Alignment restrictions?

[Rune]

It's like they wrote the DM a little guideline right in the player's manual on how to handle 'That Guy.'

Also the concept of Paladins tracking down a member of their order who had gone rogue is just plain cool, and now HEAVILY supported by the fluff.

And if 'That Guy' decides to give the Knights of the Holy Order of Pelor a bad name, well, he can expect that the Knights of the Holy Order of Pelor might take a VERY dim view of that. To the point where the second time he tries it the party might hand him over to the Knights themselves.

Yeah, I'm all for in-game, social ramifications (which is why I said "save social [repercussions]" in my diatribe). But that only comes up when the dastardly deeds are known.

A cleric, by the book, is divinely restricted from doing things counter to his/her deity's will. A paladin is not.

It's like they took the classic paladin and said, "let's make this class cool for people who don't like to play paladins," but in the process, they took away what makes paladins fun for those of us who do (that is, a rigid adherence to a code, and drastic--and immediate--consequences for straying from the path). Playing a paladin should be like being a paladin. It should be a challenge. That's what's fun about it!

And, to that end, I reiterate: I don't care so much for alignment restrictions, but I do want to see behavior restrictions for certain classes and actual mechanical consequences for breaking them. Social consequences I can--and will--handle on my own, but give me something mechanical to work with!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The PHB Paladin not only has no alignment restriction (I can live with this.), it also specifically told me, the DM that (unlike the cleric), the Paladin's powers were not dependent on a deity's will--once given, the paladin could do whatever the hell he wanted with no fear of any repercussions, save social ones!

According to the PHB, clerics get the same leeway. Check out the paragraph that starts on the bottom of page 61 and ends at the top of page 62.

 

[GreyICE]

Yeah, I'm all for in-game, social ramifications (which is why I said "save social [repercussions]" in my diatribe). But that only comes up when the dastardly deeds are known.

A cleric, by the book, is divinely restricted from doing things counter to his/her deity's will. A paladin is not.

It's like they took the classic paladin and said, "let's make this class cool for people who don't like to play paladins," but in the process, they took away what makes paladins fun for those of us who do (that is, a rigid adherence to a code, and drastic--and immediate--consequences for straying from the path). Playing a paladin should be like being a paladin. It should be a challenge. That's what's fun about it!

And, to that end, I reiterate: I don't care so much for alignment restrictions, but I do want to see behavior restrictions for certain classes and actual mechanical consequences for breaking them. Social consequences I can--and will--handle on my own, but give me something mechanical to work with!

I would argue that there is no nobility to holding a code for a Paladin if they are immediately punished for breaking it. That just makes you a dog on a short leash.

*do bad thing*
*get punished*

While The Knights of the Order of Pavlov might be an interesting concept in abstract, well, there's a reason some of us hated the class in 3.X.

True nobility comes when you can choose to do a bad thing and do a good thing instead.

Also if your players are really abusing this, there can be lots of ways that they can be observed. I mean if they're really doing it all the time, they're going to screw up and leave witnesses at least once, right?

 

[Rune]

I would argue that there is no nobility to holding a code for a Paladin if they are immediately punished for breaking it. That just makes you a dog on a short leash.

*do bad thing*
*get punished*

While The Knights of the Order of Pavlov might be an interesting concept in abstract, well, there's a reason some of us hated the class in 3.X.

True nobility comes when you can choose to do a bad thing and do a good thing instead.

Also if your players are really abusing this, there can be lots of ways that they can be observed. I mean if they're really doing it all the time, they're going to screw up and leave witnesses at least once, right?

To tell you the truth, I pretty much agree with you. I am mostly arguing a position I held in 2008. It illustrates both the beauty of 4e's presentation, and the frustrating part of it. Once you know it, it's easy to ignore the parts that don't fit your campaign, but it gives you very little in the way of guidelines for doing so.

That said, I suppose what really chafed me was less the lack of in-game consequences, than the lack of guidelines for the player about adherence to a moral and ethical code (and maybe some guidelines for constructing such code).

I want to see that in the new edition and, equally importantly, I want to see some means in the class description of emphasizing how important that code is to the paladin.

 

[Mallus]

Alignment restrictions? DO NOT WANT! <insert-appropriate imageboard meme-image here>

I like to play against type as much as with it. Alignment rules that go beyond descriptive into the prohibitive interfere with me making interesting characters.

Sure, alignment restrictions might help some people create characters. I'm not one of them. So either we'll get restrictive alignment rules in 5e, and I'll ignore them, or we won't (which is likely), and other folks will have to pretend they're there.

Either way is fine.

 

[Blackwarder]

I'm all in favor of alignment restrictions, it's much easier to remove them from the game system than to add it once removed.

Warder

 

[herrozerro]

I'm all in favor of alignment restrictions, it's much easier to remove them from the game system than to add it once removed.

Warder

Actually i find it to be about equal in effort. It takes just as much effort to say that paladins can only be LG then it is to say that they only can be LG.

The real difference is that the default sets the tone for the game.

 

[hanez]

Actually i find it to be about equal in effort. It takes just as much effort to say that paladins can only be LG then it is to say that they only can be LG.

The real difference is that the default sets the tone for the game.

I confess that the first couple times I DMd I may have been a bit tooo harsh on my alignment restricted PCs, paladins, druids etc. I can see why people hate this, my druid just wanted to be friends with the party, what was he supposed to do defriend the evil necromancer building a sprawling tower with roving undead next to his enchanted grove? I made the druids unicorn "warn" him about his evil friend, but he wouldnt listen! And the paladin just wanted to go along for the ride. (True story). Actually I wasnt too harsh on them because I worked with them to find/create reasons why they would adventure together.

I think what you say about tone is important.

There needs to be a middle ground. Being a paldin means something, they act a certain way, there can be consequences if they dont act that way. They arent just collections of powers. But there also shouldnt be a DM second guessing every action you make because he would play your character differently. I like the way its traditionally been done in D&D (2e and 3e) but I figure the DM advice needs some more beefing up. Plus it should be more explicit how a paladin, druid etc can regain therir powers. This makes for great stories. I know I always drop a few evil artifacts in my game to tempt my players lol.


I dont know how to add this into a game that doesnt have it. As a DM I am not comfortable saying oh you picked that class, well heres a few restrictions I am going to put on it. I woul dmuch rather the designers put the restrictions in AND give the class a few bonuses in power and other things for the exchange.

 

[Libramarian]

Paladins without the LG restriction feel really deracinated and weak-sauce to me.

The Paladin's commitment to justice and the common weal is to a large degree what the class is about, and should have some sort of mechanical support.

I'd be open to alternatives that were maybe more of a carrot rather than stick approach. But complete anything goes is unacceptable to me.

I'd like to see a balanced (or maybe even MORE powerful) Blackguard or Anti-Paladin prestige class that you can only access by playing the fall of a Paladin. So changing alignment is not so much a straight punishment, but is still a large enough mechanical change to cause Paladin players to pause and consider extra hard before committing an action that may cause alignment change.

Of course you might say "why do we need mechanics to increase the gravitas of moral choices? shouldn't that be done purely narratively?"

but I think that argument should be dismissed as summarily and for the same reason as abstinence-based sexual education.

Yeah it would be nice and I'm sure it would make you feel more self-satisfied, but it's not realistic for the majority of D&D games. This technique works and there's no shame in using it.

 

[hanez]

Paladins without the LG restriction feel really deracinated and weak-sauce to me.

The Paladin's commitment to justice and the common weal is to a large degree what the class is about, and should have some sort of mechanical support.

I'd be open to alternatives that were maybe more of a carrot rather than stick approach. But complete anything goes is unacceptable to me.

I'd like to see a balanced (or maybe even MORE powerful) Blackguard or Anti-Paladin prestige class that you can only access by playing the fall of a Paladin. So changing alignment is not so much a straight punishment, but is still a large enough mechanical change to cause Paladin players to pause and consider extra hard before committing an action that may cause alignment change.

Of course you might say "why do we need mechanics to increase the gravitas of moral choices? shouldn't that be done purely narratively?"

but I think that argument should be dismissed as summarily and for the same reason as abstinence-based sexual education.

Yeah it would be nice and I'm sure it would make you feel more self-satisfied, but it's not realistic for the majority of D&D games. This technique works and there's no shame in using it.

Totally agree, especially about the antipaladin role. The alignment change doesnt have to be player punishment, its just there for the story and narration of the game. Paladins are good, thats tjust the way it is. There should be other faiths with other benefits for fallen paldins (thats why I like monte cooks champion class sooo much)