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

[Starfox]

You must spread some experience around...

THis is the part I wanted to xp: "If I had a player who wasn't interested in the game I was running, I woudn't faff around with codes and alignment to try and make them play seriously. I'd just boot them out!"

This is very much what a player paladin is about in practice, the player must like the challenge - if the player does not take things seriously, taking away their powers fro violating their code will just make them angry.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really see the attraction of moral quandary in playing D&D....or playing a class specifically devoted to it.

Oh, I think it is great when handled well. "You lost you powers lol" is not handling it well, imo.

I'm with Obryn on this. It's a big part of what I like about RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

A LG paladin of civilization and order would see an oppressive demonic tyrrany as bad, and thus seek to overthrow it, thus installing a feudal society. A LG paladin of freedom, the arts, and creativity might see a feudal society as just as horrible as a demonic tyrant, favoring a more democratic/libertarian or even communistic society where people are not beholden to landed elites.

I don't want to break the board rules, so I'll be a bit circumspect in what follows: but basically, I'm having a really hard time making sense of this example.

If the LG paladin of freedom, in your example, thinks tha the feudal society is horrible (presumably because of the suffering and indignity it reflects), then s/he must think that the paladin who upholds it is not acting properly - is even acting evilly! But, unless that paladin falls from grace, the LG paladin of freedom has sufficient evidence that the feudal paladin is not acting evilly, and hence that in fact the feudal system does not improperly inflict any suffering or indignity. Hence the LG paladin of freedom must infer that her own commitments are flawed, and redress them.

So I don't see how the conflict between the two can last more than a round or two. One or the other will quickly learn what "good" really permits and requires.

(This is another example of why I don't like alignment rules: the debate you set up is quite an interesting one, but the alignment rules leave no room for it.)

 

[Starfox]

In the post I quoted I used the word "expedience", not "experience". Did you misread or mistype?

Ops... I misread. My point still holds, but it is no longer in opposition to yours. Not in the same way, at least.

Dyslectics have more fnu!

 

[jonesy]

Dyslectics have more fnu!

When the code of the paladin comes from his dog it is that dieting that tells him how to be laughful god.

 

[Jester David]

Would you argue that the same would hold true for every class?

-O

No.
It might true for other characters, but that's different.
The paladin is the class for people who really like that sort of thing, who want to make it the focus of their character.

 

[Jester David]

I don't really see the attraction of moral quandary in playing D&D....or playing a class specifically devoted to it.

That's fine. Maybe a paladin isn't the class for you.
Some people don't like support classes or classes that are less active in direct combat. They likely shouldn't play bards. Others don't like managing spells or choosing when to use a daily power. They shouldn't play wizards.

 

[Obryn]

No.
It might true for other characters, but that's different.
The paladin is the class for people who really like that sort of thing, who want to make it the focus of their character.

Why should that be?

If a lack of moral quandaries lessens the Paladin, why doesn't it lessen other classes? Is it just tradition? Honestly asking here, because I think that sort of conflict is one of the best things about TTRPGs.

-O

 

[Jester David]

Oh, I think it is great when handled well. "You lost you powers lol" is not handling it well, imo.

Stuff like fate points and aspects? Now we're taking. What's more, something like that isn't restricted to Paladins. Other characters should get to be involved with the "hard moral choices" stuff, too, imo, if that's how they want to play.

-O

While it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission it's easier for a DM to ignore a rule than make it up themselves, and easier to lift a restriction than impose it on the players.

The problem with a paladin losing their powers is four-fold.
1) It makes the character useless. In 3e they basically became a warrior, an NPC class.
2) There are no clear rules for what counts as a violation.
3) It's a one-strike you're out policy
4) It's hard to reverse in low level or low magic campaigns.

These can be easily handled by reducing the number of lost powers and adding some wiggle room for failure. Such as you lose X on a first offense but regain your powers after fasting for two-days and praying. (Or so something.) But second offense is harder to atone for and a third costs you everything.
Likewise, the focus should be less on something vague like "evil acts" and have oaths and codes of conduct. Each paladin swears to do certain things and avoid certain things. Make it clear and less up to DM fiat (while also adding a Worldbuilding element for the DM to play with).

And, of course, the DM can just say "naw, ignore that".

 

[Jester David]

Why should that be?

If a lack of moral quandaries lessens the Paladin, why doesn't it lessen other classes? Is it just tradition? Honestly asking here, because I think that sort of conflict is one of the best things about TTRPGs.

-O

I don't disagree that moral dilemmas make TTRPGs fun.
But moral dilemmas and purity are at the heart of playing a paladin. A Code of Conduct / vows / oaths separate the paladin from the fighter cleric. It's the defining fluff.

This is like honour being at the heart of playing a knight or samurai. You can play an honourable fighter or wizard but that's a character choice, independent of the class. If you're playing an honourless samurai you're playing against type, against the conventions of the class/ trope.