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

[DDNFan]

What difference?

Again...Woooooooooooosh.

Divine agency is the key difference.

Whom is the paladin taking a vow to? To whom is he making a solemn Oath? His god. That is the difference. Gods are real in D&D, they have real power, and can give real spells and magical, supernatural abilities to their followers. Unless you think a paladin's aura springs from his general sense of humor? Or his lay on hands ability to cure disease and remove poison and bring the injured back from the brink of death, to be things that anyone can do, after uttering an Oath to their girlfriend or to their landlord? If such Oaths had any real power without divine agency, other than psychological ones, then there would be some very powerful people indeed. But there aren't. Fighters can't learn to Lay on Hands, and barbarians can't cast fireball. Different classes, different ways to achieve power. The paladin's way is through his god, or through some supernatural contract with a magical force of some kind. Regardless, the Oath itself is a real thing, and that which has a moral outlook embedded into it. If you violate that, whatever intelligence that understands that you took that Oath, and what it means, and chose to gave you that power, must also know when you break it, otherwise...arrr, it's just too annoying to even continue explaining this to you.

I'm sorry, but I'm adding you to ignore because I just can't do it any more. Going around in circles like this. Too much time wasted. No more. I've got more appealing things to do.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, because heaven forbid players actually role play their characters. Would you have your paladin break his oath DDNFan? If not, then why do you need mechanical consequences.

Or is it to ensure that other people play their characters the way you see them?

 

[Imaro]

Are you talking about punishing the PC or the player? Points (2) and (3) make it sound like you're talking about punishing the player.

Well putting aside the fact that the PC isn't real... my objections are based around the PC...

#2 is about the fact that the D&D world is a world where PC's get stronger and more powerful through defeating creatures in combat (IMO, it's a sorry god in the world that hasn't realized this or that this particular paladin isn't one of those people if it doesn't apply to everyone in the world which I guess would depend on edition.). So if the god is really trying to punish the PC (as opposed to give him fodder to grow more powerful upon i.e. reward him) then it makes sense that he would send something powerful and deadly enough to deal with the paladin and his band of cohorts... but does that make for a fun game for everyone else?

#3 is not about punishing the player, how could it be the player would be getting the campaign focused on him and for most people that would be a reward... too bad it can act as a punishment for everyone else at the table who doesn't want to play a game of "The Paladin's Story". So no it's not about punishing the paladin character it's about making the game fun for everyone and not allowing the actions of one character to dominate the campaign...

I don't think it's good for the rules to be set up in such a way as to give the GM the job of punishing the player. It's a game, not an institution of moral correction!

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] please calm the hyperbole down, no one is claiming their game is or comparing it to an institution of moral correction... it's a silly comparison that doesn't strengthen your argument.

If the GM doesn't like how the player is playing his/her PC - be that a paladin, a rogue, a wizard, or whatever - s/he can just talk about it.

Exactly what criteria is used as a measurement for that? And if the player feels he is playing his PC just fine... who wins out?

 

[Hussar]

Why should your criteria for how to play a paladin be more valid? Why should the rules let you tell the player how to play a paladin but not any other clad?

 

[Imaro]

Yes, because heaven forbid players actually role play their characters. Would you have your paladin break his oath DDNFan? If not, then why do you need mechanical consequences.

Without any type of mechanical consequences... I probably would (it's why i don't play paladins in 4e), if it was convenient... saved my character's life... gave me an advantage during a challenge and so on I'd break my oath. I mean don't get me wrong I'd play the paladin role when it was easy but why would I keep it up when and if I didn't have to? With no consequences there is no such thing as a fallen paladin and thus anything I do would be ok for a paladin... Of course at this point I'd consider myself just a divinely imbued fighter?

 

[Hussar]

Wow. Really? How do you play clerics? Considering virtually every 3e class has alignment restrictions, do you feel the same about those classes? Do your characters never have any concept of honor or a code of behaviour?

And, do you honestly feel that this is good role play?

 

[Imaro]

Why should your criteria for how to play a paladin be more valid? Why should the rules let you tell the player how to play a paladin but not any other clad?

It's not my criteria... the paladin has to be "something" and since D&D has (until 4e) defined it in a certain way... I would think that description has been the criteria for most if not all people... In fact I find it strange that breaking your code or oath (because that is what we have been discussing) could be considered a different, as opposed to wrong, criteria for the paladin as it has been defined in most editions...

 

[Imaro]

Wow. Really? How do you play clerics? Considering virtually every 3e class has alignment restrictions, do you feel the same about those classes? Do your characters never have any concept of honor or a code of behaviour?

And, do you honestly feel that this is good role play?

In 3e I tend for the most part to play them within the tenets of the class... sometimes because that is what the character would do but sometimes because there are consequences which the character weighs against the importance of his actions. In 4e this never arises when I play a paladin, so for me a character who is struggling with the tenets of paladinhood in 4e... has no reason, IMO, not to take a ride on the dark side when necessary or convenient since there are no consequences... In 3e it has to be pretty important since the consequences are (again IMO) much greater.

I don't play every character the same, not sure why you are painting with that brush when we were specifically talking about paladins and as for it being good role play... watch GoT and then get back to me about what a knight (i.e. paladin without alignment restrictions) should be. In other words it depends on the personality of the character. What the mechanical enforcement does for me is guarantee that being a paladin is a struggle with hard choices and that being a paladin means something outside of a divinely powered fighter

 

[thalmin]

Yes, because heaven forbid players actually role play their characters. Would you have your paladin break his oath DDNFan? If not, then why do you need mechanical consequences.

Or is it to ensure that other people play their characters the way you see them?

If playing a Paladin, ordinarily I would not break my oath. But if circumstances were such that my character had a chrisis of faith, it might be interesting to play that out, however I would like to know what might be the consequences of such an action. I would not want to immediately put the rest of the party in jeopardy by losing all healing abilities right when they are counting on it. But if we are not in a critical situation, the loss of that healing, while it will matter, would not endanger the other characters right away. Then it becomes another challenge to overcome.

If DMing, it is easier on my players if they have it spelled out ahead of time what can happen to oathbreakers. It would be very unfair if the consequences came out of nowhere.

 

[pemerton]

Because without a rule that states a cleric or paladin can get excommunicated, it would be unfair to players to play their characters or even chose to play those classes, if the DM suddenly and for the first time in his world's history, apply a more harsh punishment directly to that player from out of the blue.

Are you talking about punishing the player, or the PC?

And do I need a rule that states the GM may build a world with taxation as part of it, in order for it to be fair to confront the player of a trading PC with an NPC demanding the payment of taxes or tolls?

Divine agency is the key difference.

Whom is the paladin taking a vow to? To whom is he making a solemn Oath? His god.

What is the difference in this respect between a paladin, and (say) a rogue who makes a promise to the god of portals that s/he will pay money to that god's shrine if only the one door standing in the way between death and escape is not locked?

And why is your game apparently set up so that players have no reason to want to play their characters in the way that they promised to?

It's a contract, nobody is forcing you to play a paladin or a cleric, but if you do, you are supposed to act according to your church or your god's wishes,

<snip>

It would be beyond irresponsible to not take a direct hand in that.

I don't see any contract.

Within the fiction of the gameworld, I don't see any contract. There is worship, and devotion, and inspiration, and charisma. But I don't see the relationship between a paladin (or traditional cleric, for that matter) and the divinity as remotely contractual.

Within the play of the game, there isn't a contract either. Perhaps there is a promise (express or implied) by the player to play his/her PC in a particular way. If the player isn't keeping that promise, why not? And why do I need game rules to deal with that? (Chess doesn't need rules to tell me what to do if my opponent tips the board over in a fit of pique!)

Players often say they want to play a holy knight who helps the poor and is brave, but when the time comes, fail to do that and act selfish and cowardly like any knave

I have never encountered a player like this.

If this is frequent in your experience, why do you think that is? And what evidence is there that giving the GM the power to strip away class abilities will solve the problem?

Without any type of mechanical consequences... I probably would (it's why i don't play paladins in 4e), if it was convenient... saved my character's life... gave me an advantage during a challenge and so on I'd break my oath. I mean don't get me wrong I'd play the paladin role when it was easy but why would I keep it up when and if I didn't have to?

My response to this is similar to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s - ie one of surprise and a degree of puzzlement.

It's a game. Whatever action declaration you make for your PC (at least within very broad limits), you get to keep playing the game. So why declare actions for your PC that break the oath? What's the rationale?

I'm having a fairly hard time envisaging the games that you and [MENTION=6776483]DDNFan[/MENTION] seem to have in mind. You seem to think it's fun to play a paladin, but also think that you won't actually play a paladin unless the GM is threatening to take away your gamepiece if you don't stick to the oath. I'm not going to say that that is contradictory, but it's not very clear to me what the game looks like that would make sense of this motivational structure.