Perhaps. I find most fantasy RPG stuff to be pretty anachronistic relative to the eras/adventures it purports to be expressing.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
FireLance
Legend
One would assume that virtues are timeless. Or perhaps that, too, is an anachronistic perspective.
On that, you'll have to ask a virtue ethicist.
I'm thinking in more practical terms: something like the Forgotten Realms, for instance, presents an essentially modern sensibility dressed up in high mediaevel pageantry.
Tolkien is more genuinely romantic, but to make it work has to essentially bracket everything from slaves to serfs to the economic foundations of a semi-military, semi-leisured ruling caste.
Once we're doing that bracketing (and my 4e game more-or-less follows Tolkien's lead) what does alignment add? We've already bracketed away the really challengeing issues, and as far as those that are left go, I prefer to see what the players make of them rather than trying to dictate an answer in advance.
Obryn
Hero
On the one hand, fine. Leave alignment out and it's a start.
On the other hand, the most recent edition has been blessedly free of falling Paladin shenanigans. Anything with a "lose your powers, lol" string attached to it is unappealing to me as a base conceit of the rule set. I don't want the class balanced with this in mind.
-O
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
That's why I put "may," but yeah, you could just remove that sentence. Heck, put the entire oath thing in the flavor text paragraph at the top of the page--nobody reads that anyway!
Li Shenron
Legend
Well but if a player chooses to play a Cleric of the god of Justice, and then pretends to murder, steal, lie, deceive, fraud etc. and keep the class' benefits and powers at the same time, doesn't that sound lame to you?
If the player wants tactical options and crunchy powers, and they are available only to Clerics of the god of Justice, but he's not interested in the character concept, then it should be up to the DM to find a way to give them those powers without forcing the concept, e.g. design an alternative class or deity or find one that suits from an existing book.
What cannot be fixed, is a player saying he wants the concept but then refusing to roleplay the same concept. That just means the player sucks at playing the game, and most likely is detrimental to other people's fun.
In some way, penalties for failing to adhere to restrictions should never apply, because the players should be never willing to roleplay badly. Player #1 could be purposefully roleplaying a paladin that's falling to the dark side, and it's totally legitimate! Something should then happen to such paladin, but it doesn't actually have to make the PC mechanically inferior to the others. Player #2 could be just a mediocre player who makes plenty of mistakes, but is it worth punishing him? Mistakes usually means more chance of death and less fun for you in general, I think the punishment is already there, I'm not sure I want to punish him more than I would if he were badly playing a fighter or rogue. Player #3 could be plain lame and pretending to behave contrary to the spirit of the rules, deal with him the traditional way: kill him and take his stuff. Those who behave like an ogre's arse deserve to be treated like an ogre's arse.
With these in mind, the game doesn't really need to specify what happens mechanically to a paladin that's fallen. It might give off some examples, but these should be applied in practice really only to Player #1 who wants to roleplay this kind of character story. So then comes the problem: is it fair to punish this actually pretty good & brave player, by making his PC worse than the others? I am not so sure of that...
This is actually why previous editions had options for fallen paladins to become antipaladins, presumably just as powerful. But it is only one possible outcome for the story, and it's the most dramatic with serious repercussions to other characters: how can the same PCs first work with a paladin, then keep working with a blackguard?! Maybe some totally neutral party can, but most parties have at least some good PC, while evil parties who not have started with him. There are other possible outcomes for a falling paladin, at least (1) a fallen paladin who's simply reduced to being not paladin enough but remains a good PC, and (2) a fallen paladin who will succeed to get back to his path. Both these are must easier for the story and the rest of the party, but how can the game support these well if the player has to take penalties, not for having played badly but for having played well!
I don't know how to solve this... Maybe it has to be up to each gaming group. I wouldn't personally like to let the player convert paladin levels into fighter levels on the fly, with many fighter abilities "popping up" out of nowhere. At least, if multiclassing works decently, I would prefer that the "penalty" simply means he cannot advance in the Paladin class further but has to take levels in something else, assuming that this results in a balanced PC; however this would mean to retain his supernatural paladin powers and spells, which has an implication on how this stuff works in the fantasy world (basically, that whoever granted those powers either cannot take them away or chooses not to). A more complicated way would be to gradually "phase out" at least the most paladin-only magical abilities, and slowly replace them with something else, taking advantage of retraining rules when possible.
Last edited:
Given the highly contentious nature of the paladin's code (in the abstract, in a given campaign, between different characters, as interpreted by different players/DM) and the strongly differing opinions about whether following such a code should entail greater mechanical abilities or not, I feel the most widely applicable approach would be a system that essentially scales to whatever seriousness the player/DM decide to grant it. I think this is an area where D&D can take some inspiration from FATE, for example. (There is still room for complete loss of ability if desired, but there is greater freedom to inflict it only for flagrant violations while making sure the code still plays a role in less extreme situations.)
One possible mechanical framework for a Paladin (or other oath-based character) using this concept might be a constant benefit that can not be lost (i.e. a normal class ability), and a minor and major boon given when the character (or party) experiences a minor or major inconvenience due to actually following the oath. Since the boons are only obtained when the character might find it difficult to follow their code there is at least some correspondence between the roleplaying difficulty suffered and any mechanical bonus gained. It also has the side effect of not granting any benefit when following the code is easy. After all, no one should expect divine favor for not lying about what they had for breakfast, unless that somehow matters in context.
Dividing the boons into the minor/major categories recognizes that not all inconveniences are equal, and can help smooth over disagreements that might arise in a more binary evaluation. In addition, since the nature of the inconvenience is more important than the exact nature of the violation we can avoid splitting hairs over what kinds of violations are worse than others. Finally, not following the code (even when it should be easy) can cause loss of a boon before it might otherwise occur. This hopefully enhances player buy-in to whatever extent they feel comfortable with: if they have acted in accordance with the code they have given themselves an incentive to continue acting in that fashion. If they have not, then they have lost nothing. In short, the mechanic should incentivize self-consistent behavior, without being too specific about the precise nature of the code governing that behavior.
For example, a (hastily conceived) "Oath of Truth" might go something like this:
The player and DM come to an agreement on "what kind of truth" this oath covers. Whether that be a blanket against all deception, permits mental reservation or other omissions, permits lying to save a life, applies only to certain topics, applies only to certain groups, whatever. Truthfulness in these situations grants a minor or major boon, and untruthfulness removes them (if present). Types of truth-telling not covered by the oath neither give nor cancel boons.
Constant - Gain True Seeing for 1 round as a free action, usable Charisma mod times per day.
Minor - Gain advantage on all Sense Motive checks until you succeed on a Sense Motive check you would have otherwise failed.
Major - You learn the answer to 3 yes/no questions to the best of the knowledge of a chosen person, object, or place you observe uninterrupted for at least a minute. The boon ends when the third answer is received, or earlier if observation is interrupted. This supernatural insight cannot be intentionally thwarted except by direct intervention of a deity or similar power.
No doubt the mechanics above could be refined, but I think what I'm going for is clear. The constant benefit would probably make a very solid class feature. The minor boon eventually grants an extra success to a Sense Motive check, which I think is both flavorful and could be used regularly without game-breaking consequences. Finally, the major boon is somewhat like a targeted Commune, and is the sort of thing which could easily have campaign impact. The exact nature of the code and the character's adherence to it are, however, instrumental in determining how frequently these boons arise, so the DM and player have a lot of freedom to explore the different parameters of truthfulness.
One possible mechanical framework for a Paladin (or other oath-based character) using this concept might be a constant benefit that can not be lost (i.e. a normal class ability), and a minor and major boon given when the character (or party) experiences a minor or major inconvenience due to actually following the oath. Since the boons are only obtained when the character might find it difficult to follow their code there is at least some correspondence between the roleplaying difficulty suffered and any mechanical bonus gained. It also has the side effect of not granting any benefit when following the code is easy. After all, no one should expect divine favor for not lying about what they had for breakfast, unless that somehow matters in context.
Dividing the boons into the minor/major categories recognizes that not all inconveniences are equal, and can help smooth over disagreements that might arise in a more binary evaluation. In addition, since the nature of the inconvenience is more important than the exact nature of the violation we can avoid splitting hairs over what kinds of violations are worse than others. Finally, not following the code (even when it should be easy) can cause loss of a boon before it might otherwise occur. This hopefully enhances player buy-in to whatever extent they feel comfortable with: if they have acted in accordance with the code they have given themselves an incentive to continue acting in that fashion. If they have not, then they have lost nothing. In short, the mechanic should incentivize self-consistent behavior, without being too specific about the precise nature of the code governing that behavior.
For example, a (hastily conceived) "Oath of Truth" might go something like this:
The player and DM come to an agreement on "what kind of truth" this oath covers. Whether that be a blanket against all deception, permits mental reservation or other omissions, permits lying to save a life, applies only to certain topics, applies only to certain groups, whatever. Truthfulness in these situations grants a minor or major boon, and untruthfulness removes them (if present). Types of truth-telling not covered by the oath neither give nor cancel boons.
Constant - Gain True Seeing for 1 round as a free action, usable Charisma mod times per day.
Minor - Gain advantage on all Sense Motive checks until you succeed on a Sense Motive check you would have otherwise failed.
Major - You learn the answer to 3 yes/no questions to the best of the knowledge of a chosen person, object, or place you observe uninterrupted for at least a minute. The boon ends when the third answer is received, or earlier if observation is interrupted. This supernatural insight cannot be intentionally thwarted except by direct intervention of a deity or similar power.
No doubt the mechanics above could be refined, but I think what I'm going for is clear. The constant benefit would probably make a very solid class feature. The minor boon eventually grants an extra success to a Sense Motive check, which I think is both flavorful and could be used regularly without game-breaking consequences. Finally, the major boon is somewhat like a targeted Commune, and is the sort of thing which could easily have campaign impact. The exact nature of the code and the character's adherence to it are, however, instrumental in determining how frequently these boons arise, so the DM and player have a lot of freedom to explore the different parameters of truthfulness.
Obryn
Hero
So how does this square with your normal approach to the balance between classes?
-O
Mournblade94
Hero
Alignment was never meant as a guide for roleplaying. You can have a wide variety of characters within any of the 9 alignments. The alignments are cosmic forces in the D&D world, and characters tend to have traits that reflect those forces. It is inspired by Michael Moorcock who goes into the philosophy in great depth albeit on the LAW vs. CHAOS scale.
The problem comes from people assuming it is a roleplaying guideline. A character that is Lawful good supports beneficial civilization, a character that is chaotic good supports freedom for all. A lawful evil individual desires power the same as a chaotic evil individual but the Lawful Evil character uses the system for his gain, where the chaotic evil character will do whatever is necessary so long as he can somehow become king of the hill.
A chaotic neutral character does not have to be a complete sociopath or indecisive because only random patterns matter to the guy. The CN does not care about anything other than what he wants. If following laws gets him what he wants he will do it. If breaking laws gets him what he wants he will do it.
They are not guidelines, they are cosmic dilineations.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
