D&D 5E Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?

[pemerton]

Fair enough.

My comment was probably a bit negative, and your reply is very civil! So I thought I'd say a bit more (hopefully not more negativity).

I get the sense, from reading others' posts and from back when I used to play in wider circles than I do now, plus even earlier accounts from Dragon and White Dwarf, that various players have quite varying conceptions of paladins and (trad, armour-and-mace) clerics.

I think you're right that for some they are primarily healers (perhaps secondary undead slayers) - so their role in the game is basically defined by function, and if someone else can perform that function then clerics et al aren't needed any more.

I think some see clerics and paladins as almost contracted servants and agents of deities, who set adherence to codes and alignments as part of the contractual terms. The player's job, assuming s/he wants to keep his/her PC in its current form, is to stick to the contract. The GM's role is to play the "boss" who gets to decide whether or not the PC has adhered to the contract, and hence whether or not the PC keeps the job. This is, for me, probably the least appealing way of approaching these sorts of characters (whether as player or GM).

In my case, and several of my players, I see the cleric or paladin as an exemplar, who adheres to the code/alignment not out of duty, but out of deep conviction that it is right and proper (there is nothing analogous to a contractual or promissory obligation operating on otherwise morally optional subject-matter). The relationship to the deity, therefore, is more like one of being called. Because it is the player who is choosing to play this PC, and to determine this PC's conception of what it means to honour these convictions and this calling, it has to be primarily the player who takes responsibility for expressing that during play. The GM has a role, of course, in applying pressure or asking questions, but that is no different from the GM's role in applying pressure to a player who wants to play a brave fighter or a scholarly wizard or a sharp rogue. It's about testing the player's depth of commitment to the issues the player has brought into the game via his/her PC (especially where there are conflicts). But unless the player him-/herself wants to make loyalty to the gods one of those issues, I don't see any reason to put that particular issue under pressure.

So, for instance, if a player's PC is (ostensibly) devoted to both honour and justice, I'm happy to frame situations that force hard choices between the two. (Here's an example from my 4e game.) But if the player reaches a conclusion as to how to resolve the situation (in my example, the player sacrificed justice to the demands of honour), I am not then going to second-guess that decision by suddenly asking the question "But does your god agree with you?" That would be nothing but a pointless distraction from the roleplaying that just took place at the table, and which (at least for my group) was relatively intense by our (modest) standards.

Anyway, that is (what I hope is) a less curt way of trying to explain my views about the nerfhammer, and how it relates to my way of approaching the play of these sorts of PCs.

 

[Kobold Stew]

But if the player reaches a conclusion as to how to resolve the situation (in my example, the player sacrificed justice to the demands of honour), I am not then going to second-guess that decision by suddenly asking the question "But does your god agree with you?" That would be nothing but a pointless distraction from the roleplaying that just took place at the table, and which (at least for my group) was relatively intense by our (modest) standards.

Well said -- this is the sort of game I want to play, and aI want to run for my players.

 

[Campbell]

Threads like this remind me of how starkly different my play priorities seem to be from many folks here. I'm not adverse to morality or personality mechanics that have teeth - in fact I prefer them. I just prefer that they apply consistently across the spectrum of archetypes in a game. It's okay for personality and preferable for personality mechanics to reward different sorts of behaviors for different sorts of characters. What I find off putting is placing more emphasis on the choices one player is making over the other players. Doubly so if players get upfront mechanical rewards for placing their characters in the center of the action. This tends to encourage a form of narcissistic play that I consider harmful. It's closely related to why I don't like the dichotomy between simple fighters and complex casters even if power levels are relatively balanced. It pushes the impetus for good play on a few chosen players' shoulders.

There's another closely related issue that I have with the classic implementation of alignment restrictions. Often the stakes are too high to the point that players and DMs will go out of their way to avoid having conflicts come into play. There is no teeth to the mechanics because everyone is so scared of being bitten that play runs around what should be the most interesting aspects of playing a religious character - namely their relationship with their diety, their outlook on faith and providence, and how they deal with strife among the faithful.

 

[Bluenose]

In my case, and several of my players, I see the cleric or paladin as an exemplar, who adheres to the code/alignment not out of duty, but out of deep conviction that it is right and proper (there is nothing analogous to a contractual or promissory obligation operating on otherwise morally optional subject-matter). The relationship to the deity, therefore, is more like one of being called. Because it is the player who is choosing to play this PC, and to determine this PC's conception of what it means to honour these convictions and this calling, it has to be primarily the player who takes responsibility for expressing that during play. The GM has a role, of course, in applying pressure or asking questions, but that is no different from the GM's role in applying pressure to a player who wants to play a brave fighter or a scholarly wizard or a sharp rogue. It's about testing the player's depth of commitment to the issues the player has brought into the game via his/her PC (especially where there are conflicts). But unless the player him-/herself wants to make loyalty to the gods one of those issues, I don't see any reason to put that particular issue under pressure.

So, for instance, if a player's PC is (ostensibly) devoted to both honour and justice, I'm happy to frame situations that force hard choices between the two. (Here's an example from my 4e game.) But if the player reaches a conclusion as to how to resolve the situation (in my example, the player sacrificed justice to the demands of honour), I am not then going to second-guess that decision by suddenly asking the question "But does your god agree with you?" That would be nothing but a pointless distraction from the roleplaying that just took place at the table, and which (at least for my group) was relatively intense by our (modest) standards.

Anyway, that is (what I hope is) a less curt way of trying to explain my views about the nerfhammer, and how it relates to my way of approaching the play of these sorts of PCs.

In a polytheistic world, it's more likely that a person would gravitate to a primary god that they already acted like, rather than to one that they weren't like but granted cool benefits. It won't stop you praying to other dieties when you're doing things within their spheres of influence, which would be quite normal. But peacefully minded people don't seek to initiate themselves into the mysteries of the Goddess of Bloody Slaughter and Kittens. They might leave a drop of milk in her shrine when their cat is ill, but they're not going to be a full-time member of her cult. Acting like your deity should be more or less taken for granted in a priest, because you both want to emulate them and you're already inclined to act that way. When a situation comes up that's contradictory, then that's a situation that's contradictory. Not having one "Right" answer is something a deity is likely to accept as a part of life.

In games other than D&D, where there's a lot more options for handling this, then I might do things differently. But in D&D with it's binary approach, I tend to be quite lenient with palyers' interpretations.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My gaming circle tends to be different. Part of the challenge of rping a cleric or paladin is following the tenets and stuff, because your cleric and paladin are in service to that deity. As a representative of that deity and for your devotion, the character receives powers for acting in accordance with their teachings and furthering their goals. If the character does not, we feel that you should pay the price depending upon the seriousness of the transgression.

That's fine, but you obviously don't need rules for that to be part of the default design, in that case (indeed, I don't believe there's any chance that they will be for Clerics, and perhaps not for Paladins). You can have those rules, if you need rules at all, as an option in the DMG.

Not everyone finsd such a direct, 1:1 causal relationship between priest and deity to be really, well, "okay", either. I mean, I'm not a religious person, but it seems sort of, well, almost mercantile rather than holy. "Do precisely what I say and you get the juice". It's like you're an employee in an up-tight corporation. Better follow that corporate handbook or else your access rights will be revoked until you go on the mandatory re-training course! (That would actually probably be a great theme for a religion in a non-serious setting!)

Doesn't seem very mythic or emotionally real, and it doesn't really reflect either ancient or modern patterns of faith or priestly behaviour (which is often restricted, but not in the ways it tends to be in RPGs). It's almost too straightforward, too predictable.

(I know quite a lot about this subject so please don't assume I don't know about beliefs regarding bargaining with the divine or quasi-divine, power/favours for sacrifice, behavioural codes that grant power and so on - I am aware of them, but they are pretty much universally less straightforward and obvious than those that typically appear in D&D.)

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

My comment was probably a bit negative, and your reply is very civil! So I thought I'd say a bit more (hopefully not more negativity).

No worries; I didn't take your reply as curt or anything. What you say is perfectly reasonable, and even well within my own comfort zone, so I can't think of anything to add.

 

[Lalato]

In my case, and several of my players, I see the cleric or paladin as an exemplar, who adheres to the code/alignment not out of duty, but out of deep conviction that it is right and proper (there is nothing analogous to a contractual or promissory obligation operating on otherwise morally optional subject-matter). The relationship to the deity, therefore, is more like one of being called. Because it is the player who is choosing to play this PC, and to determine this PC's conception of what it means to honour these convictions and this calling, it has to be primarily the player who takes responsibility for expressing that during play. The GM has a role, of course, in applying pressure or asking questions, but that is no different from the GM's role in applying pressure to a player who wants to play a brave fighter or a scholarly wizard or a sharp rogue. It's about testing the player's depth of commitment to the issues the player has brought into the game via his/her PC (especially where there are conflicts). But unless the player him-/herself wants to make loyalty to the gods one of those issues, I don't see any reason to put that particular issue under pressure.

So, for instance, if a player's PC is (ostensibly) devoted to both honour and justice, I'm happy to frame situations that force hard choices between the two. (Here's an example from my 4e game.) But if the player reaches a conclusion as to how to resolve the situation (in my example, the player sacrificed justice to the demands of honour), I am not then going to second-guess that decision by suddenly asking the question "But does your god agree with you?" That would be nothing but a pointless distraction from the roleplaying that just took place at the table, and which (at least for my group) was relatively intense by our (modest) standards.

Anyway, that is (what I hope is) a less curt way of trying to explain my views about the nerfhammer, and how it relates to my way of approaching the play of these sorts of PCs.

PREACH! I would XP, but I can't.

 

[Emerikol]

So here is my take...I will say I think I tend to agree with Greg K.

As a DM, I always have a well detailed world. That is just me. I am a world builder. It's a second hobby for me. So I have the personalities, agendas, and morals of the Deity fully developed. I also have the major nations, the npc rulers, at least one large town often a city very well detailed. I have the major trade routes known. I really get to know my world well before I start a campaign. I am usually done with all that before I invite the first player. I live in an area where I can choose from among a fairly large number of potential players (let's say 20 give or take).

I also have strong views on system and playstyle. So I write up a clear document on all houserules and anything that is banned.

I then begin to invite players. I provide a lot of this information up front. There is usually a private interview. They talk to be about the kind of character they want to play. I tell them about the world and I mention various approaches to achieving the kind of character they want. If they choose to play a cleric, I clearly express the Deity's viewpoint and expectations of her clerics and/or paladins. I mention the way I would approach a cleric who violated the Deity's tenants. (I'll speak more on that later). Keeping in my that the Deity is an NPC and as DM I am playing that NPC.

I do take the view most of the time that the clerics training and discipline enable him to receive spells and that a Deity can't just give a 9th level spell to anybody. So a high level cleric is very valuable to a Deity because they are more able to express the will and power of the Deity. So as a cleric gains levels, I am cognizant that a Deity might be cutting her nose off to spite her face if she comes down too hard on her cleric. In most cases, I never punish a mild infraction all that seriously. Sometimes it's just a feeling in the cleric that he has a need for penance. Maybe he makes a small offering to the faith above and beyond what's normal. But, if it is very serious like murdering of innocents then I do take serious action. (Assuming a Good Deity of course).

I generally do not allow character concepts that totally clash with the world. If the world doesn't have a race then I don't make exceptions generally. In some rare cases I have done so. Anything I hate mechanically as a DM, I ban. So if a class is banned you can't play it. I view it as we all have to have fun playing the game and anything that bugs the DM just by it's existence is best avoided.

I don't allow PCs to change the world generally though sometimes I'll integrate a good idea if I've left that space empty. I don't leave a lot of empty space but I do leave some.

I absolute do not allow arguing at the table. Zero tolerance. We have a friendly discussion after the session is over and if I feel I've grievously erred as DM then I find a way through the game to make it up. I also note the mistake so I don't do it again. But there is never a case when table arguments are allowed. I find this is such a good rule. The games flow and after a while the players actually realize that all that arguing wasn't really making their experience more fun anyway. 95% of the time I am not changing my mind. I'm a 30+ year veteran of DMing so I do know how to do it.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - I think you would find that while I do officially disagree with you that in practice my hand is not that heavy. A lot of you might find I'm not at all the scary DM that some of you have experienced in the past.

I do believe playing a cleric and paladin gives you certain benefits though. Yes you are bound by a code. You also have a powerful ally. The religions of the world especially the major good ones are significant forces. They will offer the truly faithful many benefits. I've had actual players of other classes say that they wanted to be "religious" even though they were playing a fighter or wizard class. They'd actually make donations to the church. If they have a PC cleric as well of the same faith suddenly their entire group is a very powerful ally of the church and they are treated with respect as such.

Anyway. I also say play whichever way is fun for you. I'm just expressing what works for me in the hopes maybe some will get something from it.

 

[Greg K]

Doesn't seem very mythic or emotionally real, and it doesn't really reflect either ancient or modern patterns of faith or priestly behaviour (which is often restricted, but not in the ways it tends to be in RPGs). It's almost too straightforward, too predictable.

(I know quite a lot about this subject so please don't assume I don't know about beliefs regarding bargaining with the divine or quasi-divine, power/favours for sacrifice, behavioural codes that grant power and so on - I am aware of them, but they are pretty much universally less straightforward and obvious than those that typically appear in D&D.)

Universally, less straight forward and obvious, yes, because it depends on culture and source. That does not mean, that one cannot choose sources for influence. Greek and Roman Mythology are often about obedience and respect for the gods. The exact punishments might not be known by the offender, but there is going to be punishment. Examples of a priest or priestess violating oaths of celibacy is killed or turned into a monster (in the latter case, the punishment is for being raped in the deity's temple by another deity). Other examples of punishments (not necessarily of priests or priestesses)

A guy was turned into a female by Hera for striking two mating snakes and later became her priestess . Years later he is changed back by seeing two snakes mating and leaving them alone. Since he had experience as both a man and a woman, he was asked to settle an argument between Hera and Zeus as to whether men or women get more pleasure during sex. The man takes Zeus's side and an enraged Hera curses the man with blindness and not even Zeus can break the curse.

Athena challenges a boastful Arachne to a weaving contest and becomes enraged when Arachne creates a flawless tapestry depicting reenactments of adulterous acts by the gods. The enraged Athena destroys Arachne's creation and fills Arachne with guilt that leads to depression and suicide. Rather than bring Arachne back to life she brings her back as a spider.

Actaeon stumbles upon a nude Artemis and takes a momentary glance. She curses him from speaking again lest she turn him into a stag. He fails to remain silent is transformed and ripped apart by his own hounds.

Zeus has a dalliance with a young woman. About to be caught, he changes her into a cow. Hera not being stupid asks for the cow as a gift and has it guarded by a giant. Zeus still desiring her sends Hermes to get her back which results in a pissed off Hera ordering her stung forever in the ass by a fly so that it can never rest. The young woman was in a no win situation. If she failed to comply, Zeus being Zeus most likely rapes her.

So let's see given that Olympians kill their priests and priestess or curse them into becoming monsters for breaking vows of chastity and resort to overkill when some mortal pisses them off or get the better of them (for the latter look up Sisyphus), I don't think it is unreasonable to think that deities expect priests to uphold tenets or have abilities taken away. Hell, if the Olympians bestowed powers to their priests and the priests and they committed transgressions, I think the penalty would be more serious than losing a few minor powers.

Want an example from the Old Testament? God told Moses to strike a rock and it would create water in the desert. Moses follows directions and water appears. Next time, God tells Moses to talk to the rock and water will appear. Instead of talking to the rock, Moses strikes it again. Not only is there no water, Moses is forbidden from leading the Israelites into the Promised Land. Striking the rock again was not following God's orders and not believing in him to produce water.

Now, lets look at Paladins.
Galahad gets his power from his purity (Chastity) and both the Grail Quest are all about obedience to Christian doctrine and placing Christ first

From cliffnotes.com analysis of Le Morte d'Arthur Book 6: The Tale of the Holy Grail: The Miracle of Galahad

"In the Grail section, the underlying weakness and futility of Arthur's court, which up to now Malory has only suggested by ironic juxtapositions, is laid out openly: Merlin's Round Table is a figure for the world, in medieval Christian doctrine the source of three dangerous temptations — "lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life" (see 1 John 2:16), that is, sinful concupiscence, covetousness, and overweening pride. Whatever the original function of the lady in Arthur's world, she has become in the end not the genteel embodiment of social judgment, but the object of sexual lust; whatever the original function of knightly accouterments, titles, and lands, they have degenerated into things sinfully coveted; and chivalric heroism has in the same way degenerated into sinful pride."

"The fundamental idea behind the Grail section is spelled out in the passage entitled "The Miracles." For all their loyalty to King Arthur, Launcelot and all worldly knights are guilty, finally, of "treason": the true king is Christ, and the true knightly code is not Arthur's, but God's — chastity (at best, virginity), charity and abstinence (as opposed to covetousness), and humility (as opposed to knightly pride)."

So, Galahad remains "pure" and avoids the three dangerous temptations. He is the blessed warrior with abilities such as the strength of ten men in battle, the ability to Lay Hands, etc. In contrast, Lancelot falls because he covets Guinevere and commits adultery with her and/or Elaine (using trickery to convince Lancelot that she is Guinievere) and loses the blessings he had been given prior.

So, in all of the cases there are penalties for violating a deity's orders, religious beliefs or tenets. They are my references for having consequences. It doesn't matter that in the source material that I draw from that the people might not know the exact consequences or what exactly might be considered a transgression (although vows of celibacy seem to be obvious). What matters to me is that they occur and I try to give my players some good guidelines before character creation and, should it be necessary, warnings during play to let them know (as I wrote in another post, this player was the first and only time that I needed to warn a player. It is also the deity with the most stringent requirements of her priests and priestesses (including Paladins of which she is the only deity with them)).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, in all of the cases there are penalties for violating a deity's orders, religious beliefs or tenets. They are my references for having consequences. It doesn't matter that in the source material that I draw from that the people might not know the exact consequences or what exactly might be considered a transgression (although vows of celibacy seem to be obvious). What matters to me is that they occur and I try to give my players some good guidelines before character creation and, should it be necessary, warnings during play to let them know (as I wrote in another post, this player was the first and only time that I needed to warn a player. It is also the deity with the most stringent requirements of her priests and priestesses (including Paladins of which she is the only deity with them)).

Imo, your non-Arthurian examples strongly serve to prove my point. The punishments meted out are unreliable, arbitrary, and largely used against random people who follow the gods rather than against priests or the like. That is not what is being discussed at all. The only priest example you mention shows something that 99.999% of players would consider as ridiculous and bad DM'ing, and a god not worthy of following - it's arbitrary, deeply, fundamentally unjust (and indeed seems like it was meant to show what dicks the Greek gods were - I'm not sure any of them could make a G alignment, all legends considered, and few, if any, could make L - most are basically Neutral Evil in the "ultra-selfish" sense), and I don't believe it works well as an example, if you're arguing for codes being followed.

With Moses, the punishment is ultra-extreme for the slightest disobeyal, but god is literally talking to him, which is not the case for normal Judaic priests. This is far more extreme and quite different to anything in any version of D&D I've come across.

The Arthurian examples are interesting because they run counter to most D&D Paladin codes, which rarely include stuff like chastity (certainly in later editions), are less opposed to covetousness and so on, and tend to rather focus "being LG".

So, again, I really think you're proving my point. The fair, warning-giving, clearly-outlined, no-ridiculous-requirements sets of guidelines you're giving out are not something representative of mythic or historical behaviour restrictions, which, as I said, and as your examples show, tend to be arbitrary, bizarre, unreliably enforced, and often unjust or even outright offensive. I'm not saying you can't use them or something. I'm saying you can't claim "Oh I'm drawing from myth/history!", because you're clearly not!