D&D General IS the 5 min work day a feature or a bug?

[payn]

Why don't people say 'no self-destructive idiots' instead of 'no evil'? Because plenty of evil people manage to get by without random murder and betrayal.

I believe the counter to this is that "its not real roleplay unless you can be a total taint wipe to all the people your are playing a game with."

 

[Vaalingrade]

I believe the counter to this is that "its not real roleplay unless you can be a total taint wipe to all the people your are playing a game with."

Explains 3x paladins.

 

[Oofta]

The reason we banned CN was that many people do not understand the point you make in your second paragraph. A lot of people simply take CN to do whatever they want, whenever they want. They do not realise that while CN is all about freedom, it is not about killing, murdering and backstabbing innocent bystanders and to accept collateral damages without remorse. This is the province of Evil.


And again, many that takes the CN were hoping just that. Hey! I am not evil. But I can act like one if needed of if it suits my current mood...

With such stable groups as I have now, I might and probably should reconsider my/our stance on CN. It might add a few more RP opportunities. I'll sure bring the topic for the next campaign.

Yeah, I loved my freedom loving CN barbarian that didn't give a flying **** what anyone else thought. He was fiercely loyal to his friends and allies and was honest to a fault because he decided that for him lying was a sign of weakness. On the other hand if I go into my way back machine [queue wavy graphics] I had a player that decided his CN would help the thieves they were hired to find escape out a window. He was surprised when the rest of the group objected and one of the thieves took a swing at him since other members of the party had already made attacks. This was the first combat of the campaign.

I blame the 2E(?) description of CN as being basically loony tunes character that would change sides in the middle of the fight "just to see what happens". You know what happens? Best case? You're no longer trusted by the other party members and are no longer allowed to tag along. Worst case? The other PCs decide you're now an enemy and take you out as well. In either case, write up a new PC.

Want to play The Joker and just want to watch the world burn? You aren't CN, you're CE so find another game. Want to play a person that is willing to work with the group but values personal freedom. Someone that is still aware of the world around them and understand that there are consequences to your actions and that the group can kick you out at any time? Welcome to the club.

I ban evil PCs because I just don't want to deal with it. If you're LE but never actually do anything truly evil, why bother putting that on your character sheet? Last, but not least, I don't really care about alignment of my PCs in general. Alignment is just a handy shortcut for describing a cluster of motivations.

 

[Helldritch]

Explains 3x paladins.

Easy. Paladins suffered from the fact that in 1ed their power was gated behind hard to reach stats. It was one of the "elite" class of 1ed (ranger, monk and druids). Rolling the stats to do one was not only lucky but an occasion to good to pass on. As long as paladin were rare, there was no problems with them at all. In fact, they were so liked that some DM would allow a paladin at -20% exp cost to level if "only" a 16 was rolled for charisma. UA, with its (9 to 3)d6 method, removed that gate completely and the fact that many did not use the 3d6 but 4d6 place as you want. At least with the later, it was still hard to achieve a paladin. Once that gate was opened, a flood of paladin entered the game field.

And this is no kidding! Some tables could have up to three paladins in the group (out of 6 or 7 players)! Everyone wanted to be a paladin as it was the strongest class, strong enough to take on an archmage (level 18) at level 9 and win if that paladin was lucky enough to have a holy avenger! So people started to add an other gate to the paladin. This is what I called: The lawful Stupid. They imposed so many restrictions on the alignment and behavior and chivalric code to the paladin that at most table it became simply an almost unplayable class.

All these behavioral obligations to play the paladin also became a major hindrance for the other players too. Can't do this, can't do that and yaddi yadda. All the paladin's RP restriction were literally imposed on their fellow players! This all led to a general distaste (if not outright hatred) for the class at many tables. This perception lasted well onto all editions. The paladin class was tainted by the lawful stupid to the point that to make the class attractive, the game developers had to give the class very strong abilities and to lessen the codes the paladins had to follow in 5ed. (We could argue that this tendency started way before that in 3.xed and 4ed, but 5ed got it right, finally).

I hope I was of service.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Thanks, but said that payn's comment 'explains' them, not asking them 'to explain'. I know they were poorly designed. The only class I ever had to ban.

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah, I loved my freedom loving CN barbarian that didn't give a flying **** what anyone else thought. He was fiercely loyal to his friends and allies and was honest to a fault because he decided that for him lying was a sign of weakness. On the other hand if I go into my way back machine [queue wavy graphics] I had a player that decided his CN would help the thieves they were hired to find escape out a window. He was surprised when the rest of the group objected and one of the thieves took a swing at him since other members of the party had already made attacks. This was the first combat of the campaign.

I blame the 2E(?) description of CN as being basically loony tunes character that would change sides in the middle of the fight "just to see what happens". You know what happens? Best case? You're no longer trusted by the other party members and are no longer allowed to tag along. Worst case? The other PCs decide you're now an enemy and take you out as well. In either case, write up a new PC.

Want to play The Joker and just want to watch the world burn? You aren't CN, you're CE so find another game. Want to play a person that is willing to work with the group but values personal freedom. Someone that is still aware of the world around them and understand that there are consequences to your actions and that the group can kick you out at any time? Welcome to the club.

I ban evil PCs because I just don't want to deal with it. If you're LE but never actually do anything truly evil, why bother putting that on your character sheet? Last, but not least, I don't really care about alignment of my PCs in general. Alignment is just a handy shortcut for describing a cluster of motivations.

I fully understand you POV! I/we just went a bit further to avoid potential problems. I have always seen CN as the Dirty Harry of Clint Eastwood. He does things his way but he is loyal to his friends. He does not hesitate to "bend" the law and hates the confines of the law but likes to bring the baddies to justice (or his justice ). But too often, people play CN as a free pass to do anything just for the fun of it.

 

[Helldritch]

Thanks, but said that payn's comment 'explains' them, not asking them 'to explain'. I know they were poorly designed. The only class I ever had to ban.

And I never had to ban them. I never fell into the Lawful Stupid syndrome. Maybe because I was playing with 3d6 in order... Later I fell with 4d6 in order and now standard array...
But the paladin is supposed to be a beacon of hope, a shining example of lawfulness and goodness. Someone who strive for perfection and lead by example. The paladin is supposed to seek evil and crush it. But he is also supposed to forgive and help people amend their ways. It was not an easy class to play and it is also why it was gated in such a way in 1ed. I have seen paladin defend a bandit that begged for his life and swore to amend his ways while the group wanted blood because one of them had fallen to that bandit! Revenge and killing were not the way of the paladin in 1ed. They were distasteful but the paladin knew that sometimes, hard things had to be done.

Now the paladins are simply an other class. For good or bad, this is what we got...

 

[Vaalingrade]

And I never had to ban them. I never fell into the Lawful Stupid syndrome. Maybe because I was playing with 3d6 in order... Later I fell with 4d6 in order and now standard array...

In 3x, they are literally required to be pains by the RAW and despite extensively rewriting 3e, I couldn't be assed to bother with them because they genuinely had nothing to offer, especially with Metagame as a core level 1 feature.

But the paladin is supposed to be a beacon of hope, a shining example of lawfulness and goodness. Someone who strive for perfection and lead by example.

I just call that a 'character concept' rather than a class TGH.

The paladin is supposed to seek evil and crush it.

Problem 1. Evil is subjective and I've seen Paladins try and crush a good many things I was not okay with players feeling okay to 'crush'.

But he is also supposed to forgive and help people amend their ways.

Something the 3x Pally write-up actively avoids rewarding or supporting.

It was not an easy class to play and it is also why it was gated in such a way in 1ed.

Which is why I prefer it as a character concept instead of a class. I see classes as toolboxen and they should be able to support multiple concepts like the 4e and 5e Paladins.

I have seen paladin defend a bandit that begged for his life and swore to amend his ways while the group wanted blood because one of them had fallen to that bandit!

So even they can't help starting inner party conflict. Cool. Cool.

Revenge and killing were not the way of the paladin in 1ed. They were distasteful but the paladin knew that sometimes, hard things had to be done.

In 3e, they added the line 'Fights evil without mercy' and gave them the ability to detect evil at will, thus ruining everything.

Now the paladins are simply an other class. For good or bad, this is what we got...

Better. So much better. Let us never return to the Old Ways, but see them as a tearful warning of the past.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I've solved this particular issue a long time ago.

"What's your character's alignment."
"I don't do that."
"You have to."
"Okay, Virgo in the Third House or something. Maybe the one where all the planets are in a straight line and that's supposed to mean something. Whatever. I don't care. Let's play."

yeah we just skip alignment now most days

 

[Helldritch]

In 3x, they are literally required to be pains by the RAW and despite extensively rewriting 3e, I couldn't be assed to bother with them because they genuinely had nothing to offer, especially with Metagame as a core level 1 feature.

I just call that a 'character concept' rather than a class TGH.

Problem 1. Evil is subjective and I've seen Paladins try and crush a good many things I was not okay with players feeling okay to 'crush'.

Something the 3x Pally write-up actively avoids rewarding or supporting.

Which is why I prefer it as a character concept instead of a class. I see classes as toolboxen and they should be able to support multiple concepts like the 4e and 5e Paladins.

So even they can't help starting inner party conflict. Cool. Cool.

In 3e, they added the line 'Fights evil without mercy' and gave them the ability to detect evil at will, thus ruining everything.

Better. So much better. Let us never return to the Old Ways, but see them as a tearful warning of the past.

For the bolded part: Demons, Devils, Daemons and Demodans thanks you so much for your open mind!
Ghouls, Vampires, Ghasts and a hosts of undead would like to "invite" you to a nice dinner at their table.

For the rest, you've had bad experiences with the paladin as I can see. I have had none but seen enough to understand your position. The old 1ed was a blast to play, but not when faced with the Lawful Stupid approach.