D&D 5E So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?

[ForeverSlayer]

What makes the paladin special and such a challenge is not Smite nor is it Lay on Hands, it's being Lawful Good and having a specific code to follow that could cause you to fall. A Paladin isn't just a holy warrior so please don't dilute the class because you want all it's goodies with none of it's restrictions. I hate the direction that Wizard's have taken since 4th edition by diluting what makes classes unique and special. I don't want Paladin's being able to smite anything, I want them restricted to smiting evil. At least they've brought back a semblance of the older Favored Enemy for the ranger instead of that everything is a quarry crap that was in 4th edition.

In fairness I will say it's a step in the right direction to have have Lawful only but being Lawful Good makes you a bastion for everything that is good and just in the world and that is what makes a Paladin a Paladin.

 

[delericho]

Personally, I like my Paladins LG-only. And while it's entirely possible to play the "knight in shining armour" without the restrictions, I've never seen it actually done - IME the morality holds right up to the point where it becomes inconvenient.

But... it has become pretty clear that I'm in a minority on that one. And besides, I'm actually pretty sure that there's much more to be gained by removing all alignment restrictions from 'base' classes (those you can take from level 1) than is lost be allowing non-LG Paladins.

(Of course, 5e has instead gone the route of having alignment restrictions and non-LG Paladins. It's almost as if they've deliberately sought the worst of all possible worlds and implemented it... on that issue at least.)

 

[Iosue]

The problem is that if a player and a DM are on the same page, it's awesome, but if not, it really, really sucks. First, alignment is so fuzzily defined that rarely do two people have the same take on it. So if your DM and you have different ideas about what Lawful Good is, and what's more, how a Lawful Good Paladin is distinct from any other Lawful Good character, then you get what Neal Stephenson calls "metaphor shear". You put the DM in the position of negating the player's conception of the game space in quite arresting fashion, taking the player right out of the game.

Now, maybe that could be alleviated with hard-coded rules: a Paladin's code means this, and if this is done they lose Paladinhood, or take penalties, or what have you. But then you get DMs putting the Paladin's in Sophie's Choice after Sophie's Choice, so that the player doesn't enjoy being a knight in shining armor, but basically has to play on the DMs rails so they don't get punished. That's just wrong on many levels.

The clear answer to all this is, "Well, that's easily fixed by making clear expectations and having a clear understanding of the group's social contract." And that's exactly the case. Which is why the best way to go is no alignment restrictions (or broad alignment restrictions, with no penalties) so that people can choose how their particular group wants to play the Paladin. The groups that want to take the trouble of clearly delineating expectations and how everyone expects a Paladin to behave can do that, while those that want broader strokes without those restrictions can get that, too.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Oh great... another "My preferences are the only right preferences and the book should be written that way" thread...

 

[Morrus]

So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladi

My problem with it is that no two people alive share identical moral codes, and many have very differing ones. Expecting these to then translate into a game rule is asking for trouble. Is killing evil orc babies good or evil? (The problem being that however you answer that, someone thinks the opposite; and if you start talking grey areas or debates, you're just highlighting the problem with alignment based rules).

 

[Kinak]

Honestly, my only problem with paladins staying as they are is the paladin argument taking over conversations about other topics.

In the twenty years I've been playing D&D, I've only seen three long-running paladins, but all three were more interesting than they would have been as lawful good fighters or clerics. So I don't see any reason to screw up what's been a good thing for me.

That said, I don't have any problem with a Champion that has various options underneath it. Warden and Liberator and whatever can all tell their own stories as well.

But people (and, hopefully, the rules) need to recognize that every table handles alignment and codes differently. Without an open line of communication at the table, no amount of arguing on the internet will fix the issues people have with paladins.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The problem is that if a player and a DM are on the same page, it's awesome, but if not, it really, really sucks. First, alignment is so fuzzily defined that rarely do two people have the same take on it. So if your DM and you have different ideas about what Lawful Good is, and what's more, how a Lawful Good Paladin is distinct from any other Lawful Good character, then you get what Neal Stephenson calls "metaphor shear". You put the DM in the position of negating the player's conception of the game space in quite arresting fashion, taking the player right out of the game.

Now, maybe that could be alleviated with hard-coded rules: a Paladin's code means this, and if this is done they lose Paladinhood, or take penalties, or what have you. But then you get DMs putting the Paladin's in Sophie's Choice after Sophie's Choice, so that the player doesn't enjoy being a knight in shining armor, but basically has to play on the DMs rails so they don't get punished. That's just wrong on many levels.

The clear answer to all this is, "Well, that's easily fixed by making clear expectations and having a clear understanding of the group's social contract." And that's exactly the case. Which is why the best way to go is no alignment restrictions (or broad alignment restrictions, with no penalties) so that people can choose how their particular group wants to play the Paladin. The groups that want to take the trouble of clearly delineating expectations and how everyone expects a Paladin to behave can do that, while those that want broader strokes without those restrictions can get that, too.

To be honest, I don't want a game that is 100% hard coded. I like the idea of sitting down with my DM, or my player's sit down with me and we compare notes as to what he think when it comes to the Paladin's code.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: the Paladin/alignment problem:

I always clear it up with the player if I am DM or the DM if I am a player...BEFOREHAND.

...how a Lawful Good Paladin is distinct from any other Lawful Good character, then you get what Neal Stephenson calls "metaphor shear".

Unlike your typical LG character, a Paladin is under a divinely enforced code of conduct that could cost him his powers in an instant. Their behavior may be the same, but the Paladin has an extra layer of external enforcement icing on top.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

My problem with it is that no two people alive share identical moral codes, and many have very differing ones. Expecting these to then translate into a game rule is asking for trouble. Is killing evil orc babies good or evil? (The problem being that however you answer that, someone thinks the opposite; and if you start talking grey areas or debates, you're just highlighting the problem with alignment based rules).

Then sit down with your DM and discuss it before the start of the game. No good DM should be out to cause you to fall so it's a myth that there is such troubling conflict and I can almost promise you that the culprit is those hypothetical internet corner case discussions. In all my many years of gaming, I have never seen a competent DM go after a paladin player, waiting for him to make a mistake so he will fall.

 

[Iosue]

Then sit down with your DM and discuss it before the start of the game.

Exactly. So there should be no alignment restrictions. The players and DMs that want a code the Paladin must follow can sit down and discuss it before the game. Anyone who doesn't want that doesn't have to deal with it.