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

[ForeverSlayer]

Abritrarily? No. But *if* the paladin in a particular campaign/world/game *can* lose his abilities due to not following his oaths... that should be an agreement made between the player and the DM at the start of the game. All that can be hammered out between the parties involved at the time it is decided to go with that decision.

That DOESN'T need to be the province of the game as a whole... simply because many other campaigns/worlds/games won't WANT to have paladins lose their abilities for not following oaths.

It really isn't that confusing at all.

Rules and restrictions need to be in place, by default, to be perfectly honest. I don't want to have to go through every single rule to see if it's alright with the group. When you go to make your character you look at the class and decide if you want to play it or not. If it has restrictions then you decide if you want to play it or something else.

Some people need to accept that if you want a certain ability and the only class that has the ability is one with restrictions then you accept them or play something else.

What do you do whem you are deciding on a class to play? Do you look at the Wizard but tell your DM to change it because you want Lay on Hands and Smite or do you go and play a paladin?

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah... because you played with most of the people who selected paladins over the years... anecdotal and all that. It doesn't matter why the alignment restriction was there originaly, it has become a (I would say "the") defining feature of the D&D paladin... until 4e.

Maybe with a big fat dose of "IN MY OPINION" slapped in there, or maybe if by "defining" you mean one of the most hated features of the class. It does matter why the alignment restriction was there originally. History matters. The Paladin used to gain MORE because they had greater restrictions than others. The Paladin no longer gains MORE

I love how you present your opinion as fact... of course if it was true that the alignment restrictions for paladins were objectivley "stupid, irrelevant and oppressive to gameplay"... again then why would anyone have played one in 3.x and still play them in both 3.x and PF? how about we keep the hyperbole to a minimum and just keep it clear that those are your opinions about the class and this thread wouldn't exist if your opinion was objective or even universally true.

See above. You're not doing anything different than I. You present your statements as though they are absolutely true. Why should I have to play by rules you aren't?

As to moral questions... it seems you're ideas on the type of moral questions that can be played out by paladins is pretty limited thus I can see why you might feel the way you do about the class. However I think first, it's interesting to explore the morality of the particular campaign setting that the DM has created, (what is it to be good in this particular world? What actions am I free to take, which must I atone for and which are unforgiveable? ). Secondly I think choosing whether something, someone, an ideal, etc... has become important enough for me to forsake my oath and/or alignment and suffer the reprecussions (temporarily or permanently) is interesting to explore as a character.

Sure, but that's not an argument to have a moral challenge CLASS. That's just an argument to play a moral challenge character, which can be any class, it doesn't even have to be a divine class! It can just be a highly moral character. And I'll tell you that when the DM can't take away your toys when you violate the DM's sense of morality, it's actually easier to play a highly moral character.(obviously, IME)

---I mean imagine playing a highly moral rogue. Not exactly a Robin Hood wannabe, but a good guy who's gotten down on his luck and has to make some tough choices. He's not punished by the gods for his transgressions, he only goes and cries himself to sleep because of all the people he's hurt while trying to feed his family. That's a heck of a lot more interesting than a Paladin with a righteous stick up their bum.

But then I guess nothing beats the excitement of exploring your own morality that you make the rules for and set the code for and decide if you fail at and suffer no penalties for violating (of course since you created it, how can you violate it just change it)... wait, why is this exciting again, it's like having a conversation with myself... Honestly, your issues seem more wrapped up in the DM's you've played under than the paladin class itself. It's a shame but then that's why you can choose to play a divine mercenary (fighter) as opposed to a paladin if the DM wants to be a jerk.

Why should I though? Why should we have classes that enable DMs to be greater jerks? That really makes NO sense. If a certain class design enables DMs to be more jerky to their players than with other classes, then when we're designing a new edition, that's something that should considered.

 

[Imaro]

Maybe with a big fat dose of "IN MY OPINION" slapped in there, or maybe if by "defining" you mean one of the most hated features of the class. It does matter why the alignment restriction was there originally. History matters. The Paladin used to gain MORE because they had greater restrictions than others. The Paladin no longer gains MORE

No, I don't believe IMO (except where I did indicate my oppinion about it being "the" defining feature) is warranted in this case. It has been a feature of the paladin until the most current edition, you yourself have admitted it is one of the most discussed features of any class... not sure what more is needed for it to be a defining feature?? As for it being one of the most hated features of the class... well we wouldn't have this thread with opposing viewpoints if that was universal in any way. As for history... Once it was kept in 3e, it became a feature of the class outside the need for balance so again that's a moot point.

See above. You're not doing anything different than I. You present your statements as though they are absolutely true. Why should I have to play by rules you aren't?

Technically before 4e it was a defining feature and when stating it is "the" defining feature I make it clear it is my oppinion. Not sure what you are talking about.

Sure, but that's not an argument to have a moral challenge CLASS. That's just an argument to play a moral challenge character, which can be any class, it doesn't even have to be a divine class! It can just be a highly moral character. And I'll tell you that when the DM can't take away your toys when you violate the DM's sense of morality, it's actually easier to play a highly moral character.(obviously, IME)

See and that's where we view things differently... IMO, I'm not looking for a moral challenge to be easy... hence the challenge part.

---I mean imagine playing a highly moral rogue. Not exactly a Robin Hood wannabe, but a good guy who's gotten down on his luck and has to make some tough choices. He's not punished by the gods for his transgressions, he only goes and cries himself to sleep because of all the people he's hurt while trying to feed his family. That's a heck of a lot more interesting than a Paladin with a righteous stick up their bum.

Sorry I don't find this more interesting than the paladin... what exactly has this thief sacrificed? What has he had to do to atone? The paladin mechanics allow a player who wants... the chance to experience those type of morality stories with mechanical umph to the consequences to get that in the game... no other class offers that.

Not a case of...I do evil and I'm sad... but hey it's all good because I feel sorta bad about it... of course I'm going to do it again because there's really no consequences... did I mention I do evil sometimes... and it makes me sad...

Why should I though? Why should we have classes that enable DMs to be greater jerks? That really makes NO sense. If a certain class design enables DMs to be more jerky to their players than with other classes, then when we're designing a new edition, that's something that should considered.

Sooo... you're problem is bad DM's? How about because those of us with good DM's and functional groups don't want a game built around the assumptions that a DM will be a jerk... it's the same argument used earlier about assuming players will act like entitled 2 year olds.

As to why you should have to... because if this is a game for fans of all editions of D&D well there have been more editions in the history of D&D with the classic paladin than with the divine merc paladin, the divine-merc should be an option but not base. For a more logical reason... because it takes more space to go over creating good codes and or oaths for paladins than it does to say... "just ignore it" in a sidebar.

 

[Sunseeker]

No, I don't believe IMO (except where I did indicate my oppinion about it being "the" defining feature) is warranted in this case. It has been a feature of the paladin until the most current edition, you yourself have admitted it is one of the most discussed features of any class... not sure what more is needed for it to be a defining feature?? As for it being one of the most hated features of the class... well we wouldn't have this thread with opposing viewpoints if that was universal in any way. As for history... Once it was kept in 3e, it became a feature of the class outside the need for balance so again that's a moot point.

3.x was so horribly balanced to begin with that there's really nothing "outside the need for balance", and as 4e proved, you don't need it at all.

Technically before 4e it was a defining feature and when stating it is "the" defining feature I make it clear it is my oppinion. Not sure what you are talking about.

About you saying one thing and doing another.

See and that's where we view things differently... IMO, I'm not looking for a moral challenge to be easy... hence the challenge part.

If you RP your character properly, there's no need for an in-game stick to punish you. I don't really think the game needs to punish players for poor RP, the group can do that just fine. When it becomes clear that the social stigma of breaking your RP is a bad thing, the amount of people doing it will shrink. It'll never be prevented though, but if your goal is to prevent bad RP entirely, then every class should have alignment restrictions. If in your opinion everything

Sorry I don't find this more interesting than the paladin... what exactly has this thief sacrificed? What has he had to do to atone? The paladin mechanics allow a player who wants... the chance to experience those type of morality stories with mechanical umph to the consequences to get that in the game... no other class offers that.

Then why not have EVERY class offer it? Make rogues LE? Make Clerics match their god, have Druids TN, have rangers be CG, have fighters be LN. Because a morality story can be experienced by any player, of any class, in any game. You don't need to FORCE people to experience a morality story for it to happen, and I'm willing to bet MORE people will want to experience a morality story if the quality of their play is enhanced not reduced by that experience.

Not a case of...I do evil and I'm sad... but hey it's all good because I feel sorta bad about it... of course I'm going to do it again because there's really no consequences... did I mention I do evil sometimes... and it makes me sad...

That was not the point to my example. Rare is it that a Paladin or their player experiences true moral conflict. Hence the rise of "lawful stupid" where Paladins simply do whatever lets them keep their powers. My example, which you clearly didn't understand, was to illustrate that anyone can experience moral challenges, even if they don't risk losing the entirety of their class features over making the wrong choice. They can still struggle with balancing doing good and evil, they can still experience emotional turmoil, and they can still work to redeem themselves.

It just requires good RP. What the LG mandate created in the existence of Lawful Stupid was not good RP, in fact it generated bad RP because of it.

Sooo... you're problem is bad DM's? How about because those of us with good DM's and functional groups don't want a game built around the assumptions that a DM will be a jerk... it's the same argument used earlier about assuming players will act like entitled 2 year olds.

If your assumption is both good players and good DMs, then alignment restrictions are even further unnecessary. Good players will stick to their character concepts and good DMs will not punish inordinately and the alignment restriction is unnecessary. The alignment restriction EXISTS solely for bad players and operates under the expectation that players will break their RP, and it is a tool for the DM to punish that behavior. If your assumption is that players are good and DMs are good, then a tool to punish players when they are bad is meaningless.

As to why you should have to... because if this is a game for fans of all editions of D&D well there have been more editions in the history of D&D with the classic paladin than with the divine merc paladin, the divine-merc should be an option but not base. For a more logical reason... because it takes more space to go over creating good codes and or oaths for paladins than it does to say... "just ignore it" in a sidebar.

So we should accept bad design and accept that WOTC won't put good thought into interesting concepts because there's a sidebar that says "just ignore it if you don't like it." That's horrid! If something is a bad design it should be left out. If WOTC doesn't want to put the effort into making something good it should be LEFT OUT. Slapping an alignment restriction on the paladin doesn't improve the experience and if you argue it does then logically all classes should have alignment restrictions.

 

[Imaro]

3.x was so horribly balanced to begin with that there's really nothing "outside the need for balance", and as 4e proved, you don't need it at all.

I don't really care how you felt about 3.x or how well it was balanced... the fact remains the paladin restriction was included and not used as a balancing mechanism.

About you saying one thing and doing another.

Where?

If you RP your character properly, there's no need for an in-game stick to punish you. I don't really think the game needs to punish players for poor RP, the group can do that just fine. When it becomes clear that the social stigma of breaking your RP is a bad thing, the amount of people doing it will shrink. It'll never be prevented though, but if your goal is to prevent bad RP entirely, then every class should have alignment restrictions. If in your opinion everything

Ok, so now the game shouldn't have mechanics for a paladin falling... but you're advocating the group should punish you if you act in a way they don't like... What??

Look, for many, it's not about being punished for "bad roleplaying", for some people the punishment and the stories that are created from it when playing a paladin are "good roleplaying" with strong mechanical backing. The reason you don't do this with every class is that not everyone wants to play with morality in such a hardcore fashion and with it as a central part of their character.

Then why not have EVERY class offer it? Make rogues LE? Make Clerics match their god, have Druids TN, have rangers be CG, have fighters be LN. Because a morality story can be experienced by any player, of any class, in any game. You don't need to FORCE people to experience a morality story for it to happen, and I'm willing to bet MORE people will want to experience a morality story if the quality of their play is enhanced not reduced by that experience.

There are different morality stories and different levels of importance and intensity (especially when it comes to mechanical backing) that various people want to deal with in a game of D&D... as to forcing people into it, I'm sorry when did playing a paladin become a necesity in the game? I mean why do we force some people to use magic? Why are some classess forced to be strikers or controllers? Finally, your last sentence is well... kinda obvious, the mistake is in assuming you know what does or doesn't create better or worse experiences for everyone.

That was not the point to my example. Rare is it that a Paladin or their player experiences true moral conflict. Hence the rise of "lawful stupid" where Paladins simply do whatever lets them keep their powers. My example, which you clearly didn't understand, was to illustrate that anyone can experience moral challenges, even if they don't risk losing the entirety of their class features over making the wrong choice. They can still struggle with balancing doing good and evil, they can still experience emotional turmoil, and they can still work to redeem themselves.

And you failed to grasp my point about some/many wanting mechanical backing to that roleplay.

It just requires good RP. What the LG mandate created in the existence of Lawful Stupid was not good RP, in fact it generated bad RP because of it.

Yep, because you're the authority on how everyone played paladins and what is or isn't good roleplaying...

If your assumption is both good players and good DMs, then alignment restrictions are even further unnecessary. Good players will stick to their character concepts and good DMs will not punish inordinately and the alignment restriction is unnecessary. The alignment restriction EXISTS solely for bad players and operates under the expectation that players will break their RP, and it is a tool for the DM to punish that behavior. If your assumption is that players are good and DMs are good, then a tool to punish players when they are bad is meaningless.

No it doesn't exist solely for bad players, and it can be a tool for the player or DM. I have purposefully had paladins I've played end up atoning and even loose their powers permanently because of the choices I made in game, and contrary to your belief, as a player, I was glad the mechanics were there because as I said earlier I liked the mechanical weight to my decision. I sacrificed something tangible because the choice was that important to my character at the time. the DM didn't force me to make a particular choice, I did so with the full knowledge of what would happen because it fit my character, I wanted to explore a fallen paladin...and it was fun.

So we should accept bad design and accept that WOTC won't put good thought into interesting concepts because there's a sidebar that says "just ignore it if you don't like it." That's horrid! If something is a bad design it should be left out. If WOTC doesn't want to put the effort into making something good it should be LEFT OUT. Slapping an alignment restriction on the paladin doesn't improve the experience and if you argue it does then logically all classes should have alignment restrictions.

Yes because if sugar and cream improve the taste of coffee and coffee is a liquid it should also improve taste of grape juice because...wait, no.

Seriously, now you're arguing it's objectively bad design... whatevs man.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Why do all the classes have to work exactly the same way? Some have restrictions of various forms, such as druids can only use wooden or hide armor, is that wrong too? It's part of their conviction, or at least the flavor of the class. If one doesn't like being one-with-nature, one shouldn't play a druid. Same thing with Paladin, I think his alignment is the one defining characteristic of the class : an "everything is black and white" kind of guy. There are people out there like that, and they're not necessarily reasonable or rational, but that's to say, they at least have integrity and stick to their word.

If you don't see what the difference between a paladin with spells and a fighter/cleric, that's fair, but there are those of us who do. Again, the 4e mindset where all classes have to have the same chassis, no more, no less, is what most people AFAIK missed. Nobody is saying rogues should have to be evil, but certainly any non-lawful is reasonable. Otherwise why have alignments at all? Oh right, because all we are supposed to do is smash monsters in the dungeon and take their stuff, and everything has a modern relativistic morals sheen to it. Sometimes we want to play PCs who are conflicted with many shades of grey, othertimes we like the restrictions placed upon us. What's more of a spectator sport, boxing or a street fight? There are lots of rules in boxing, restrictions you might say, which make it even more fun to watch because once you define the limits you can go from there. If you don't like the rules of boxing you watch UFC or golf or something else, you don't say that restrictions are badwrongfun.

Paladins being lawful good is a trope in D&D, and while modern minded gamers might want nuance and shades of grey, some of us sometimes want to start all all shiney and valiant and get a few nicks and scratches along the way, with temptations thrown in. If there's literally no consequence to you acting like a scoundrel unless somebody catches you (which is essentially what you're saying when you say stuff like no alignment restrictions thus no atonement mechanic), then you might as well play a lay person with no divine oath and actually remove the class from the game. The "knight" archetype now is your background, and you're just a fighter with a specialty feat for casting some cure minor wounds type spells. Your alignment is a separate component, that has no bearing on your class, since anyone can now be a paladin and act any way they chose.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So if you don't want the paladin to loose his abilities for the actions he takes... why can't you just ignore it since many other campaigns/worlds/games will want the classic paladin? In other words, why should the default be the free reign paladin as opposed to the restricted one? Especially since only one edition ever presented the paladin as such.

Valid question.

To answer this, I'd basically say the same things other people have already mentioned. If the Paladin is to be the only class in the game to have this disadvantage... there has to be an advantage commensurate to it to keep the class balanced with every other one. In editions past, the Paladin was more powerful mechanically. But using roleplay to counterbalance mechanics has been proven to not be an effective way to to things, because as we know... not everyone USES those roleplay rules. So if you don't use the "paladin loses powers if he disobeys his oath" rules... you now have an overpowered class compared to all the others. You (as the players or DM) are now forced to try and underpower the Paladin's mechanics too.

So the only option is to not involve the Paladin's mechanics into the discussion. If the Paladin breaks his oath (a roleplaying action)... there certainly can be some roleplaying consequences that result. But that can't involve the removal of the Paladin's abilities, which are a mechanical counterbalance.

Now sure... some of you might not mind an imbalanced Paladin in that way... but I think WotC have proven to us that they are choosing NOT to release any classes that are unbalanced compared to the others. It's the exact same reason why every class has a modicum of combat ability and utility (despite some player's claims to want and need a class with NO combat use whatsoever). They just aren't going to knowingly include greatly unbalanced options as the default of the game.

 

[Imaro]

Valid question.

To answer this, I'd basically say the same things other people have already mentioned. If the Paladin is to be the only class in the game to have this disadvantage... there has to be an advantage commensurate to it to keep the class balanced with every other one. In editions past, the Paladin was more powerful mechanically. But using roleplay to counterbalance mechanics has been proven to not be an effective way to to things, because as we know... not everyone USES those roleplay rules. So if you don't use the "paladin loses powers if he disobeys his oath" rules... you now have an overpowered class compared to all the others. You (as the players or DM) are now forced to try and underpower the Paladin's mechanics too.

So the only option is to not involve the Paladin's mechanics into the discussion. If the Paladin breaks his oath (a roleplaying action)... there certainly can be some roleplaying consequences that result. But that can't involve the removal of the Paladin's abilities, which are a mechanical counterbalance.

Now sure... some of you might not mind an imbalanced Paladin in that way... but I think WotC have proven to us that they are choosing NOT to release any classes that are unbalanced compared to the others. It's the exact same reason why every class has a modicum of combat ability and utility (despite some player's claims to want and need a class with NO combat use whatsoever). They just aren't going to knowingly include greatly unbalanced options as the default of the game.

I'm not so sure about your conclusion... it seems biased with an eye towards 4e. As of my counting this is 50/50 with WotC editions, they had no problem putting it in 3.x and games like PF, Castles and Crusades, etc. don't seem to be suffering because of restricted paladins. Guess we will just have to wait and see what their answer will be.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If there's literally no consequence to you acting like a scoundrel unless somebody catches you (which is essentially what you're saying when you say stuff like no alignment restrictions thus no atonement mechanic), then you might as well play a lay person with no divine oath and actually remove the class from the game.

If you are unable to roleplay a paladin unless the game itself has a punishment built into the system to make sure you DO... then the problem doesn't lie within the game, it lies within you as a roleplayer.

The game cannot and should not FORCE you to roleplay "correctly". If you and your DM want to put in some consequences for yourself because it makes your story more interesting and exciting for you... that's great! But the game is not meant to force that onto every other player too.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not so sure about your conclusion... it seems biased with an eye towards 4e. As of my counting this is 50/50 with WotC editions, they had no problem putting it in 3.x and games like PF, Castles and Crusades, etc. don't seem to be suffering because of restricted paladins. Guess we will just have to wait and see what their answer will be.

Yup.