Paladin Balance question

[Particle_Man]

Part of the trouble seems to be the proliferation of "paladin types" of other alignments that seem to have equivalent mechanical abilities. Since it is easier to be chaotic than lawful, and easier to be evil than good, this leaves the LG paladin as subject to more restictions on their behaviour than their CG, CE or LE cousins, but with no greater mechanical benefits.

That said, I do favour the "roleplaying rewards" aspect of paladins. Or I might just yoink the Knight's code from PHB II and go with that.

 

[Silveras]

But the restriction is on role-playing. The restriction is on acting in a certain way as a character. It's open to interpretation and deception and solvable with a simple Atonement (as long as the paladin is repentant -- and if not, there's always the blackguard).

The penalty only comes into play if the DM and the Player wish it to, after all.

But that misses my point entirely. The "role-playing penalties" that the designers decided to avoid with 3rd Edition are the ones with no mechanical effect. The restrictions in the 2nd Edition kits I mentioned had nothing to them beyond a requirement that the character be played as having to be unavailable for 1 day per month (or whatever). When many DMs glossed over that ... did not play out the downtime, or make the player run an alternate character on an adventure that took place while the main character was "on duty"... the penalty ceased to be a penalty, and no longer balanced the always-present mechanical benefit.

Very few penalties, mechanical or otherwise, come into play if the Player and DM do not wish it. Some groups have unspoken agreements not to sunder. Some groups try not to kill the PCs. Both are examples of Players and DMs deciding that one or another penalty (lost equipment in the former case, PC death in the latter) is undesirable.

That the paladin can seek atonement for the misdeed is part of the mechanics of the penalty, not an indication that it is not a mechanical penalty.