Reported
Attention Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Druid and Other Players!
- Thread starter Tequila Sunrise
- Start date
Reported
Dice4Hire
First Post
I agree it depends on the group, or to some extent on the world.
In D&D 3.5 the paladin is not really a better class than others, but they tend to get picked on the most. Difficulties in freedom to play hte character most of the time. But msot other classes have no restrictions at all.
Clerics make sense. They serve a higher power and need to follow the ethos.
To my way of thinking if you have restrictions, you should b a bit mroe power. But in 3.5 that does not happen, that I can see.
In D&D 3.5 the paladin is not really a better class than others, but they tend to get picked on the most. Difficulties in freedom to play hte character most of the time. But msot other classes have no restrictions at all.
Clerics make sense. They serve a higher power and need to follow the ethos.
To my way of thinking if you have restrictions, you should b a bit mroe power. But in 3.5 that does not happen, that I can see.
So do Paladins, and more intimately. In many (but not all) of the the source legends, one of the distinctions of paladins is that, unlike Priests who may join the clergy because of tradition, paladins are almost always directly called by their god to serve, much like prophets.
Last edited:
Got you covered.
prosfilaes
Adventurer
I don't see that they're necessarily connected to mechanical penalties. A paladin should do the right thing, whether or not his powers are wrapped up in it. At least for the first part, I would put part of the blame on the habit of D&D parties to be created of random characters who wouldn't willingly travel together. A paladin who can stand by while someone pickpockets the poor just because that person is a friend is not a real paladin in my book.
Maybe, maybe not. Real world physics is pretty intolerant of situational factors; it's possible that fantasy world metaphysics is just as intolerant. And The Primal Order at one point discusses a nun expounding sublime theories of ethics in the name of a god that can't find its backside with both hands.
But that's all about option A. The question in option B is whether a god will punish a paladin for behaving in a clearly wrong fashion even after all situational factors are credited to his account.
hopeless
Adventurer
A question
Its fine unless your dm starts lying their backside off when you say one thing and they promptly force you to toe a line you never even agreed to!
Had a cleric who had pointed out to a foe that had he been honourable he would have taken him prioner only to have the dm declare I had granted his request ignoring the fact that wasn't had been said!
Way too easy for him to get paladins in trouble and then when he played a paladin he demonstrated he got away with way too much because the dm in that game wasn't interested in keeping such things in order so whilst I don't mind it being kept straight it only works if your dm plays it straight and not deliberately alter it to fit their whims probably why he ran a rogue in the game i ran though!
Its fine unless your dm starts lying their backside off when you say one thing and they promptly force you to toe a line you never even agreed to!
Had a cleric who had pointed out to a foe that had he been honourable he would have taken him prioner only to have the dm declare I had granted his request ignoring the fact that wasn't had been said!
Way too easy for him to get paladins in trouble and then when he played a paladin he demonstrated he got away with way too much because the dm in that game wasn't interested in keeping such things in order so whilst I don't mind it being kept straight it only works if your dm plays it straight and not deliberately alter it to fit their whims probably why he ran a rogue in the game i ran though!
I definitely expect characters with strong ethical restrictions to have those restrictions (and their consequences) represented mechanically. This adds weight to dilemmas the character may encounter.
What I don't like are restrictions that are judged solely by the GM and result in nearly unplayable character. GM judgment is, IMO, bad, because it's very easy to violate somebody's character concept, even with good intentions. Unplayability is even worse, because it effectively removes the dilemma, instead forcing the player into one correct way.
I love how similar mechanics works in Nobilis. Characters have Bonds (their limitations, drives and relationships). They get significant bonuses when facing opposition to satisfy the bonds and get wounded (mentally or metaphorically, but mechanics is the same as for physical wounds) when they break them. Breaking a bond also gives Miracle Points, that are an important resource. Both following bonds and breaking them is rewarded, though breaking is also hurtful.
The player is the final arbiter on his character's bonds, but the GM and other players also have input and may demand consistency.
Mouse Guard also handles Beliefs in a way I like. Players are rewarded for following beliefs; they are also rewarded (differently) for struggling against beliefs. There is no reward, of course, for just ignoring a belief when it is problematic.
Both games succeed in focusing players' attention on characters' limitations. Both do it through highlighting the choice mechanically, not by limiting player options. That's the difference between game mechanics used to drive dramatic play and used to punish "wrong" behavior.
What I don't like are restrictions that are judged solely by the GM and result in nearly unplayable character. GM judgment is, IMO, bad, because it's very easy to violate somebody's character concept, even with good intentions. Unplayability is even worse, because it effectively removes the dilemma, instead forcing the player into one correct way.
I love how similar mechanics works in Nobilis. Characters have Bonds (their limitations, drives and relationships). They get significant bonuses when facing opposition to satisfy the bonds and get wounded (mentally or metaphorically, but mechanics is the same as for physical wounds) when they break them. Breaking a bond also gives Miracle Points, that are an important resource. Both following bonds and breaking them is rewarded, though breaking is also hurtful.
The player is the final arbiter on his character's bonds, but the GM and other players also have input and may demand consistency.
Mouse Guard also handles Beliefs in a way I like. Players are rewarded for following beliefs; they are also rewarded (differently) for struggling against beliefs. There is no reward, of course, for just ignoring a belief when it is problematic.
Both games succeed in focusing players' attention on characters' limitations. Both do it through highlighting the choice mechanically, not by limiting player options. That's the difference between game mechanics used to drive dramatic play and used to punish "wrong" behavior.
KidSnide
Adventurer
I voted "no". I tend to think that classes are best when they can be used to represent a wide range of character concepts. I love the idea of a class where the abilities suggest a strong moral code, but which one?
If there are mechanical consequences for violating a moral code then the code itself becomes an important balancing aspect of the character. (How much does the code interfere with self-advantageous conduct?) That's all well and good, but then the entire class is limited to characters with one particular moral code. That can be an awesome gameworld decision (e.g. "in my game, paladins all swear a vow of poverty"), but it's a terrible game design decision. If Paladins have a particular moral code, it's tough running a game where the church and clerics are all horrible and corrupt without seriously affecting the game balance of the paladin class.
-KS
If there are mechanical consequences for violating a moral code then the code itself becomes an important balancing aspect of the character. (How much does the code interfere with self-advantageous conduct?) That's all well and good, but then the entire class is limited to characters with one particular moral code. That can be an awesome gameworld decision (e.g. "in my game, paladins all swear a vow of poverty"), but it's a terrible game design decision. If Paladins have a particular moral code, it's tough running a game where the church and clerics are all horrible and corrupt without seriously affecting the game balance of the paladin class.
-KS
prosfilaes
Adventurer
No. Clerics are a prime counterexample; there are mechanical consequences for violating a moral code, and yet there is no limit to variety of moral codes that a cleric can have; as long as the DM agrees there's a deity that offers that moral code, the player can use it.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
I could be wrong, but I think KidSnide is referring specifically to classes with but one moral code option. Like the paladin; you either play a Galahad, or you play a different class.
Correct me if I'm wrong, KidSnide.
