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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well first there is more than one game for "those people" just check out the numerous retro-clones being produced, sold and played. I love Dungeon Crawl Classics and it is exactly this type of game which in turn leads to my second point...

I'm not so sure you're correct in thinking that the majority or at least a substantial segment of roleplayers don't enjoy and/or still play in this style or with these types of games. IMO, the designer's of 4e made this same assumption and I think the game eventually suffered in appeal and popularity because of it. YMMV of course.

How would you then explain the popularity of 3.x and now Pathfinder? 4e is most certainly a game oriented towards RP and detailed characters with strong input from players, much like its immediate d20 predecessors, and not like OD&D or 'OSR' type games in general. Clearly it would appear that this 'assumption' is not so bad after all. Frankly the whole history of D&D has been a constant push by players to have more options and more 'stuff' in general. I think it would be a mistake to believe that general direction has changed. In fact the overriding theme with 4e all along was griping about how it didn't have this or didn't have that, and the whole release schedule can be seen as WotC's understanding that without as much stuff as 3.5 had 4e was at a disadvantage.

I don't disagree that OSR exists, and that SOME ASPECTS of the game can be better enjoyed by some players when they are simpler, but even those players always have a hunger for more and more material. 'heavy' games with lots of options like 3.x and 4e, PF, 13a, etc will continue to be the rule IMHO. It is a matter of publishers controlling expectations and managing the material so that they can produce something playable even after it has had 100 different supplements.

In any case this is totally tangential, so if you want to discuss it more feel free to start another thread.

 

[Imaro]

How would you then explain the popularity of 3.x and now Pathfinder? 4e is most certainly a game oriented towards RP and detailed characters with strong input from players, much like its immediate d20 predecessors, and not like OD&D or 'OSR' type games in general. Clearly it would appear that this 'assumption' is not so bad after all. Frankly the whole history of D&D has been a constant push by players to have more options and more 'stuff' in general. I think it would be a mistake to believe that general direction has changed. In fact the overriding theme with 4e all along was griping about how it didn't have this or didn't have that, and the whole release schedule can be seen as WotC's understanding that without as much stuff as 3.5 had 4e was at a disadvantage.

Uhmmm... why does my statement need to account for the popularity of 3.x or PF? How does me stating that...

1. There is more than just OD&D to cater to those who prefer a particular playstyle (which is true)

and

2. Stating that there may be a substantial number of players who enjoy the particular style (which cannot be proven true or false but then neither can the opposing view) and 4e didn't cater to this playstyle (debateable but then again it's my opinion and I'm upfront about that)

I'm also unclear on what player's having options has to do with this? The playstyle described in the post you wrote was about a more survivalist based style of gameplay... what does that have to do with player options? You can play a survivalist, adverserial game with 3e and PF (especially at lower levels) regardless of player options, 4e's default is that you will not be playing that way and certain assumptions in it's design and advice definitely cater to a different style.

I don't disagree that OSR exists, and that SOME ASPECTS of the game can be better enjoyed by some players when they are simpler, but even those players always have a hunger for more and more material. 'heavy' games with lots of options like 3.x and 4e, PF, 13a, etc will continue to be the rule IMHO. It is a matter of publishers controlling expectations and managing the material so that they can produce something playable even after it has had 100 different supplements.

Again, what does simpler have to do with this? Where am I arguing for simpler anything, I'm talking about a particular way to play the game. In fact I'm not even sure what in my post this is a reply to??

In any case this is totally tangential, so if you want to discuss it more feel free to start another thread.

I think I've answered what I could concerning your post and since I'm not even really sure what position you are taking or even what exactly in my post you are discussing we can leave it be or discuss further, it's up to you.

 

[jsaving]

being Lawful Good makes you a bastion for everything that is good and just in the world and that is what makes a Paladin a Paladin.

I agree with your general sentiment that being implacably opposed to evil is what makes a paladin a paladin -- but completely disagree that "being Lawful Good" is what's needed to bring this about. I think all that's needed is to lay out the governing principles that all paladins must follow, like protecting the weak and refusing to commit evil acts in the name of the greater good, and then let players choose any alignment they see as consistent with those principles.

If you want to play highly creative paladin who's seen enough government malfeasance to distrust human authority, fine -- you can be a paladin despite your NG alignment as long as you protect the weak and follow the other commandments in the code. If you want to play a paladin who thinks following the rules best preserves human dignity and therefore won't bend the law of the land even for seemingly good purposes, fine -- you can be a paladin despite your LN alignment as long as you protect the weak and follow the other commandments in the code. But no matter what alignment you are, you receive no special treatment of any kind, you follow the one-and-only code in full, and you fall if you don't keep it, even if you can justifiably claim your alignment pushed you toward a different course.

In fairness I will say it's a step in the right direction to have have Lawful only

If the goal here is to preserve the essence of the paladin class as a "bastion for everything that is good and just in the world," I'd actually argue that going Lawful-only is a big step in the wrong direction. Evil characters by definition oppress the weak rather than helping them, so if you have a class that's specifically designed to let LE characters play it without an alignment change, you *can't* make protecting the weak a universal class norm, thus ensuring the very "alignment champion" idea you don't wish to see in Next.

If you want a class that embodies righteousness and insist on an alignment restriction, I'd suggest that Good-only or at least nonevil-only may be a better choice than Lawful-only. And the often-heard response that anybody who can write down their core convictions has to be Lawful just isn't right. Doing something because a code tells you to is Lawful, yes, but the mere fact that you can describe your principles in a concrete way isn't. And it would be very sad if any paladin were protecting the weak because a code told him to, when any truly Good individual would do it because their deepest convictions lay in that direction. Unless we're back to the old idea that those who love freedom enough to be Chaotic are inherently irrational creatures who roll dice to determine their actions, that is -- and I don't think there's a single person in my gaming group who would like to see that happen.

 

[GreyLord]

How would you then explain the popularity of 3.x and now Pathfinder? 4e is most certainly a game oriented towards RP and detailed characters with strong input from players, much like its immediate d20 predecessors, and not like OD&D or 'OSR' type games in general. Clearly it would appear that this 'assumption' is not so bad after all. Frankly the whole history of D&D has been a constant push by players to have more options and more 'stuff' in general. I think it would be a mistake to believe that general direction has changed. In fact the overriding theme with 4e all along was griping about how it didn't have this or didn't have that, and the whole release schedule can be seen as WotC's understanding that without as much stuff as 3.5 had 4e was at a disadvantage.

I don't disagree that OSR exists, and that SOME ASPECTS of the game can be better enjoyed by some players when they are simpler, but even those players always have a hunger for more and more material. 'heavy' games with lots of options like 3.x and 4e, PF, 13a, etc will continue to be the rule IMHO. It is a matter of publishers controlling expectations and managing the material so that they can produce something playable even after it has had 100 different supplements.

In any case this is totally tangential, so if you want to discuss it more feel free to start another thread.

Errrrrr....

Right....

Popular....REALLY

WOW...now that was popular... (like Literally...clarifying...you know...WOW...think about it...WOW...).

I was thinking that was the RPG king...even now after losing a ton of players...but who knows...maybe all that stuff you said means that suddenly out of the blue these RP heavy tabletop games suddenly sold 10-11 million copies and became semi well known at least (though considering American Football and then real football...perhaps not so popular even then as at least someone knows what the heck you are talking about in normal society when you mention it type of popular).

Yes, I'm being facetious. Can we now return to the 72 page thread on who dictates a Paladin's morale code, because...you know...

I mean, I just found out Tabletop RPGs were popular again. D&D was so popular in the 80s for the brief fad it was, that it became a household name for a while...I'm amazed that another RPG has become so popular as to finally replace that stereotype set over 3 decades ago with over 10 million in sales recently...maybe someone will finally realize wth I mean when I say Pathfinder and not say...is that something like D&D? Or is there some other Tabletop RPG that has outsold it (and I suppose if it sold 10 million overnight that WOULD be popular) that, even though it's become a nationwide and perhaps world wide short term fad like D&D in the 80s, I haven't even heard what it's called yet? Because if it's popular again, that would be horrible if I missed this fad this time around.

Oh wait, there I go being facetious again...sorry. 72 pages on whether a Paladin can kill stuff or not in a game where you kill stuff and level up and all...well...sometimes it must do things to the brain or something...sorry...my bad....

But, with such a popular RPG outselling all those CRPG's out there...that's major news...and if it's actually popular, even competing with football and all that...talk about awesome...how did I miss this...

@#$#&%^$%@ sorry...that $##$% dang facetious craziness...I'll just back out now and encourage us to try to get to 72 more pages of a Paladin's morale code being dictated by dic...I mean iron thumbed DM's who feel being a pric...I mean who feel that telling others that because they want to be a class that kills evil creatures and made to be the baddest arsed demon/devil killers around....can't kill and level up in a game where one major style of play was to kill things and level up...

sorry...yeah...I know...facetious

I'll leave now...I'll even let the door hit me on the way out of the thread...Here's to another 72 pages...

PS: just so those who couldn't figure out the WOW thing...World of Warcraft...