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

[Greg K]

I don't think this fully states the strength of your position. Because, unless I've misunderstood you, you are stating not only that the GM has sole authority over these initial matters of backstory, but also that the GM has ongoing authority during play. So not only does the GM get to tell the player what all the gods and their prescriptions are, but the GM gets to tell the player, as play actually takes place, whether or not the player's interpretation is correct.

It's that second bit, rather than the first bit about backstory authority, that is my main departure from your approach.

Yes. I do think the GM has the authority. It is not something that I use regularly, but it is a tool in the GM belt (in about twenty years of GMing at the time of the campaign, that was the first time that I ever did that. I have not felt a need to since). As for player actions, the player got to attempt turn undead as wanted. He got a warning that it was not a good idea and, under the given situation, it was not following the tenets and expected code of behavior of his deity. He wanted to try a second time and was permitted to do so. Then he wanted to do it a third time. Sorry, but if your powers come from a deity or other being and you don't follow their rules (which the player willingly agreed to) than there are consequences. Such situations are found in myth, legends and other stories from various cultures so it is, as far as I concerned legitimate. And as pointed out, by others, I didn't strip him of everything, just two things relevant to the situation. As I mentioned, he did an atonement and got back his powers (the atonement involved the character praying and meditating after the battle).

(Note: As an aside, not mentioned was the character had, recently, acquired a magic sword that received an increased to hit bonus vs. supernatural evil creatures (demons, devils, appropriate undead, priests of appropriate deities, etc.). Against such creatures, it also had an increased damage multiplier (with a higher modifier on a crit and it negated immunity to critical hits for such creatures). There was also a special property of which he was unaware (it acted as a mace of disruption). However, even without knowing the one special property, there was no reason for the player to think that his character could not do anything against the creature.)

 

[Greg K]

but it would be enough to make me avoid playing a cleric or a paladin - or any character of faith, for that matter.

Honestly, as a GM, that is your decision and it would not bother me. There are other things to play.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

You realize that DMs can take away abilities from monks and druids too if they violate their alignments yet we rarely hear about that.

For the record, I addressed this frequently-cited issue in my recent article:

But other classes have restrictions; why don’t you care about those? Actually, most of us find those restriction equally silly, for similar reasons. The paladin just gets more press because it’s the poster child of arbitrary traditional restrictions.

For example, I myself am happy with cleric-like restrictions because they’re reasonable and not overly onerous. But that ‘rangers must be Good,’ ‘barbarians can’t be Lawful,’ ‘thieves can’t be Lawful Good,’ and other malarky? Those all get ignored in any campaign I DM.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The important thing in all of this, IMO, is simply that the player and DM are on the same page regarding playstyle before the campaign begins. Does the DM allow the player to have input on what goes on in the world other than their own character, or not? To what degree? Can he say that his parent was a war hero, or is he assigned his family? Can he dictate during play how his god does things? Can he declare in the middle of the campaign that the land he came from is a magocracy?

You really have to have agreement on this ahead of time. Take my upcoming campaign for instance. As a DM, my campaign is my character. I design and control it. Just like players can't declare what is true for another player's PC, or dictate their actions, they can't add things to my campaign-character except through the actions of their own character.

Players will have this very clear up front. When they are making characters I will go to great lengths to let them have what they want as long as it a) fits the setting, b) fits the campaign (I reuse a huge setting), and c) fits the party. I'll even go to the extent of allowing characters to help design their own homelands, provided those lands haven't already been clearly detailed and brought into play before. Once the game starts, however, you are interacting with my character, and I will not have its actions dictated to me anymore than I will dictate your character's actions to you.

This agreement even applies to the PCs relationship to each other. If one player wants to play a wizard, and another player wants to play a wizard-hating mage-slayer who is likely to try to assassinate him in this sleep, I'm going to tell them that won't work and we'll see what other characters one or both of them are interested in playing. A party is a shared character that all of the players are participants in, and it must sign-up for my campaign and settings as well as the individual players, or problems can happen.

If there is a question of tenets of deities or alignment, I will ask a player how much detail they want, and explain to them that if their actions end up differing from the permissible norms, their powers may change as a result (ie, subclass changes), they may lose any connection to their previous patron, and there may be in-world consequences. So if they choose to vary from the tenets that they profess to a significant degree, while continuing to claim to represent that patron, others (mortal or immortal) may take steps to make sure the rest of the world knows they are not in harmony with whom they claim to be. I'll also ask my players if they want me to forewarn them when they are moving in that direction. In my case I will avoid "punishing" as much as possible, by changing their source or powers rather than removing them, but like any other character they face in-world social/political and other consequences--no different than a fighter who is a rogue knight, or a rogue who betrays his guild.

As a player I am totally okay with those sorts of things. I try to make sure I am very clear about how the DM runs his world. For instance, when playing a spellcaster I want to know how much of a magic arms race there is going to be: is see invisiblity a trump spell, or are there a whole stream of better invisibility that laughs at your see invisibility and even more penetrating see invisibility that laughs are your better invisibility kind of spells that ascend up the levels. It can be extremely frustrating as a player to play say, a warlock or sorcerer with a limited selection of abilities who chooses see invisibility expecting it to work throughout the campaign, only to discover it become meaningless after a few levels.

However, once I know how the DM runs his campaign, I sign on to play it with those guidelines. I have little sympathy for a player who knows what he is getting into and then gets frustrated out-of-character because things happen exactly the way the DM told him before the campaign that he signed up for. Getting frustrated in-character, well that should be part of the fun for everyone.

One of the benefits of this approach is that once everyone is on board, then I as the DM don't have to worry about their choices. They've chosen a concept that works with the campaign, and can play it as they intend to, and I can have the world adapt as I see fit. If I sign-off on a morally undecided character who is potentially going to go darkside, and the player does, then I should let them, to the limits possible. Of course, if it ends up totally messing up the campaign for the rest of the group, we might want to have a talk about using the polymorph to NPC and create new PC spells, because the DM's character-campaign bears a greater part of the weight than any individual PC. The campaign has to be able to carry the PCs, and if it lacks a firm foundation, it's hard to do that. If you are going for a collaborative campaign creation experience, that's perfectly fine. But as I said, we all need to be clear up-front what we are doing, and I'm rarely playing a collaborate design experience.

 

[Greg K]

I have seen arguments at the table over clerics and how the player interprets following their deity. I have seen arguments and some nasty ones over players who play rogues as lone wolves. Any class can bring arguments to the table depending on how that player is playing his character

Agreed. I have seen similar arguments as well including over reckless barbarians and fighters that rush in kicking down the door to slaughter anything in their path without any thought to the consequence of their actions.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed. I have seen similar arguments as well including over reckless barbarians and fighters that rush in kicking down the door to slaughter anything in their path without any thought to the consequence of their actions.

But, that's not the same argument though. For one, that's likely the other players arguing because the fighter or barbarian player is getting other people's characters killed. Which does tend to make people somewhat less willing to accept, "Well, it's what my character would do".

In this case, the paladin wasn't doing anything particularly wrong. Thing is, had he rolled well, he ended the fight and saved the shaman and he's the big damn hero. The only reason he's not the hero is because he rolled badly. I'm not sure I see that as a real violation of his tenets. It's certainly not something the other players should be getting on his case about. Do they similarly get on people's cases for missing three times in combat with a melee weapon? Or whenever a monster makes it's saving through vs some save or die type spell?

And, just to go back to the whole thing about DM's blocking what the player wants. That got blown way out of proportion. My entire argument was solely based on preference. The DM doesn't like something, not because of any mechanical issue, or because it doesn't fit with the campaign, but because the DM simply doesn't like it. I made the horribly entitled argument that in the sole case where the only issue is the DM happens not to like X, the DM shouldn't tell the player that he cannot play X.

Heck, in your own example, do you LIKE the reckless barbarian or fighter in the campaign? I imagine not since you bring it up as causing arguments at the table. Yet, you let people play them. So, what's the difference? People will always play stuff that you personally might not like or agree with. The only difference was, I actually said up front that I accept this and don't have a problem with it.

 

[Voadam]

I have seen arguments at the table over clerics and how the player interprets following their deity. I have seen arguments and some nasty ones over players who play rogues as lone wolves. Any class can bring arguments to the table depending on how that player is playing his character. I had issues awhile back with a player who didn't like that I held back spells when I played the wizard he played wizards going nova a lot.

A PC playing a paladin or cleric who argues with the DM about how they play their character has mechanical stuff taken away in game. Same with a player of an alignment restricted class who gets in an argument with a DM who says they've crossed the line into a forbidden alignment.

A PC who gets in an argument with the DM or other players about playing as a lone wolf is having a different type of argument. It is about group dynamics and spotlight playing time and has nothing to do with game mechanics or DM mechanical punishments. Same with the resource management of wizard spells argument, the DM does not impose mechanical punishments to your character for not sticking to his vision.

 

[Hussar]

And, let's be honest here. A player who plays a wizard who goes nova often argues with another player who likes to pace his/her spells. Is anyone going to try to tell me that the nova player is right?

Because several people in this thread have told me that Greg K is right.

And that's the difference.

If, instead of two players, we had a DM and a player having the same argument about wizards and the DM took away the wizard's spell casting abilities because he felt the wizard wasn't casting enough and had lost skill. It's something you have to practice constantly, so, because you're holding back, you lose confidence and you can't cast anymore until you go back to wizard school, would anyone agree with that DM?

What's the difference?

 

[DDNFan]

And, let's be honest here. A player who plays a wizard who goes nova often argues with another player who likes to pace his/her spells. Is anyone going to try to tell me that the nova player is right?

Because several people in this thread have told me that Greg K is right.

And that's the difference.

If, instead of two players, we had a DM and a player having the same argument about wizards and the DM took away the wizard's spell casting abilities because he felt the wizard wasn't casting enough and had lost skill. It's something you have to practice constantly, so, because you're holding back, you lose confidence and you can't cast anymore until you go back to wizard school, would anyone agree with that DM?

What's the difference?

The wizard channels arcane energy without ever asking a deity with an independent will for that energy, for starters. One with whom he swore an oath to gain.

That deity is roleplayed by the DM, who is merely human but is infinitely wiser than any strict set of rules could be. Players can exploit rules easily when DMs have no say in the matter. Certain classes have divine components, who give them powers. It is a really simple concept to understand, and the concept of divine wrath is common and understood by the majority of peoples around the globe.

 

[DDNFan]

Agreed. I have seen similar arguments as well including over reckless barbarians and fighters that rush in kicking down the door to slaughter anything in their path without any thought to the consequence of their actions.

Exactly. D&D players can and will argue about all kinds of things.

Paladins policing sadistic rogues are not at all the worst example. Coward PCs tend to be just as disruptive as smash-the-door-in type characters who are often accused of not being team players. All kinds of arguments can and do happen. I try to avoid common pitfalls, and I definitely do not play a paladin in a party with any characters who have CN tendencies even if it's written CG on their sheet (with fingers crossed). It just doesn't make sense for those two types of characters to work together, no point trying to reconcile them, it's just asking for trouble and not a fun thing to do. Get a team together that's reasonably cohesive, at least most of the time, or make some adjustments.

Most of the rag tag groups I've seen in pick up games at Encounters have lack of tactical cohesion (focus fire!) as their primary problem, since roleplaying is basically nil in those games, or very cookie cutter. You often see paladins acting like barbarians in those games, or like historical knights templar as they are definitely not paragons of virtue or champions of justice in anything but name.

When the DM's hands are tied behind their back, namely when there is no actual rule anywhere that states that a god can let alone should, turn off their abilities for a while as punishment for a gross violation of code, then you get the situation where players are running the show. Feeling entitled to their abilities no matter their actions (or inactions), seems to be in direct proportion to how absurd it is that they would even pretend to be playing such a character well. Quite probably such players are griefing the group and the DM, even without knowing it.

DMs need more tools to handle in-game griefing than just rocks fall you die. Nobody would believe that, but many find it perfectly reasonable that risking your god's displeasure would carry direct consequences in a world where gods are real.