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

[Dausuul]

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.

This is the scenario where I want a mechanically enforced code. The prospect that I could lose my powers if I screw up adds a thrill to my efforts to walk the straight and narrow. And falling and being redeemed (or turning all the way to the dark side!) have a lot of potential for fun character development.

It's the situation where the DM and the player have conflicting ideas on the meaning of the code that it becomes a problem. And some players seem to gravitate to these classes just to be obnoxious.

 

[Argyle King]

Before I answer, I'd like to clarify that I am not answering based on solely D&D; I am also considering other games I play.



In the case of a monk, knight, or someone who pledges himself to a moral or social code, I think violating that code (if it is discovered they have) should come with social consequences. You may be shunned from a society, be required to joust for honor, or whatever else is appropriate to the situation and the game world. Depending on how devoted the character was to the code, how difficult the decision to break the code was, and the exact circumstances, I would probably also be inclined to reward the player for roleplaying being disturbed by being pushed into violating morals they had previously pledged their life to; having your world view shaken can be an emotional experience.

In the case of someone who has made a divine vow, arcane pact, or sold their soul to god, vestige, demon, and/or similar being, I would expect the powerful creature to have some ability to take back the powers it had granted. However, I would also take into consideration the power level of the being who had granted the power. A demon might not have the capability to use some sort of omnipotent supernatural banhammer to just strip your power; it may need to come and collect in a more physical or personal manner, but I would expect a greater deity or overdeity to have such capabilities.

That being said, I will also add that I don't particularly enjoy the way some editions of D&D have used the concept of alignment as a straight jacket. I find it strange that a bard could only be chaotic or that a monk could only be lawful. I prefer to view such alignment terms as more of a shorthand to vaguely describe what sort of person a character is; when it comes to hard & fast details, I highly prefer a more in depth treatment. By in depth I mean -if there are to be mechanics connected to fluff- there should be more detail given to the behavior expected (thou shalt not...) rather than a vague concept such as alignment being enforced in a very non-vague way.

In some cases (a paladin of an evil god for example) I don't even think it makes sense to restrict a whole class to a specific alignment. I think it makes more sense that there be a list of tenets which are known to followers of the god or a charter of expected rules conveyed by the social group.

"Ah," said the grand old master as he approached his student; his uniform fitting tightly; the symbol of Vecna proudly emblazoned across the chest of the grave dirt gray gi. "You have proven worthy to be embraced by the brotherhood of Vecna's hand." The gaunt faced yet muscular old man passed a small slip of paper to his student.

"A name. Why this person is to be killed is a secret too great to be given to an initiate, but you are expected to carry out the sentence. The true manner of death should remain a secret; failure in the deed or failure in secrecy will mean the next secret revealed to you shall be the manner of yours."

That seems like a perfectly viable monk/religious order to me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't see why judging the line needs to be a GM decision

The GM decides all the other actions for Divine NPCs- aka Gods- like how much flaming frogs raining down in the town square counts as an mainor or major omen; what happens when you use their name in an oath; generally who they should punish or reward and how. Why should the PC be the exception?

Or as stated elsewhen, players determine their PC's actions, DMs determine the consequences.

 

[Quickleaf]

The GM decides all the other actions for Divine NPCs- aka Gods- like how much flaming frogs raining down in the town square counts as an mainor or major omen;

Well...in France they'd definitely be on a major or minor menu.

what happens when you use their name in an oath; generally who they should punish or reward and how. Why should the PC be the exception?

Or as stated elsewhen, players determine their PC's actions, DMs determine the consequences.

So we've been riffing off each other lately, but I figure I should respond to at least *one* of your posts with something resembling a well thought out response...

If a paladin/cleric can potentially lose their power, and other classes do no run that risk, then shouldn't the paladin/cleric get compensated for that...like with some special cool magic?

I realize not everything in a game needs to be 'balanced' against everything else, but this could be a potentially devastating handicap. By comparison if the paladin/cleric whose powers could be nulled by their deity were made in Mutants & Masterminds they'd have more power points to spend because they just purchased a major handicap on their powers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If a paladin/cleric can potentially lose their power, and other classes do no run that risk, then shouldn't the paladin/cleric get compensated for that...like with some special cool magic?

Some (like me) would say no- it's a risk inherent to the role, and if you don't like it, don't play it. Kind of like VoP- violate it and lose everything. Or how earlier editions' Druids had to fight to go up a level (after a certain level had been achieved)- a potentially fatal process.

Others would point out they do get certain unusual benefits, like casting in full armor without penalty, being able to cast any spell on their class lists, or Paladins' immunity to disease & fear. Besides, clerics are already a top-tier class according to those who track such things...what could you add to them that wouldn't give them sole possession of that #1 Slot (cue the Ludacris music...).

 

[Pentius]

Well...in France they'd definitely be on a major or minor menu.


So we've been riffing off each other lately, but I figure I should respond to at least *one* of your posts with something resembling a well thought out response...

If a paladin/cleric can potentially lose their power, and other classes do no run that risk, then shouldn't the paladin/cleric get compensated for that...like with some special cool magic?

I realize not everything in a game needs to be 'balanced' against everything else, but this could be a potentially devastating handicap. By comparison if the paladin/cleric whose powers could be nulled by their deity were made in Mutants & Masterminds they'd have more power points to spend because they just purchased a major handicap on their powers.

This was definitely the case in 1e, that paladins were stronger. Still, I don't like it as a balancer, because it rests so heavily on the DM. A Dm who wants to can make sure the code is never even a consideration for a paladin, or he can make it so that the paladin is just screwed. Most DMs probably don't think about it much in that light, though, which gives mixed results.

 

[prosfilaes]

One of the fun things about mechanically enforced codes on divine characters is that it makes the divine real in the game. You're not just a wizard with a different spell list, you are the conduit of a god, with its own special demands on you. I would prefer it if most of the rules were clear and unique; one example is the requirement for worshippers of Mishakal to give healing whenever it is asked of them by anyone.

I don't see the usefulness of having alignment rules on the monk and barbarian.

 

[Quickleaf]

This was definitely the case in 1e, that paladins were stronger. Still, I don't like it as a balancer, because it rests so heavily on the DM. A Dm who wants to can make sure the code is never even a consideration for a paladin, or he can make it so that the paladin is just screwed. Most DMs probably don't think about it much in that light, though, which gives mixed results.

True. I was actually thinking of Sparrowhawk in the Earthsea series, how even when his magic is fading, he has an amazing presence and insight. Or in the Shannara series with the fading and return of Druid magic uncovering new spells/abilities.

So rather than loss of divine power being a total "I suck" moment, it becomes an opportunity for character growth; mechanically that would be like uncovering new abilities as one relearns to cast prayer-spells.

Or something like that, I'm just making this up as I go.

 

[steeldragons]

Realistically, why should a paladin have any more stringent codes than a priest of any other LG diety?

Um....cuz they're a paladin and not "any other priest"? They aren't a "priest" at all. They are an "enforcer" or a "defender" or "chosen one" or whatever other flavor/color spin you want to put on it. They run around with big swords (something clerics should NEVER have been allowed to start doing, imo!) and detect evil just by looking at stuff! They don't have to "cast" anything, just "lay" their "hands" on ya!

Despite the fact that they both receive "gifts" from their divine source of choice, paladins are not priests. SO they have different "rules"/mechanical considerations and restrictions to be allowed (by their deity) to wear the mantle of "paladin"....instead of just "fighter guy with a strong personal sense of spirituality."

If a paladin/cleric can potentially lose their power, and other classes do no run that risk, then shouldn't the paladin/cleric get compensated for that...like with some special cool magic?

Again, 1) "Paladin" does not equal "Cleric" (just repeating).

2) My mind boggles at this statement. They are compensated for their potential risk. They do have special magic! It's called being able to be a Paladin or a Cleric and all of the abilities and powers thereof! If you don't want the risk, then go be one of those other classes where you don't have to worry about it.

There are plenty of good, devout people who cannot Smite Evil. There are hordes of gods-fearing religious folk who can not Turn Undead.

The cleric and paladin don't need nor do they deserve "extra compensation" for being/doing/acting/following a code that they, as clerics and paladins, are supposed to do/be/act/follow!

Put another way. I give my dog an extra biscuit/treat because she has done something especially good/well. I do not give my dog a biscuit simply because it is a dog.

Whew. That was a lot for so little coffee.
GOOOOOD MORNIN' ENWORLD!!!
--Steel Dragons

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

This is an eye-opening thread. So here's another question for those of you who chose option 1 or 2:

Say you're playing in a game with no RAW restrictions, like 4e D&D. You mention to your DM how you miss having actual restrictions, and he says "Normally I go by RAW, but because it'd make you happier, I'll put restrictions on your character. And impose appropriate penalties if your PC fails to follow those restrictions."

Is this a) a good solution, b) a tolerable compromise, or c) a possibly patronizing sham?

I don't see the usefulness of having alignment rules on the monk and barbarian.

See also: bards, warlocks, 'thieves cannot be LG,' 'rangers must be Good,' and others. One of my pet peeves is the haphazard way that D&D applies alignment restrictions. I don't see the point either.

Realistically, why should a paladin have any more stringent codes than a priest of any other LG diety?

Um....cuz they're a paladin and not "any other priest"? They aren't a "priest" at all. They are an "enforcer" or a "defender" or "chosen one" or whatever other flavor/color spin you want to put on it. They run around with big swords (something clerics should NEVER have been allowed to start doing, imo!) and detect evil just by looking at stuff! They don't have to "cast" anything, just "lay" their "hands" on ya!

Case in point. A lot of gamers seem to have this special reverence for the paladin, but to my mind he's just a cleric who's better at smiting than turning undead.

This is why I prefer 4e's way of handling divine classes. (Even if I find the ritual endowment thing somewhat silly.) The paladin is more restricted than other classes, but it doesn't matter because all of the restrictions are equally toothless.

2) My mind boggles at this statement. They are compensated for their potential risk. They do have special magic! It's called being able to be a Paladin or a Cleric and all of the abilities and powers thereof! If you don't want the risk, then go be one of those other classes where you don't have to worry about it.

I do agree that having rp restrictions shouldn't entitle anyone to extra bennies.

That said, I've played with DMs where playing another class isn't really an option. Take core-only 3e games, which seem to be popular among DMs; the players know that having a dedicated healer in the party will vastly improve their chances of survival, so somebody volunteers for that role. Unfortunately, his options are limited: there's the cleric and the druid. That's it; opting out of restrictive classes in such a game isn't possible unless the party's willing to rough it without a healer.