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

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

What makes the paladin special and such a challenge is not Smite nor is it Lay on Hands, it's being Lawful Good and having a specific code to follow that could cause you to fall. A Paladin isn't just a holy warrior so please don't dilute the class because you want all it's goodies with none of it's restrictions.

Being a paladin isn't about power gaming. Paladins aren't more powerful than other classes, not even in 2e (they got some abilities fighters didn't get, but not Weapon Specialization and had to pay more XP). An RP mechanic would be a terrible method for "balancing" a class anyway. (That works in FATE, but nowhere else.)

The problem with the code is that it's vague, along with alignment, except for a few specific areas, see below. The much-maligned Palladium system has a far better description of lawful good than TSR and WotC ever came out with. TVTropes has a better description as well. WotC won't crowdsource the code either, as they aren't actually listening to the fans. (Most fans who replied to the initial ranger thread wanted no magic. How did that work out? Aragorn clones.)

Even worse, the paladin code is hostile to adventuring. You can't lie doesn't make sense in a code. You can't lie to friends, superiors, other members of your religion, etc, all that makes sense. But not being allowed to lie to opponents is stupid. But lying is just one of the worse parts of the code.

You can't act dishonorably, and must protest and complain when other PCs do so. Note that I'm not talking about "looking the other way" while an evil PC tortures a captured goblin, but that you can't use stealth or other forms of common sense except as a last resort. You can't associate with someone evil for even a short period of time (say, smugglers who can get you to your destination quickly) without getting someone to cast an Atonement ritual on you afterward.

At least they've brought back a semblance of the older Favored Enemy for the ranger instead of that everything is a quarry crap that was in 4th edition.

Maybe I'm being trolled here. I won't make any more responses to this thread, just in case.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Oh great... another "My preferences are the only right preferences and the book should be written that way" thread...

I like how the thread title is a question, but the OP is just a "I'm so glad 5e paladins will require pre-game conferencing so I know how to properly rp my paladin; I'm so fed up with 4e's 'you decide how to rp your own paladin' crap" rant. It's almost as if ForeverSlayer wants to start an edition war with poor grammar.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I like how the thread title is a question, but the OP is just a "I'm so glad 5e paladins will require pre-game conferencing so I know how to properly rp my paladin; I'm so fed up with 4e's 'you decide how to rp your own paladin' crap" rant. It's almost as if ForeverSlayer wants to start an edition war with poor grammar.

How about be mature or don't post in this thread?

I'm not going to speak for anyone else but I don't want that snark around here.

 

[Kobold Stew]

What makes the paladin special ... [is] being Lawful Good and having a specific code to follow that could cause you to fall.

Where exactly is this in the current playtest packet? I see the alignment restrictions for the oaths, but nothing about losing powers or "falling".

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Where exactly is this in the current playtest packet? I see the alignment restrictions for the oaths, but nothing about losing powers or "falling".

It's not in the playtest packet and that's one of the problems in my opinion.

They are turning the Paladin into a Fighter/Cleric.

 

[Gargoyle]

The paladin class is incomplete as written. There are no guidelines as to how to handle a paladin who ignores their oath.

What happens to a cavalier if they:

Fail to protect the weak by not risking their lives to protect an innocent, helpless person?
Let someone get away with an evil act like?
Commit an evil act like murdering a merchant who won't give them a good price on armor?

Furthermore, alignment rules are incomplete at this time.
What acts are considered evil? Is torturing a prisoner evil? How do you define torture?
Who decides if alignment has changed? Is it sudden or does it happen over time?

And of course that leads to more questions regarding alignment restrictions:
What happens to paladins if they change alignment? Do they lose their powers? Become fighters or just paladins without powers? Become NPC's?
What happens if they change their alignment back?
What happens if a magic item or spell changes their alignment?

There are many possible answers to all of the above. The best answer IMO at this time is that the DM should decide. But since they have once again made class abilities dependent on alignment restrictions and the moral behavior of player characters, I believe that the rules have an obligation to at least bring these issues up and say as much, and yet these common scenarios are not given any mention as of yet.

Regardless of whether these matters are left solely to DM adjudication, or detailed rules are created to answer the above questions and others like it, alignment restrictions are a can of worms and a burden on both the DM and the players more than they are a catalyst for roleplaying.

IMO to keep the flavor of the class and avoid these pitfalls, they should take the alignment restrictions out, leave the oaths in, and give some short guidelines on how to handle it when a player character breaks his or her oath to handle the implied moral restrictions.

Despite my negative opinion of alignment restrictions, I do actually like the idea of paladins having some sort of moral obligation. I agree that having such oaths helps distinguish them from clerics and fighters, and the oath part doesn't bother me much. I just feel alignment restrictions codify these things too much and raise more questions than answers when what is really needed from the rules is guidelines for the DM and players on what happens when paladins don't adhere to their oaths, and we haven't seen that yet.

While I agree that a conversation between the DM and player prior to playing a paladin helps answer these questions, I think the rules should present default answers so that when there is not time to have that conversation, there is a common ground to fall back on. The conversation should only be necessary when the DM wants to use an optional rule or house rule, not because of a lack of rules that are needed.

 

[Morrus]

So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladi

Then sit down with your DM and discuss it before the start of the game. No good DM should be out to cause you to fall so it's a myth that there is such troubling conflict and I can almost promise you that the culprit is those hypothetical internet corner case discussions. In all my many years of gaming, I have never seen a competent DM go after a paladin player, waiting for him to make a mistake so he will fall.

That wasn't really my point. Never mind.

 

[Kobold Stew]

This is my point: scaremongering and speculation based on the rules of previous editions doesn't help.

The reasonable inference from the rules is that if your alignment changes, you lose Channel Divinity and (possibly) spells. If your alignment returns, you get them back.

No code, no deities, no fall. No worries.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That wasn't really my point. Never mind.

Then what are you trying to say?

You were talking about two people having two different views as to morals and I mentioned sitting down with your DM beforehand and coming to an agreement.

Are you having a knee jerk reaction or what?

 

[Morrus]

So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladi

Are you having a knee jerk reaction or what?

The attitude is not appropriate on EN World. Please watch your manners.