In some ways, I think it runs along the same line as death. Some folks will tell you that there *needs* to be a mechanical penalty for character death in the game for the game to be fun. Difficulty and risk matter to some folks.
Attention Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Druid and Other Players!
- Thread starter Tequila Sunrise
- Start date
In some ways, I think it runs along the same line as death. Some folks will tell you that there *needs* to be a mechanical penalty for character death in the game for the game to be fun. Difficulty and risk matter to some folks.
Voadam
Legend
I've had friends who thought the best part of D&D was having classes with things like the alignment requirements and played paladins in my game.
I generally hate them as mechanical aspects of the game.
It turns into DM and player interpretations of alignment which can be vastly different becoming mechanically important and can lead to bad feelings over differences of opinion on the subject. It can also lead to a player feeling constrained in how to roleplay his character based on what the DM feels is appropriate instead of what he himself feels is appropriate.
I'm fine with honor bound fanatical Lawful barbarian berserkers. I'm fine with chaotic drunken master monks. I'm fine with a paladin being played by a PC with a different conception of good and heroic ideals than I have. I'm fine with PCs playing their characters the way they feel is appropriate without me as DM judging their adherence to ambiguous alignment guidelines.
I generally hate them as mechanical aspects of the game.
It turns into DM and player interpretations of alignment which can be vastly different becoming mechanically important and can lead to bad feelings over differences of opinion on the subject. It can also lead to a player feeling constrained in how to roleplay his character based on what the DM feels is appropriate instead of what he himself feels is appropriate.
I'm fine with honor bound fanatical Lawful barbarian berserkers. I'm fine with chaotic drunken master monks. I'm fine with a paladin being played by a PC with a different conception of good and heroic ideals than I have. I'm fine with PCs playing their characters the way they feel is appropriate without me as DM judging their adherence to ambiguous alignment guidelines.
KidSnide
Adventurer
QFT.
I love the berserker character who believes that absolute adherence to rules and discipline and necessary to contain the beast within. I love the monk who's monastic insight leads to belief in spontaneity and trust in fortune and luck. I love the paladin who is objectively lawful evil, but has full conviction that her deeds are justified.
These are great character concepts. The rules should allow them.
-KS
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
This goes without saying.
I'm asking which of these you find more fun:
"I live by a certain ethical standard. If I fail to live up to that standard, I lose my powers. (Because my powers come from a higher power, or because they hinge upon my own sense of self.)"
"I live by a certain ethical standard. I try hard to live up to those standards, but I don't lose my powers if I fail to. (Because, while a higher power may have awakened my powers, they ultimately come from within me.)"
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
Oh! In that case, the first one. Hands down.
The second one...well, what's the point? Live by this code...but there's no consequences if you don't?
No thanks. I'll take my ethic/moral codes stringent and my powers imbued.
Have fun and happy gaming.
--SD
I can't decide whether I want mechanical codes or not.
In the best case scenario, such codes are unnecessary. The player tries to live up to her calling as best as she can, and the DM gives her room to breathe while still challenging her. This makes playing--and DMing for--a moral component class a joy.
But in the worst case scenarios, you end up with two different situations. Without a mechanical code, you get a player who picks a class with a moral component and proceeds to play it in a fashion diameterically opposite the archetype. Here the mechanical code provides guidance, and teeth to keep her on the straight-and-narrow when she would otherwise settle for expediancy.
With a mechanical code, you get DMs who constantly put the player into "no-win" scenarios, who have an extraordinarily rigid interpretation of the code, and who often make playing such classes feel like a straight-jacket where your choices are 1) pre-defined for you; and 2) inevitably bad.
In the best case scenario, such codes are unnecessary. The player tries to live up to her calling as best as she can, and the DM gives her room to breathe while still challenging her. This makes playing--and DMing for--a moral component class a joy.
But in the worst case scenarios, you end up with two different situations. Without a mechanical code, you get a player who picks a class with a moral component and proceeds to play it in a fashion diameterically opposite the archetype. Here the mechanical code provides guidance, and teeth to keep her on the straight-and-narrow when she would otherwise settle for expediancy.
With a mechanical code, you get DMs who constantly put the player into "no-win" scenarios, who have an extraordinarily rigid interpretation of the code, and who often make playing such classes feel like a straight-jacket where your choices are 1) pre-defined for you; and 2) inevitably bad.
Quickleaf
Legend
I prefer to follow the Dick Rule:
If a player wants to run a paladin (cleric, Druid, etc) just for the powerz and to give the middle finger to the system, they are being a dick. You can make rules so they can't be a dick *in the same way*, but rest assured their dickediness will come out some other way.
The corollary is that players who want to run paladins for the roleplay value might take controversial action that the rules aren't clear about or the rules conflict with what common sense would tell us. If the DM hits such a paladin's player with an arbitrary punishment, then DM is behaving like a dick. And chances are it isn't the first time.
Best course of action is for optional sidebar of codes and penalties for breaking them under the paladin class writeup. Let each group choose. And players and DMs in such games would do well to run the Dick Rule by each other.
If a player wants to run a paladin (cleric, Druid, etc) just for the powerz and to give the middle finger to the system, they are being a dick. You can make rules so they can't be a dick *in the same way*, but rest assured their dickediness will come out some other way.
The corollary is that players who want to run paladins for the roleplay value might take controversial action that the rules aren't clear about or the rules conflict with what common sense would tell us. If the DM hits such a paladin's player with an arbitrary punishment, then DM is behaving like a dick. And chances are it isn't the first time.
Best course of action is for optional sidebar of codes and penalties for breaking them under the paladin class writeup. Let each group choose. And players and DMs in such games would do well to run the Dick Rule by each other.
Pentius
First Post
I take the second(though I could take or leave the parenthetical explanation). A couple reasons spring to mind.
1) Players: IME, a player who wants to roleplay a Paladin(or other restricted class) is going to do so, or at the least, try their best to do so, with or without fall mechanics. A player who chose that class but doesn't care about the ethical codes isn't going to suddenly roleplay those codes because there are mechanics for them, they'll just try to work around them and find loopholes where ever they can. Where they cannot, and they get punished, arguments are likely.
I don't know about you guys, but when I hear a paladin's player say something like, "I GUESS I better not do that, I don't wanna lose my powers." it just completely misses the point of a paladin's code. You're not supposed to be doing or not doing something to keep your powers, you're supposed to be doing something because it's the right thing to do.
2) Doubt and Ambiguity: With fall mechanics, there is none. With fall mechanics, a paladin needs never doubt himself. He knows he is walking the path of righteousness. His god tells him so, in no uncertain terms, with every divine spell, every smite evil. After all, if he strayed, he would lose his powers. Conversely, a paladin who has fallen from grace always knows it, too. I've seen people try to run this with fall mechanics in place. The over-zealous paladin who strays too far in his search of the right thing, ultimately becoming the evil he thinks he is vanquishing. It always rings hollow to me with fall mechanics, though, because one day this character's god would have stripped him of his powers, and he'd know it. In no uncertain terms, he is told, "Okay, you're not a good guy anymore."
KidSnide
Adventurer
That's an interesting question, but I'm not sure it needs to be a mechanical question.
If I want to play a paladin with powers that require a certain moral code, I'd like to be the ultimate judge of whether my powers go away and what I need to do to get them back. I don't see why judging the line needs to be a GM decision -- it could just as easily be a player deciding when they are or are not crippled.
-KS
Hussar
Legend
I have to admit, I love playing with mechanical restrictions. It's a lot of fun to know that you have actual mechanical results from actions in game. Yes, we could remove the mechanics, but, I find that having a mechanical effect draws attention to it.
I mean, I look at almost every cleric player I've seen and it's pretty rare that they play anything other than a fighter with healing powers. You mention the fact that clerics lose their abilities when they violate their ethos and players look at you like you have two heads. Realistically, why should a paladin have any more stringent codes than a priest of any other LG diety?
But, in play, I find that cleric players basically ignore 90% of their flavour of their class but paladins get held to this absolutely impossible standard.
There is a middle ground to be found here.
I mean, I look at almost every cleric player I've seen and it's pretty rare that they play anything other than a fighter with healing powers. You mention the fact that clerics lose their abilities when they violate their ethos and players look at you like you have two heads. Realistically, why should a paladin have any more stringent codes than a priest of any other LG diety?
But, in play, I find that cleric players basically ignore 90% of their flavour of their class but paladins get held to this absolutely impossible standard.
There is a middle ground to be found here.
