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

[pemerton]

You see I've always found the interesting part of playing the paladin deciding exactly what is or isn't worth risking the loss of one's power and divine grace over. If I can do whatever I want and still retain my power... where are the hard choices and interesting atonements?

I can't really relate to this at all, from the PC perspective. When I'm playing a paladin, there isn't anything worth risking severing my tie with the divine over, because the divine is the first principle of, and the measure of, all value - so nothing can be worth more than it. An appearance that things are otherwise must be illusory, and it's my job (speaking here as the character) to pierce that illusion - with the help of the divinity, of course.

I can see how the decision you mention makes sense in an out-of-game way - will I get some mechanical benefit, or some improvement in my fictional positioning (eg access to this awesome keep or alliance or whatever), that is worth trading off my class abilities. But I'm personally not a big fan of that style of play, especially when I'm playing a paladin.

This is a common outlook, but isn't it a bit of a paradox, tho?

If the crux of the paladin's dilemma is that he inevitably has to pay a price for breaking his code, the moral of the story is that paladinhood is a failure.

<snip>

The bottom line is that it's fine to want to play a paladin to play a tormented hero who has to struggle with his ideals, but it's equally fine to play a paladin to be Fantasy Judge Dredd and never have to question once your perspective on life.

I agree with your post, even though personally I'm less interested in Judge Dredd and more interested in the tormented hero.

To elaborate: if I (speaking as my paladin PC) deviate from the divine will, in pursuit of some greater good, then there are two possibilities that I can see. One is that I was right, and hence that the divine will wasn't all its cracked up to be. In which case why should I suffer a loss of power? - such a feeble divinity hardly seems the sort of thing able to strip someone as insightful as me of their power! The interesting play here is not in losing my abilities, but rather in dealing with the revelation that the so-called divinity was really a fraud.

Alternatively, the divinity was right and I misjudged. In which case realisation of my error is penalty enough (and grist for the playing out of the torment), and there is no need to strip me of my power as well.

In other words, and stepping out of character and back into metagame-speak, whichever way I'm interested in going as a player of a tormented hero, I don't need to be stripped of my power - and hence my functionality as a PC - to make it work.

Well I can honestly say for me and my group... do whatever you want with no consequences isn't a hard choice.

That's probably true for most RPGers. But not all consequences have to be mechanical, or otherwise pertain to PC effectiveness, to be relevant.

My own view is that the approach you're advocating makes the paladin essentially expedient - they adhere to the code until a better deal comes along! That's probably a fair picture of the actual process of conversion to Christianity of the Germanic proto-knights during the Dark Ages, but for me it's not the Galahadian archetype I want from a paladin.

What I'm more interested in is finding out whether or not the paladin is expedient. And to discover that, you have to give the player the option of adhering to the code for no benefit. And conversely, the consequence of breaking the code isn't mechanical disadvantage - it's finding out that, after all, you were expedient and hence not so above the day-to-day fray as you might have thought.

A paladin ethos system that codifies specific beliefs/oaths and then rewards the player with a thematic boon when they suffer or "choose the hard way" due to adhering to their code is easily enough done.

<snip>

The GM can set up situations to specifically challenge the Paladin's ethos portfolio; perhaps 3 oaths (an example of one might be below).

Ironclad Loyalty

<Gain thematic resource> - When you back your friend's play when it challenges another oath.

<Gain thematic resource> - When you come to your friend's aid and it puts you in physical peril.

<Gain thematic resource> - When you espouse your ideology despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

This is interesting - and reminds me a bit of MHRP milestones. 4e tackles it in a slightly different way - if you build a paladin, your PC won't really fire on all cylinders unless you start putting yourself in harm's way and otherwise doing things to take the burden (especially the burden of combat) off your friends.

To avoid the problem of expedience, you have to frame things in the way you have (or 4e does) - it's take a risk to earn the boon - not trade off this resource (my suite of PC abilities) for a chance at this other, shinier, resource (but I can only get it by breaking the code).

 

[pemerton]

That only works if you don't allow Point Buy.

Once you can buy your stats however you want... stat restrictions become meaningless because you'll just buy them in such a way as to be able to play the class.

I imagine the reason for doing stat restriction originally in the game (back when you had to roll stats) was to cut down on the number of Paladin player characters we'd ever see.

I think you can do stat restrictions with Point Buy - if anything, they work better!

The point of a 17 CHA isn't just that you'll see fewer paladins, but that they'll be weaker in combat than fighters, because they won't have that 17 to put into STR, CON or DEX (its natural home for an AD&D fighter). It's a type of ad hoc disadvantage mechanic. And in a point buy system that will still work. (Provided CHA really doesn't benefit the paladin very much - the modern paladins who get to add CHA to spells, saves etc are a different kettle of fish, of course. But in AD&D it wouldn't be a problem.)

I think an interesting angle of the discussion that has been somewhat omitted is that divorcing paladins from alignement wasn't a one step process in D&D.
We actually have 3 states of being:

A) the paladin is alignement-bound, and has to be Lawful Good
B) the paladin is alignement-bound, and has to match his deity's alignement
C) the paladin is not alignement-bound, and the nature of his oath is left to agreement between him and the DM, and to roleplay


Aside from 4E (which followed C), D&D has juggled quite a bit between A and B.

4e actually follows B - the paladin must match his/her deity's alignement, but without restriction on which deity may be worshipped.

 

[Visanideth]

4e actually follows B - the paladin must match his/her deity's alignement, but without restriction on which deity may be worshipped.

I went with C because 4E leaves the "paladin of an ideal" option open. It's generally B however, yes.


As for the rest, I agree with what you said above. I think the paladin's "alignement requirement" is first and foremost a roleplaying vehicle. I've never witnessed a paladin player not roleplaying his alignement and his dilemmas. I don't really think mechanical implications are required, unless they're meant to reign in poor roleplayers, but that to me is the realm of the DM's work, not the ruleset's duty.

 

[Starfox]

To elaborate: if I (speaking as my paladin PC) deviate from the divine will, in pursuit of some greater good, then there are two possibilities that I can see. One is that I was right, and hence that the divine will wasn't all its cracked up to be. In which case why should I suffer a loss of power? - such a feeble divinity hardly seems the sort of thing able to strip someone as insightful as me of their power! The interesting play here is not in losing my abilities, but rather in dealing with the revelation that the so-called divinity was really a fraud.

Alternatively, the divinity was right and I misjudged. In which case realisation of my error is penalty enough (and grist for the playing out of the torment), and there is no need to strip me of my power as well.

While this is a very interesting line if inquiry - the Job problem - it is a very complex problem to deal with in a role-playing game. I agree that we cannot have the paladin's abilities hinge on the DM's and player's respective interpretation of a code - which by extension makes me think that the paladin class should not be balanced around a code. An interested DM and player can introduce any amount of complexity in their role-play, but if you balance a class around this, the class will be broken in all the cases where the game is played more tactically and less as drama. Besides, if the game is playued as drama, there is very little need of "balance" and class powers at all.

 

[pemerton]

I went with C because 4E leaves the "paladin of an ideal" option open. It's generally B however, yes.

From the PHB, p 90: "As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. Paladins choose a specific faith to serve, as well as an alignment. You must choose an alignment identical to the alignment of your patron deity".

Did this get changed in Essentials? I know it has the virtues, but I didn't realise you could serve a virtue without serving a deity also.

You learn something new every day!

 

[Visanideth]

From the PHB, p 90: "As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. Paladins choose a specific faith to serve, as well as an alignment. You must choose an alignment identical to the alignment of your patron deity".

Did this get changed in Essentials? I know it has the virtues, but I didn't realise you could serve a virtue without serving a deity also.

You learn something new every day!

I was checking the Cavalier in HotFK, actually, which goes:

"A cavalier is a paladin who has embraced one of the heroic virtues, such as compassion, justice, sacrifice, or valor. His or her belief in this virtue is so strong that it manifests as divine magic. Although many cavaliers pledge their faith to the gods, others follow no specific religion. Regardless of one’s divine affiliation (or lack thereof ), a cavalier’s virtue stands paramount. It guides his or her actions, pointing to the best way to protect the ever-flickering light of hope and civilization in the world."

So yeah, the original paladin is probably more traditional, but 4E leaves you both options open.

 

[Elf Witch]

The paladin is both my favorite and least favorite class. I love the idea of the knight in shiny armor who holds to his oaths and who takes matters of honor seriously. The problem I have run into is DnD is not really an honorable style game. The game seems to encourage the basest behavior of killing things and taking their stuff. And while I like the idea of holding a paladin to a higher standard a lot of times no one can agree on what those standards are. The code as written in 3E is just crazy. It forces players to play paladins as lawful stupid.

I don't tend to allow paladins in all my games and I tend to use the prestige paladin when I do allow hem. I also work with the player to define his code and lay out clearly what could cause him to fall.

I like alignments but as guidelines not hard fast rules. I want to see paladins as more than just a divine fighter so I would like to see guidelines on how to build a code but not have it as a hard rule in the game. That is a big change for me I used to feel that the hard fast restrictions belonged but after one to many alignment arguments I no longer think it is a good idea.

 

[pemerton]

While this is a very interesting line if inquiry - the Job problem - it is a very complex problem to deal with in a role-playing game.

I don't think it's as hard as all that to set up, but I would certainly agree that it takes a bit of time, and requires the player(s) to be fairly invested. (Time can help with this.)

I don't think the game should require it - that would be silly - but I think it should leave room for it.

An interested DM and player can introduce any amount of complexity in their role-play, but if you balance a class around this, the class will be broken in all the cases where the game is played more tactically and less as drama.

And it can even break the game when played as a drama.

The last time I played a paladin (well, actually a cleric with fighter abilities built using 2nd ed AD&D's skills and power rules - but for all intents and purposes a paladin), I found it a bit frustrating when the GM ended my "Job" situation - which in my case involved conflict between my oath of celibacy and my (Platonic) romance with one of the other PCs - by having my god just issue a flat-out instruction and explanation. It wasn't a very satisfying resolution, because it didn't emerge from my own (and the other player's) roleplay, but from a more-or-less arbitrary GM intervention. It kind of killed the drama dead.

(A curious side effect of the ingame drama was the boyfriend of the other player accusing me of having an affair with her - when we spent basically no time together except when RPGing in front of half-a-dozen others, and I was at the same time courting my real life partner. So I guess another complexity of the "Job" scenario is when some people can't tell the difference between what is at stake in the fiction, and what is at stake in real life!)

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6705825]Visanideth[/MENTION] - cool, thanks for the info.

 

[Libramarian]

If the balance between classes is not important, why does the Paladin need a code of honor to balance their perks?

-O

I don't think that class balance is completely unimportant. I like pretty spiky/asymmetrical balance, probably because in my game player emotional attachment to their character is limited and much of the game is handled in a class agnostic, often freeform way, so unless the classes have some really dramatic differences they tend to run together and become kind of indistinct.

Again...how are we defining "lawful"? Is a lawful person one who follows the law because the law is the law therefore it is right and must be followed? Are we talking about a "higher law" passed down through deistic/church dogma that the paladin follows regardless of the laws of the area?(ie: your Church says "slay those who do immoral things *insert list of immoral things*, even if the local law says killing outside of their own law is bad.) Perhaps "lawful" is really just the laws of your homeland, you follow the law there and elsewhere as best as their laws would apply to new places, or maybe not at all? Maybe "lawful" means following your personal code of conduct that you have determined to be the guiding principles of your life?

And then how are we defining good? Is it Church doctrine? Deistic commands? Helping people in need? Again, these things often conflict with "law", and the "law" above can conflict with "good".

The two-dimensional nature of the alignment system, law vs chaos, good vs evil is great for a highly trope-tastic fantasy world where good is obvious, evil is clear, and laws are always righteous. Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that such worlds do NOT make up the majority of D&D games. Even classic D&D-based material such as the Dragonlance books, good is not obvious, evil is not clear, and laws are not always righteous. In the face of the fact that this can be found in almost every book referenced in the dreaded "Appendix N", the fact that D&D would rely on a system that so clearly does not represent it's source material is absurd. To enforce restrictions upon players on the basis of such a flawed system that doesn't contribute jack towards representing the source or generating creative new material is even more absurd!

In a D&D world where things are black and white, yeah, the alignment system is fantastic. In any other kind, the vast majority kind of D&D worlds? It's so much beyond horrid that it's not even funny.

What about this: as long as the player makes an effort to rationalize their actions, then that's good enough. They decide how to interpret the situation in terms of alignment. They don't have to get the "right" answer, they just have to try. The DM is only allowed to penalize the player if they knowingly, or completely thoughtlessly act against their alignment. If that were the official rule, would that solve your problems with alignment?

I don't see alignment as a special landmine for DM-player conflict, to me it's just another form of pixelbitching--as with any challenge in the game, the DM should never force the players to keep searching for the perfect solution if they've already thought of a reasonable alternative solution.