Attention Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Druid and Other Players!

[Tequila Sunrise]

Do you like classes with a strong ethical bent? Then this is the poll for you!

My question is simple: are such classes more fun when there are mechanical penalties for failing to live up to your ethos? EDIT: I'm not interested in whether your favorite class should have mechanical penalties for failing, I'd only like to know if the possible penalties make the class more fun.

(For what it's worth, I tend to agree that if I tick off the divine dude who gave me my holy mojo, it only makes sense that I lose my mojo. But seriously, I'm more interested in discussing what makes a class fun.)

 

[Crothian]

It really depends on where the code of conduct is coming from. If it is just something the character has agreed to like following a nations laws then there should be no mechancial negatives but there could be social and plot negatives. But if it is a code of conduct handed down from a god and the god is giving the character his/her powers then there should be a mechancial penmalty issued from the god.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For me, strong ethical boundaries and penalties are part of the essential nature of those classes. Barring strong rules, violating their ethos should bring at least some kind of negative mechanical penalty.

Designing those kinds of classes without them borders on nonsensical to me.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I think there need to be boundaries but I worry about having them too stringent. I think they should be nutted out by the player and GM to avoiid arguments.

 

[Pentius]

I much prefer roleplaying it out. It's a roleplaying restriction, why not just have roleplaying consequences?


And stupid daylight dumber time, don't even get me started...

 

[Umbran]

In the older editions of D&D, morals and ethics are more than "roleplaying". They are a mechanical part of the game. In the setting, they are palpable forces of nature and magic - as integral as gravity to the world.

It makes perfect sense to me that there should be classes who can use those forces to their advantage. It also makes sense to me that, if the character fails to have the right qualities, they'll fail to be able to take advantage - it would be like trying to use a lever without a fulcrum. So, in such a world, yes, I like having a mechanical impact.

In games where morals and ethics are not a palpable force of the universe, I'd be less accepting of mechanical impact from behavior choices (other than the implied impact on social interactions - nobody likes hanging around jerks, for example).

 

[Kzach]

My option isn't in the poll.

I'd vote for, "Depends on the group."

I won't allow one of my gamer friends to play a paladin (ala 1e to 3e style) in any of my games because we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes evil actions.

But if I was in a game where everyone, especially the player and the DM, had a common understanding of what does and doesn't constitute a break of conduct, then I'd happily play in such a game or DM for such a character.

 

[Rechan]

Big Fat No. I like these classes because some Gods are interesting and they can explore different stories, like being missionaries or the relationship between the PC and their God, and because I like healing or turning into an animal. I shouldn't have to jump through special hoops to do that.

I hate alignments (and especially alignment restrictions). I do not want to have to deal with lawyering whether or not the PC's actions were within the code of conduct or not, were within this or that alignment. And I cannot tolerate limitations like "druids can't use metal"; I find them to be silly.

Furthermore I think these limitations lead to disrupting players. See the paladin in the party with the rogue. "Hey he's lieing/stealing I can't let him do that". That sort of play may be fun for some, but I find it disruptive and frustrating and want no part of it. Especially because some DMs will create situations so there will be conflict with the divine PC's code vs. the rest of the party.

If a player signs up for a Good character but instead does evil things, that's a Player problem, not a system problem.

Finally, I have real trouble imagining that a God, with their immense wisdom and infinite knowledge, has a zero-tolerance policy and can't understand situational factors.

 

[MichaelSomething]

May I suggest reading through this classic topic before you consider answering the poll?

 

[Dausuul]

My option isn't in the poll.

I'd vote for, "Depends on the group."

I must spread some XP around, etc. This describes my attitude perfectly. If the DM and the player are on the same wavelength as to what the ethos requires, it can work very well and be quite fun--including the possibility that the player violates the class ethos, knowing it's a violation and accepting the penalties because it's what the character would do.

However, if player and DM are coming from different places on the meaning of the ethos, it's a horrible mess. Moreover, some players use such codes as an excuse to behave like a jerk, and some DMs use them as an excuse to screw over the player. In general, I would not choose to have such mechanics in my game, just because there's almost always at least one player whose view of how a paladin should behave is... ah... radically different from mine <cough>murderingpsychopath</cough>, and it's always going to be that player who plays a paladin. (Or other ethos-restricted class.)