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

[D'karr]

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.

This is so true. You hardly ever get what you want, you do however get what you most expect. If you treat your players like spoiled 2 year olds they start behaving like spoiled 2 year olds.

 

[GreyLord]

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.

Blackguard!!!!

 

[gyor]

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.

I see no reason a Blackguard can't act this way.

 

[Gorgoroth]

This is so true. You hardly ever get what you want, you do however get what you most expect. If you treat your players like spoiled 2 year olds they start behaving like spoiled 2 year olds.

OTOH sometimes grown men do act like spoiled 2 year olds, regardless of what you do. The DM should behave the same way to either type of player : don't be afraid to say "No". once in a while. And if the game rules allow you to influence player's behavior in a carrot/stick way, via in-game repercussions to their in-game actions, then the DM is also just roleplaying too and not acting as an IRL disciplinarian (because who wants / needs that?), since different gods have different moral codes, and you can emphasize those those in your campaign setting rather than alignment restrictions per se. But there is a place for alignment restrictions in D&D, it's because good/evil and law/chaos are something we all understand, even if we've never played the game before.

 

[D'karr]

OTOH sometimes grown men do act like spoiled 2 year olds, regardless of what you do. The DM should behave the same way to either type of player

Actually no, if a grown man is acting like a 2 year old I don't try to "correct" their behavior with gaming. I don't entertain that type of behavior at my games. I don't play with asshats, and have no desire to coddle those that act that way.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Okay, maybe not 2 year olds, but definitely 13 year olds. I'm 35, and love to be able to rekindle the feeling I get when I'm playing D&D that I had when I first discovered it. Let's face it, we don't all play to be super serious all the time, and our real life foibles sometimes manifest themselves in various ways. I don't like DMing immature players, but I prefer a sometimes immature player to a boring one, or one who doesn't say anything. I often play at gaming stores too, with people of various ages, and oftentimes have to hold my tongue because of some of the ridiculous things I hear, people who have no life experience even in their 20s, who've never kissed a girl or done drugs or did anything remotely fun, who have little in the way of seasoning or character and thus...low IRL wisdom scores. But you learn good ways to deal with different player styles, and if D&D can enforce class-based RPing through rules such as alignment restrictions on paladins, at least to follow your god's wishes (that might not be the DM's wishes, since he'll be RPing various gods in different ways, due to their inherent alignements or goals). E.g. having a Raven Queen necromancer makes a lot more sense than a Torm one, doesn't it. Those are types of incongruities that the DM should say no to, even if the player is otherwise mature or whatever. I dislike maturity debates because at the end of the day, if you refuse to hang out or play D&D with anyone who's not absolutely perfect, it'll be hard to find gaming groups (and be invited to any).

What I'm saying is...for at least the narrow case that I described, playing a paladin like a rogue, I think the DM should simply cost XP lost or award less XP, then if it gets worse, have other in-game consequences, and if it still continues sever their ties to their class features, atonable. When with repeated transgressions the class is lost permanently. Just knowing that perma-loss of class features is there as a possible consequence should be enough of a deterrent to RPing a certain way. Why not, it's a game? Let's let RPing have mechanical consequences. Taunting the king to kill you in character can in fact, get your HP reduced to 0 pretty quick. I don't see why taunting your god shouldn't reduce your healing or smiting potential to 0, which is a far, far less grave consequence to live with, i.e. your character is at least still alive.

 

[Elf Witch]

I see no reason a Blackguard can't act this way.

But then he is playing his character in a way that makes sense.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

I don't buy that it puts anymore responsibility on the DM than any other part of DMing. A DM responds to what a player is doing in game that is part of the job. If a player has his character suddenly start doing evil things even if it is not a paladin the DM needs to respond with how the world reacts to that.

I don't think discussing a code and consequences to breaking that code is assuming that the player is going to be acting like a spoiled brat. I always viewed the information given on paladins and their restrictions as what it is meant to be information on how to play this type character.

You are right that DMs need to trust their players but the flip side of that is the players need to be able to trust their DMs to be fair. A lot of this smacks of I don't want the DM to have the power to take away my goodies. That means you don'r trust your DM. And it is not like the DM needs permission or has to follow the rules to the letter. DMs use house rule all the time.

I don't care if their is an official rule or not if you play a character in my game who gets his powers from a deity and you start straying from that deity portfolio there will be consequences do it bad enough you chance losing powers that came from said deity. And if you can't handle that then you are welcome to find a DM who will let you play like that.

DMS are not servants we have the right to enjoy the game as much as the players. For me part of that enjoyment is building a believable world where what the PCs do matters both for good and bad. And since no one has left my table because they didn't like how I DM then I think I am doing something right.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't buy that it puts anymore responsibility on the DM than any other part of DMing. A DM responds to what a player is doing in game that is part of the job. If a player has his character suddenly start doing evil things even if it is not a paladin the DM needs to respond with how the world reacts to that.

I think it's different when the DM has to monitor Joe's every action because any little slip could cost him is powers, as opposed to monitoring Bob's actions because it could piss off the locals.

I don't think discussing a code and consequences to breaking that code is assuming that the player is going to be acting like a spoiled brat. I always viewed the information given on paladins and their restrictions as what it is meant to be information on how to play this type character.

I think any feature of a class should be clear enough to warrant minimal explanation. Any aspect of a class or race or background that will require significant effort on the part of the DM to explain how it works in his particular game in this particular setting and so on and so forth is a feature that needs to be reconsidered. The discussion of the Paladin code of conduct should be a simple and straight-forward discussion, but not so concrete as to be immutable. There will be times when the player's understanding of the code and the DMs understanding of the code will differ not based on in-game concepts...but upon personal morality. Those are times that both sides need to be able to look to the rules as a neutral third party and come to an agreeable conclusion.

This is one reason I advocate deity-based codes, because "don't lie" is a terrible rule that leads to paladins who can't adventure properly with regular adventurers, but "don't lie except to protect the innocent and defeat evil." is a much clearer ruing that allows paladins to have some realistici breathing room. No LG patron of a LG paladin is going to approve of the paladin refusing to lie to the evil demon bent on killing the farmers when the demon asks him "where are the farmers!?" I would expect the paladin to reasonably be able to say "I'll never tell! You must kill me first!" and not get backhanded for not saying "over in the barn."

You are right that DMs need to trust their players but the flip side of that is the players need to be able to trust their DMs to be fair. A lot of this smacks of I don't want the DM to have the power to take away my goodies. That means you don'r trust your DM. And it is not like the DM needs permission or has to follow the rules to the letter. DMs use house rule all the time.

Both sides need to be clear with their DM about how they are going to play. Too often DMs change their mind and claim "I'm the DM, deal with it!" and players become sneaky so that their op build will be accepted before the DM can say otherwise...which then leads to DMs having to become more aggressive in the face of unethical players.

I don't care if their is an official rule or not if you play a character in my game who gets his powers from a deity and you start straying from that deity portfolio there will be consequences do it bad enough you chance losing powers that came from said deity. And if you can't handle that then you are welcome to find a DM who will let you play like that.

I have always wondered why clerics were never similarly limited, require a diety(any alignment), must adhere to that god's portfolio/alignment. Clerics get insane power....but have few limitations, I don't want that repeated.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This has always been my experience.

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.

I don't thinkk anyone disagrees with that. But that has no bearing on whether or not the GM has the power to take away the paladin's powers.

I mean, someone who builds a PC with the backstory "I'm an honourable warrior of virtue" who then play a snivelling, cowardly brute is someone who is not serious about the character they're playing. I don't need alignment rules to deal with that player; I can talk to him/her GM-to-player and find out what s/he s looking for in an RPG, and whether or not I want to keep playing with him/her.

But if the player doesn't agree that his/her PC is a cowardly brute, why should I as GM have the last word? It's up to my players to play their PCs, not me.

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

I don't know - you tell me! After all, you're the one who seems worried that, unless the GM has the power to override players' conceptions of their paladin PCs we are going to be overrun with such players.

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.

I don't feel the force of this at all. First, I have played games in which either their are no alignments (Rolemaster campaigns) or in which alignment does very little work other than acting as a personality and cosmological descriptor (4e). Yet in these games paladins - honourable, holy warriors who have taken vows of loyalty and dedication - make perfect sense.

Second, why would a paladin accept an order to slaughter his/her opponents' village? Or rather, why would the player of a paladin declare such an action for his/her PC? Is it because s/he's not actually interested in playing an honourable holy warrior who has taken a vow of loyalty and dedication? Then see my comments above. Is it because s/he feels railroaded into doing so by the GM? Then giving the GM the power to take over the player's PC is hardly to fix that problem! Is it because s/he takes the view that slaughtering his/her opponents' village is not actually dishonourable (s/he is playing a more historically-influecned Crusader-style paladin rather than a romantic Arthurian-style paladin)? Then why is it my job, as GM, to substitute my judgement for that player's playing of his/her PC?

the players need to be able to trust their DMs to be fair. A lot of this smacks of I don't want the DM to have the power to take away my goodies. That means you don'r trust your DM.

No. It means that I want my character to be a PC, not an NPC. It is my character, not the GM's, and I want to play my own character.

And to see how easily well-intentioned persons can disagree on moral and ethical matters, consider this post:

"don't lie" is a terrible rule that leads to paladins who can't adventure properly with regular adventurers, but "don't lie except to protect the innocent and defeat evil." is a much clearer ruing that allows paladins to have some realistici breathing room. No LG patron of a LG paladin is going to approve of the paladin refusing to lie to the evil demon bent on killing the farmers when the demon asks him "where are the farmers!?" I would expect the paladin to reasonably be able to say "I'll never tell! You must kill me first!" and not get backhanded for not saying "over in the barn."

I think that "don't lie" is a completely tenable rule for a paladin. It states an important matter of honour. It is consistent with Kant's injunction against all falsehoods. But I also don't think that "don't lie" is remotely equivalent to "answer all questions." When the demon asks the paldin "Where are the farmers?" the paladin is quite entitled to reply "I won't tell you." That is not a lie; in fact, it's a true statement! It doesn't deceive the demon at all, nor seek to. And the requirement of honour is above all a requirement not to deceive; that's why you can't lie, can't poison, can't assassinate and hope to keep your honour.

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)

The question is not whether it's inherently evil - as in, something whose occurence makes the world worse than it otherwise would be. The question is whether it nevertheless is sometimes permitted. Some say yes, other say no. Why should the game build an answer to that question into its rules? Particularly when that answer, in any event, has application only to a very narrow category of characters.

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.

I addressed this upthread: it doesn't require that the GM be able to strip the player of their paladin abilities. Another way is to give the player some authority over the playing of the deity (ie the diety is not fully an NPC). That is my preferred approach.

Blackguard!!!!

Nothing wrong with a paladin converting into an anti-paladin. But why should that be a matter of the GM's choice? I prefer the player to take the lead in that sort of character development. Which means, if I'm going to play D&Dnext, it has to make room for my preferences as well as those of others. Which precludes building paladins with a GM-adjudicated alignment/code as a core feature.