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

[Dannyalcatraz]

OTOH, a cleric who goes god-shopping every few levels and who tries to return to his original faith may find himself in a mechanically disadvantageous position...dead.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

I suppose I've been playing 4e for a while now, but I'm not familiar with any specific mechanical consequences for clerics. I mean, the DM can decide that an arbitrary divine moral code has been violated and punish the cleric with angry angels, the withholding of spells or a direct curse/smite. But, other than scale, that's not really any different than an apprentice wizard who earns his master's ire through whatever campaign-specific violation the DM deems appropriate.

Or, are you referring to the pre-3e prohibition on using sharp weapons? I guess that might qualify, but if you're going to make it interesting, you'd have to play up the "may not shed blood" aspect a whole lot more.

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.

I was thinking of something closer to the 1e paladin or the OA wu jen, where a specific moral code is written into the rules. I think that's a cool idea for a game world, but I like my game rules to be more flexible. (Of course, the objective of Oriental Adventures is to create a setting -- not a generic game, so I don't find the wu jen to be problematic in the same way.)

-KS

 

[Wycen]

I suppose I could have voted for hating daylight, but I didn't vote because the choices don't suit me.

I like clerics because of all the different things they can do.

I don't like paladins because sometimes you just have to be naughty.

 

[Thunderfoot]

How about - it depends upon the day.
I believe all characters linked to a deity should have an ethical code they must follow, but how and why it's executed is "somewhat" fluid.

For example, a paladin should always be brave. Rushing into a burning building to pull children from harm is brave, however rushing to take on a dragon at first level is stupid, not brave.

A paladin should slay evil. Killing a vampire that is ravaging the countryside is great. Killing a merchant because my "spidey sense" said he was evil is murder (and probably punishable by local laws far and away before getting into situational ethics).

For me as a DM any character that wants to play a character needs to have a good old fashioned sit-down with me before dice hit the table. That way we are very clear from both sides of the screen as to what we expect. Often times coming up with a written agreement, just so we can both CYAs. If a situation comes up that is not covered or is far outside what was expected to happen, I hand wave it and we discuss it afterwards, amendments can always be made - no reason to specifically target a player for no reason and halting play for a heated ethics discussion is fun for a very small percentage of role players.

DMs who specifically target characters by putting them in "no win" situations should be bound and gagged and roasted at the stake with their DM guides as the kindling. See radical has it's place, it just needs to be the right place.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A paladin should slay evil. Killing a vampire that is ravaging the countryside is great. Killing a merchant because my "spidey sense" said he was evil is murder (and probably punishable by local laws far and away before getting into situational ethics).

Yep: merely being Evil doesn't get you the death penalty- you must also be guilty of something worthy of the final judgement.

DMs who specifically target characters by putting them in "no win" situations should be bound and gagged and roasted at the stake with their DM guides as the kindling.

In a RPG campaign, the only place for a DM to introduce a Kobayashi-Maru situation for a player or players is with the permission of said player or players.

However, if a player puts himself in it, that's his own problem. I have witnessed players who, through roleplay, put themselves in the position to be killed or exiled by the ruler of a region...and at a time when the party absolutely could not afford to leave the region. No win here.

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>
In a RPG campaign, the only place for a DM to introduce a Kobayashi-Maru situation for a player or players is with the permission of said player or players.

However, if a player puts himself in it, that's his own problem. I have witnessed players who, through roleplay, put themselves in the position to be killed or exiled by the ruler of a region...and at a time when the party absolutely could not afford to leave the region. No win here.

Agreed! Player stupidity is not the fault of management and arguments to the contrary will be scoffed at.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

No. Well, I kinda like playing cleric of some gods. Usually CN or CG or maybe LE. Anything not LG/LN/NE/NG is ok.

I kinda always liked some rules/taboos of certain groups in oriental games.
But it's different since everyone has code to follow.

Paladin IME, has always been excuse to play ***hole control freak/murdering idiot/I will ruin everyone else' fun.

But thing is most restrictions in D&D were kinda dumb. Like druids using only wooden weapons/no metal armors.

Mmh so I don't really like even existing ones. They don't get played right. It limits the concept for different characters. I always though there should be holy warriors (aka paladins) for different faints not just Mr Holier than thou. (or anti/blackguard).

 

[Umbran]

In a RPG campaign, the only place for a DM to introduce a Kobayashi-Maru situation for a player or players is with the permission of said player or players.

I don't believe that's true, at least for what I consider a reasonable definition of "permission".

A GM can put PCs in a no-win scenario by having them walk into a room and having the door lock behind them, and then presenting them with the scenario. Now, you might say the players "gave permission" by walking into the room, but I'd say their consent was not informed, and so doesn't really count.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't mean things like traps, a bit of railroading to get a plot started, I mean things like "you either violate your vow (of Poverty, Paladin code, whatever), or everybody dies" type stuff.

 

[steeldragons]

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.)

Ok. Well then....I'm not entirely sure what it is you're asking.

The "fun" of playing a certain character is playing that character.

If playing a character with stringent ethical parameters to meet appeals to the player, then that is the player's choice to make because they feel the class would be "fun"...and/or specifically, the special abilities/powers/bonuses that class offers (and thus, the subsequent restrictions or penalties should they arise).

So...is playing a druid or paladin or monk more "fun" than playing a fighter or mage or rogue because of their alignment restrictions? I suppose it may be for some role-players who like to delve into those elements of character's mentality/personality, examine morality, delve into the game world's cultural ethos, etc.

But it seems to be a player-by-play choice/preference.

Someone might take a druid cuz they like fluffy animals and wants to be able to shape-change. Does the "if you're not neutral you'll lose your powers" make it more fun for the player? No, probably not. Another player playing a druid because that was his concept as an exercise/challenge in examining the ability to be "true neutral"...maybe it falls into there somehow...but I am still not inclined to think "mechanical penalties" register to anyone's idea of "increasing the fun" of a class.

But then, mechanical issues (penalties or bonuses for that matter) do not play into my decisions when conceiving a character...nor my fun.

--SD