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

[Manbearcat]

I don't want these questions at my table because they are just flat out not simple. The context for understanding "good", its effects and the ability to apply that wisdom gained to future action has many vectors:

- temporal; reactionary or long-view
- spatial; micro or macro
- utility; pragmatism or idealism

Then you have to consider the actor's acumen at forecasting; probability modelling and predictive analysis. Each of these will come into play when examining actions, the understanding by the actor of the implications of their actions and the accountability of the actor for the outcomes. You can have all manner of deviations within your group on something such as "lying to save lives" depending upon those vectors and the confidence in forecasting outcomes. This isn't even including the added murkiness of tribalism and confirmation bias. This is where the mechanical resolution of "(self) anointed moral arbiter wielding the stick" is begging for trouble.

 

[pemerton]

That is really cool permetron.

Thanks.

I would never res a PC follower unless he died valiantly or was doing something supremely important that no one else around could achieve

<snip>

But in terms of actually sharing the authority for the PCs controlling the deities? that seems like sharing the DM responsibilities a little too much.

<snip>

I just don't want to know the script beforehand, as a player. I don't want to know that my god's secret plan for me is to make me their Avatar

Fair enough.

In the case of the two PCs' resurrected in my game (one twice), in both cases I asked the player if he wanted to keep playing that PC. (On one occasion, a player answered "no" to that question and so a new PC was brought into the campaign.)

One of the PCs - the one who's been ressed twice - died the first time in a ruined Nerathi (think ancient Roman, or ancient Numenorean) watchhouse. When I asked the player if he wanted to keep playing the PC he said yes. And when I asked why he would be sent back by the gods he told me "Because there is an ancient Nerathi relic hidden in the watchhouse, and I'm the one destined to recover it". That then set that PC on the path of recovering all pieces of the Sceptre of Erathis (= Rod of 7 Parts). The second time that PC was ressed, he was actually reborn Gandalf-style, going from human wizard with an invoker multi-class to deva invoker with a wizard multi-class. Again, this was the players' desire - although I did introduce a twist into the resurrection/rebirth, requiring a deal with Bane as a price of resurrection (but the player also played a role in that, because he was the one who decided the PC would gain a Book Imp familiar when being ressed - but I was the one who decided it would be a "watcher" for Bane and Levistus).

Anyway, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about when I talk about sharing narrative power in respect of the game's gods.

Relating it back to D&Dnext, an umbrella game like Next is aspiring to be I think needs to be able to include both my approach and your approach.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree mainly because in the example of torture within the D&D alignment system, is considered an ultimately evil act.

But surely that's not an arbitrary designation.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So... you want an explanation of why torture is evil?

I prefer the term "advanced interrogation techniques."

 

[gyor]

I think it comes down to is it right to force alignment restrictions down the throats of those who don't want it or would you be willing to comprise and have an alignment restriction modual?

 

[Gorgoroth]

Anyone who would even argue that torture isn't inherently evil, is ipso facto evil, IMO, (since we're talking about whether alignments are important in D&D), alignments, if they are optional, mean that paladins just don't make sense. I don't want a paladin who's taken a vow to his god, would accept an order of slaughtering his opponent's villagers. A true paladin would rather lose his powers and his status as a paladin, than commit an atrocity like that. It would surely be a test, by a tricky old-testament style god, to see where his true character lies. At some point, you need to take responsibility for your own actions and live with the consequences. Removing alignment restrictions and all its baggage seems like a roundabout way of calling whether it's moral or not to slaughter innocents merely campaign fluff on your way to get to higher levels, because hey, why not. Everything is relative, right? Again, not my idea of the point of having a paladin in this game. Saying one can be unaligned because the alignment system is too rough an approximation for real morality is not the same as saying there is no such thing as evil, and that's a very contentious issue right there which I doubt many people would really sign onto if they've, you know, looked at the world we live in and gave it 2 seconds of thought before delving back into their Counterstrike match.

 

[Sunseeker]

I prefer the term "advanced interrogation techniques."

And it's not like, historically, almost every character that could ever have been considered "LG" in the history of fantasy tortured someone at some point, generally because that person was a bad-guy and "deserved" it in order to get the secret codes to the superweapons or whatever.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, this could apply to any class- a fighter known to be dishonorable loses the respect of his peers (suddenly city guards won't let him keep his arms and armor), a wizard ousted from his guild will find it much harder to expand his spellbook, a bard taking things to far wont be in on the romor mill and so on.

But there is a huge difference between going renegade like this, abd loosing al your powers.

But fighters don't get their powers from a deity. It makes no sense that if powers come from deities that they would allow you to have them when you are going against what they hold dear. That just ruins any sense of a believable world.

It seems rather simple to me if you play a paladin don't do evil things, don't torture, steal, lie, rape or act in a dishonorable way. And don't play one with a DM who is a jerk and will punish you for the littlest thing.

Why would you choose to play a paladin if you don't want to role play a good character.

Some of this smacks as players being whiny special snowflakes. I want my cake and eat it too.

 

[Campbell]

As far as I'm personally concerned this is not an issue of player entitlement. This is an issue of DM responsibility. Should a new DM be required to watch over every single action one particular player makes? Why does that player merit more of a DM's concerns than any other?

I'm also concerned about advice that treats players like spoiled puppies. If you enter the game with the expectation that players will approach play malignantly then your due to have your expectations met. If you start out with trust, mutual respect, and common goals your players might surprise you.

 

[herrozerro]

People don't ever seem to have this problem when they play Star Wars, and the Jedi code is even stricter than the paladin code I think.

WHat makes it different? IF you want to play a Jedi you have to follow the code, if not you are no longer a Jedi. Add the alignment in there, and a bunch of people suddenly get all twisted up over it.

If you can play a Jedi, you can play a Paladin.

Jedi do not magically lose their abilities if they stray from the path. You can be a 'jedi' and have a stron connection to the dark side.