense, but I think "fair" here is utterly subjective to the point of meaningless-ness. The poster immediately after you believes this is unfairly lenient. You believe it is unfairly harsh. You can't both be right. Maybe it's the goldilocks solution?

Where did I say it was unfairly harsh? Perhaps you need to re-read what I actually posted... Now I am saying it is unfairly wishy-washy, an unfair load on the DM and an unfair load on the other players in the game... so I guess that could be interpreted as "unfairly harsh" on everyone else or on the group...

I'm not saying it's without problems, but nor is power loss. I think the way I've suggested is more interesting, and has more RP potential, but yes, I actually agree that in the hands of a clumsy or clueless DM, it's more likely to go affect other party members (beyond just weakening the party), and it's more likely to impact the campaign in a meaningful way. The problem is that clumsy and clueless DMs are ALSO the people who inflict power loss for tiny infraction or non-infractions, so if you have a bad DM, you're really screwed either way...

See I don't see it as more interesting for anyone but the player as it takes spotlight time away from anyone who isn't involved in the game to interact extensively with the paladin's order. I also don't think it has anything to do with a clumsy or clueless DM... it will affect other party members simply because they are travelling with, comrades of and perhaps even friends of the paladin.

I fail to see why this would impact the campaign in a way that is any more meaningful than a paladin charged with a quest from his deity or the leader of his order that must be completed in order to regain his divinity? the quest seems to have a much more personal impact and larger resonance with the actual myths (i.e. the questing knight, quests of redemption, etc.)

 

[Nytmare]

I just wanted to take a moment to reflect on the fact that, if nothing else, this conversation has really really REALLY made me want to play Dogs in the Vineyard.