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

[pemerton]

I don't see alignment as a special landmine for DM-player conflict, to me it's just another form of pixelbitching--as with any challenge in the game, the DM should never force the players to keep searching for the perfect solution if they've already thought of a reasonable alternative solution.

I couldn't imagine playing alignment that way - it pushes so strongly against my deep insincts about the aesthetic point of brining moral considerations into the game - but I can't deny it's an interesting approach! On this approach, presumably there's no need for the advice that's been common at least since 2nd ed AD&D (and that was official in 3E), of avoiding evil PCs.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is interesting - and reminds me a bit of MHRP milestones. 4e tackles it in a slightly different way - if you build a paladin, your PC won't really fire on all cylinders unless you start putting yourself in harm's way and otherwise doing things to take the burden (especially the burden of combat) off your friends.

To avoid the problem of expedience, you have to frame things in the way you have (or 4e does) - it's take a risk to earn the boon - not trade off this resource (my suite of PC abilities) for a chance at this other, shinier, resource (but I can only get it by breaking the code).

Insight check successful. It reminds you of that because that is the chassis! Something akin to it would be compelling in play as a carrot (that is clear, non-negotiable, and the player is empowered to invoke) is better than a stick (that is nebulous, unwieldy, and for those reasons, and the fact that it jars intra-party balance, it is typically never even deployed by the GM as a quality control mechanism).

Or. You could just eschew overt alignment restrictions altogether and create a tightly wound, thematic archetype from which deviation by the player is "self-defeating" due to the layout of its powers; therefor "ethos by proxy" a la 4th edition.

 

[Imaro]

I can't really relate to this at all, from the PC perspective. When I'm playing a paladin, there isn't anything worth risking severing my tie with the divine over, because the divine is the first principle of, and the measure of, all value - so nothing can be worth more than it. An appearance that things are otherwise must be illusory, and it's my job (speaking here as the character) to pierce that illusion - with the help of the divinity, of course.

If that's how you choose to play a paladin then more power to you but that's one of numerous personalities a paladin could have. IMO, it's human nature to question things, and if every paladin were like the one you choose to play then no fallen paladins would ever exist... and we know that's not the case.

I can see how the decision you mention makes sense in an out-of-game way - will I get some mechanical benefit, or some improvement in my fictional positioning (eg access to this awesome keep or alliance or whatever), that is worth trading off my class abilities. But I'm personally not a big fan of that style of play, especially when I'm playing a paladin.

Not sure how an in-game choice which may or may not result in my divine powers being taken away permanently or temporarily is in any way an out-of-game-way of playing...especially when it is for the most part centered around moral decisions... From the previous paragraph and this one I would say you're dis-satisfaction with the paladin may be because of the way you choose to approach the class... which is great if that's how you want to view and play a paladin, but it's by no means the only way to approach and play the class.

I agree with your post, even though personally I'm less interested in Judge Dredd and more interested in the tormented hero.
To elaborate: if I (speaking as my paladin PC) deviate from the divine will, in pursuit of some greater good, then there are two possibilities that I can see. One is that I was right, and hence that the divine will wasn't all its cracked up to be. In which case why should I suffer a loss of power? - such a feeble divinity hardly seems the sort of thing able to strip someone as insightful as me of their power! The interesting play here is not in losing my abilities, but rather in dealing with the revelation that the so-called divinity was really a fraud.

Alternatively, the divinity was right and I misjudged. In which case realisation of my error is penalty enough (and grist for the playing out of the torment), and there is no need to strip me of my power as well.

How about an option C? How about there isn't a right answer, but instead you choose whether the power offered by the divine being and it's desired approach are worth your obedience and service? If it gave you the power to enforce its will and you choose not to... why wouldn't it take it's power away (and I find it hard to believe that beings on a divine level would not have a fail-safe in place for traitors.).

In other words, and stepping out of character and back into metagame-speak, whichever way I'm interested in going as a player of a tormented hero, I don't need to be stripped of my power - and hence my functionality as a PC - to make it work.

Well there was the original, replace them with fighter levels rule... so effectiveness just becomes different.

That's probably true for most RPGers. But not all consequences have to be mechanical, or otherwise pertain to PC effectiveness, to be relevant.

For a certain subset of players they do. Also we aren't talking about all consequences...just one.

My own view is that the approach you're advocating makes the paladin essentially expedient - they adhere to the code until a better deal comes along! That's probably a fair picture of the actual process of conversion to Christianity of the Germanic proto-knights during the Dark Ages, but for me it's not the Galahadian archetype I want from a paladin.

Or...they adhere to the code and accept the power until faced with a moral question which their code and personal beliefs don't answer in the same way.

What I'm more interested in is finding out whether or not the paladin is expedient. And to discover that, you have to give the player the option of adhering to the code for no benefit. And conversely, the consequence of breaking the code isn't mechanical disadvantage - it's finding out that, after all, you were expedient and hence not so above the day-to-day fray as you might have thought.

If,as you said above, the paladin believes himself always right and never questions the code... how do you explore this? You said nothing would make you question it...

 

[DEFCON 1]

... which was kind of silly. If you don't want people to play paladins, why not, err, not put them in the core rulebook?

It's not that they didn't want people to play paladins, it's that I think they wanted it to be special when they were played.

If everyone could just do it at the drop of a hat, then playing one wasn't a big deal. But putting this artificial barrier into place made it a big deal when it could happen. After all... for those first five years of AD&D's existence... the number of times you might roll attributes for a new character would not be that large at that point. Thus... the first time you might see someone actually succeed in rolling the numbers to play a paladin was a big deal... and more often than not... a player might actually choose to play a pally even when that wasn't their intention, if for no other reason that they didn't want those rolls to go to waste.

But like with all things that have been around for long lengths of time... once the novelty of seeing a paladin being played had worn off... that barrier was now protecting something that most players (and the folks at TSR/WotC) didn't really feel needed protecting anymore. So the removal of alignment restrictions and attributes was just bringing the rules in line with how most players were already playing the game anyway.

 

[Dausuul]

It's not that they didn't want people to play paladins, it's that I think they wanted it to be special when they were played.

If everyone could just do it at the drop of a hat, then playing one wasn't a big deal. But putting this artificial barrier into place made it a big deal when it could happen. After all... for those first five years of AD&D's existence... the number of times you might roll attributes for a new character would not be that large at that point. Thus... the first time you might see someone actually succeed in rolling the numbers to play a paladin was a big deal... and more often than not... a player might actually choose to play a pally even when that wasn't their intention, if for no other reason that they didn't want those rolls to go to waste.

But like with all things that have been around for long lengths of time... once the novelty of seeing a paladin being played had worn off... that barrier was now protecting something that most players (and the folks at TSR/WotC) didn't really feel needed protecting anymore. So the removal of alignment restrictions and attributes was just bringing the rules in line with how most players were already playing the game anyway.

Also worth noting, the toughest requirement for an AD&D paladin was 17+ Charisma. Before 3E, Charisma was widely (and justifiably) regarded as a useless dump stat; the paladin class gave people a reason to get excited about a high Charisma roll, especially if you were using a "roll in order" approach.

 

[pemerton]

From the previous paragraph and this one I would say you're dis-satisfaction with the paladin may be because of the way you choose to approach the class

I'm not dissatisfied with the paladin at all. The paladin, or variations on it (monks, other forms of religious/devoted types) are my favourite class to play by quite a way. And my favourite class to GM.

My dissatisfaction is entirely with traditional D&D alignment rules.

How about there isn't a right answer, but instead you choose whether the power offered by the divine being and it's desired approach are worth your obedience and service?

For me, that is the viewpoint of a warlock, or of a classical augur. I don't associate it with the archetype that the paladin draws upon.

Or...they adhere to the code and accept the power until faced with a moral question which their code and personal beliefs don't answer in the same way.

For me, this is the viewpoint of a modern person faced with a conflict between personal and role morality. I don't associate it with the archetype that the paladin draws upon. That's not to say the paladin can't suffer conflict - look at Lancelot - but the confict is within the moral framework of devotion (in his case, between the truth of his love for Arthur, and the truth of his love for Guinevere - truth is a pre-eminant value, but Lancelot is caught in a conflict of truths).

If,as you said above, the paladin believes himself always right and never questions the code... how do you explore this? You said nothing would make you question it...

I was speaking there as a GM rather than a player. I've had players who have, in playing their PCs, sacrificed value for expedience. Including religious PCs. At least in my experience it really does make them feel more like warlocks! - they turn from devotees to pact-makers.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not dissatisfied with the paladin at all. The paladin, or variations on it (monks, other forms of religious/devoted types) are my favourite class to play by quite a way. And my favourite class to GM.

My dissatisfaction is entirely with traditional D&D alignment rules.

I'm sorry, I should have specified pre 4e paladins...

For me, that is the viewpoint of a warlock, or of a classical augur. I don't associate it with the archetype that the paladin draws upon.

What archetype is this? Because nothing in the class description makes the paladin a mindless robot who never questions himself or his faith. In the same way a knight can choose to serve a lord (and gain the benefits of it), a paladin still has choice.

For me, this is the viewpoint of a modern person faced with a conflict between personal and role morality. I don't associate it with the archetype that the paladin draws upon. That's not to say the paladin can't suffer conflict - look at Lancelot - but the confict is within the moral framework of devotion (in his case, between the truth of his love for Arthur, and the truth of his love for Guinevere - truth is a pre-eminant value, but Lancelot is caught in a conflict of truths).

You do realize D&D does not equal "earth in the past" right? So I'm confused as to what the viewpoint being modern or not matters especially since there is plenty of fantasy that espouses modern viewpoints concerning morality?? As to your example... I think it's loyalty vs. love (same as the conflict Anakin faces as a Jedi), but then it ultimately depends on what version of the story you reference.

I was speaking there as a GM rather than a player. I've had players who have, in playing their PCs, sacrificed value for expedience. Including religious PCs. At least in my experience it really does make them feel more like warlocks! - they turn from devotees to pact-makers.

Again, it seems you have chosen your own vision of what a paladin should be as opposed to what is or isn't a part of the class description and mechanics. In 3.5 a paladin can fail to recognize his potential as a paladin, or even deny his call to paladinhood. In other words, while having the potential to be a paladin... a paladin also still has free will. While the paladin in 4e is just a warrior who pledges to fight for a divine cause in return for having rituals performed upon him that grant him divine power... if anything the 4e divine-merc paladin is the most similar to a warlock.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

I'd like to distinguish three issues here:

One is mostly semantic. Does the game allow a Paladin who is not LG? As the powers of the defined Paladin tend to a LG sort, that probably would require alternate powers depending on alignment. The issue becomes whether the varieties should be called Paladins, or should be called something else. I view this as an uninteresting question and prefer to dispense with it and immediately move on the the second issue.

The second issue is about tying Alignment to mechanics. Replacing Paladin with Divine Crusader, with Paladin as a specific subtype, then, if we presume that a player when selecting a Divine Crusader selects a Deity and an alignment, then can we tie game mechanics to considerations of whether the player follows the alignment? Should we make such a tie? Should alignment be a social issue rather than a game mechanic question (as is largely done in Eberron).

As a third issue, how is it decided that a player breaks their alignment. Is that only under very specific and enumerated circumstances (say, a LG cleric casting a spell with the *Evil* descriptor) or can the GM intercede and interpret the players actions without a narrowly defined in-game action?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Gorgoroth]

"How about an option C? How about there isn't a right answer, but instead you choose whether the power offered by the divine being and it's desired approach are worth your obedience and service? If it gave you the power to enforce its will and you choose not to... why wouldn't it take it's power away (and I find it hard to believe that beings on a divine level would not have a fail-safe in place for traitors.)."

My thoughts exactly. If any servant of a god displeases them in any way, bam, powers/spells/whatever removed. Paladins should get extra boons that most can't attain, because they are not worthy morally, physically, or spiritually to be an earthly representative, or "avatar" if you will, of that god. The downside should be a strict code and if you don't follow it, you lose any magical powers until you atone. If you don't wish to play under such restrictions, don't play a paladin. (or cleric). I fail to see how / why an LG god about protecting the weak would be pleased if his followers were using his granted spells to burn villages, or steal, and so on.

And yes, in play, you often do see a dichotomy worthy of "fallen paladin needing to atone", even for unintentional things. You took that last piece of bread that belonged to an old man, he died, bam, you need to get on your knees and BEG for forgiveness. If you can't stomach it, join another church and "convert" to an order with a less strict code. RP restrictions don't need to be ridiculous, and yeah the "lawful" questions of which laws do you obey, the earthly laws or the divine ones, or some personal one, are up to the campaign DM and player to resolve, probably before swearing the oath in the first place. After all, you don't sign a contract without reading the fine print first, do you?

What I see a lot in this "let's remove alignment and all RP restrictions" is that players want to play brutal rogues who have paladin powers, i.e. false paladins. Nuh uh, your god knows what's in your mind, his eye is on the sparrow so to speak. And even if you do something wicked through negligence, that shouldn't automatically protect you from having to atone either. A stupid, thoughtless fool who isn't mindful of the repercussions of his actions isn't really champion material, is he.

Stat requirements should be, IMO, 14 10 10 10 12 14 for a paladin. You need to be strong to wield a sword in plate armor, first. You can't be a fool (int can't be negative, has to have some kind of wisdom), and must be charismatic but not necessarily Elvis. 4e incentivised you to pump charisma, even dumping str entirely (yuck), by giving you charisma-based attack powers. ugh...I knew at the beginning of playing my 4e paladin that cha builds were superior (before DP came out), but I could not force myself to do it. Charisma should be good mostly outside of combat, and perhaps useful to taunt during combat. But not to attack. I'm so glad melee attack stats are now strength or dex, period. Good fighters need to be strong or dextrous, and a paladin should be strong for sure.

 

[pemerton]

I'm sorry, I should have specified pre 4e paladins...

I've barely played a 4e paladin - I almost exclusively GM that game - but was thinking of pre-4e D&D play, plus play in other fantasy systems.

Not everyone agrees that alignment is essential to the pre-4e paladin - for instance, way back in Dragon 101 there was an article ("For King and Country") that had a big impact on me, and among other things explained how the paladin would run better (for me, at least) without alignment.

What archetype is this? Because nothing in the class description makes the paladin a mindless robot who never questions himself or his faith.

A paladin can doubt his faith, sure. But in my personal conception of the archetype (Lancelot, Galahad, etc, and certain readings of some other very famous historical figures) the paladin can question his faith in the mode of questioning the worth of anything ("My lord, why have you forsaken me?") but not in the mode of judging something else more valuable than the object of faith. The fallen paladin, in this conception, is either led into self-delusion by confict (like Lancelot) or led into nihilism ("Evil, be thou my good!").

You do realize D&D does not equal "earth in the past" right? So I'm confused as to what the viewpoint being modern or not matters especially since there is plenty of fantasy that espouses modern viewpoints concerning morality

The only modern fantasly literature I know is Tolkien, Dragonlance, REH and HPL. The latter two don't have paladins - they're unrelentingly modernist, and modernism has no room for paladins.

Dragonlance is best passed over in silence, but Tolkien, in Aragorn, has a powerful model of paladinhood. It's also completely anti-modern ("The hands of the king are the hands of a healer" - it's hard to get more anti-democratic than that!).

I know D&D is not about "earth in the past", but when I play a paladin I'm wanting to engage with the pre(anti-?)modern, romantic archetype that's at the core of the class.

Again, it seems you have chosen your own vision of what a paladin should be as opposed to what is or isn't a part of the class description and mechanics.

I want the mechanics to realise - or at least to leave room for - the archetype as I understand it. The archetype is clear to me - whether it should be modelled with a circle of protection 10' radius, or Smite Evil, or something else, is pretty secondary to me. (Though I think the bonus to defences/saves, and laying on of hands, are both pretty important - perhaps they have to stay if the class is to fit the archetype.)

Others are free to play as they like, of course. I'm not stopping them, and have no desire to! I just want the game to have room for me too.