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

[Sunseeker]

So you're saying LG doesn't follow laws?

He shouldn't really. The Laws of man are flawed. The Paladin should strive to follow their deity first and foremost. If your deity says "protect the innocent" and your dieties church is persecuting some group of people, then the commands of your deity trump the rules of their church, and you protect those people.

The LG paladin should, ideally follow the "highest law", because doing so is going to keep them both lawful and good in the eyes of their god.

It would truly be an interesting scenario where two LG followers of LG gods ended up being enemies because of interesting code conflicts.

It wouldn't be unrealistic. A paladin of a god who favors freedom and a paladin of a god who favors social order and hierarchy could indeed be enemies. Using Madmage's example....A LG paladin of civilization and order would see an oppressive demonic tyrrany as bad, and thus seek to overthrow it, thus installing a feudal society. A LG paladin of freedom, the arts, and creativity might see a feudal society as just as horrible as a demonic tyrant, favoring a more democratic/libertarian or even communistic society where people are not beholden to landed elites.

Like the paladin code from 3.x???

as far as I recall, the LG 3.x paladin code was awfully inspecific.

Or the code of conduct in 3.x...

I don't honestly remember much beyond "do good, follow the law"....

Why must a paladin follow a deity? He didn't have to in the last 2 editions (not sure about AD&D but he didn't in BD&D either)... if he did then, on top of the paladin's code he's choosing to follow the edicts of that deity as well as his paladin's code... it makes sense that they should not conflict...

Hey, you won't see me complain about magical martial characters. But given that magic is involved, and divine powers are generally granted as opposed to stolen(warlock), natural(sorcerer) or learned(arcane), it makes sense that there should be a source, and they should have variations based on that source(domains work pretty well). But religious ideals can also work, it just depends on how we want to frame the source of the divine power. Is it learned? Is it granted? It is natural?

This is definitely one possibility for a paladin...

I would much rather see deity restrictions than specific alignment restrictions. Because following your god's interpretation of the law and goodness is a lot easier than the DMs.

 

[Madmage]

He shouldn't really. The Laws of man are flawed. The Paladin should strive to follow their deity first and foremost. If your deity says "protect the innocent" and your dieties church is persecuting some group of people, then the commands of your deity trump the rules of their church, and you protect those people.

I'd say he'd respect those rules that are both lawful and good in both letter and spirit. If the laws were just in spirit but not in letter. Say lying is illegal in the local town, but if it incurred a death penalty, the Paladin would not lie himself but if he caught someone in a white lie he'd also be motivated by mercy to let the person "go" because the law is oppressive. If the letter of the law was somehow just while the spirit was not he'd try to convince the authorities to take into account the spirit. For example, a tyrant enacts a law that forces his political enemies to pay a substantial amount of taxes and part of it was used to pay for charitable endeavours to win the popularity of the populace and also weaken his rivals' power, the Paladin would support the law but work to have the populace realize that said political enemies (if good themselves) were responsible for the monies and/or have the law be applied equally to both the tyrant's enemies and the tyrant's allies. Assuming of course the Paladin was not in a position to take down the tyranny in the first place.

It wouldn't be unrealistic. A paladin of a god who favors freedom and a paladin of a god who favors social order and hierarchy could indeed be enemies. Using Madmage's example....A LG paladin of civilization and order would see an oppressive demonic tyrrany as bad, and thus seek to overthrow it, thus installing a feudal society. A LG paladin of freedom, the arts, and creativity might see a feudal society as just as horrible as a demonic tyrant, favoring a more democratic/libertarian or even communistic society where people are not beholden to landed elites.

A good example. Well done!

as far as I recall, the LG 3.x paladin code was awfully inspecific.

The code reads: "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Hey, you won't see me complain about magical martial characters. But given that magic is involved, and divine powers are generally granted as opposed to stolen(warlock), natural(sorcerer) or learned(arcane), it makes sense that there should be a source, and they should have variations based on that source(domains work pretty well). But religious ideals can also work, it just depends on how we want to frame the source of the divine power. Is it learned? Is it granted? It is natural?

The Planescape planar cosmology would offer that Celestia or the planes of Law and Good could bestow those powers too.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'd say he'd respect those rules that are both lawful and good in both letter and spirit. If the laws were just in spirit but not in letter. Say lying is illegal in the local town, but if it incurred a death penalty, the Paladin would not lie himself but if he caught someone in a white lie he'd also be motivated by mercy to let the person "go" because the law is oppressive. If the letter of the law was somehow just while the spirit was not he'd try to convince the authorities to take into account the spirit. For example, a tyrant enacts a law that forces his political enemies to pay a substantial amount of taxes and part of it was used to pay for charitable endeavours to win the popularity of the populace and also weaken his rivals' power, the Paladin would support the law but work to have the populace realize that said political enemies (if good themselves) were responsible for the monies and/or have the law be applied equally to both the tyrant's enemies and the tyrant's allies. Assuming of course the Paladin was not in a position to take down the tyranny in the first place.

Right, it's not like he'd go out of his way to break the law, but I'm saying that he'd follow a reasonable law up until the point it contradicts his god's laws.

The code reads: "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Yeah, I went back and read it over, it's not bad, and I think that with a code of conduct you don't really need an alignment restriction. Just give every deity/religion a short "code of ethics" that anyone who worships that religion must follow. For most LG deities, that means the player is going to be LG anyway. We could then simply restrict what gods different paladins could worship, thus determining their alignment.

The Planescape planar cosmology would offer that Celestia or the planes of Law and Good could bestow those powers too.

Sure, you worship the ideal of good, or the ideal of law, thus your devotion means the source of those things grant you divine powers.

 

[Madmage]

Yeah, I went back and read it over, it's not bad, and I think that with a code of conduct you don't really need an alignment restriction. Just give every deity/religion a short "code of ethics" that anyone who worships that religion must follow. For most LG deities, that means the player is going to be LG anyway. We could then simply restrict what gods different paladins could worship, thus determining their alignment.

From a campaign perspective that works. I am of the opinion that the "generic" Paladin code of ethics is sufficient for the core rulebook. Although I wouldn't object to having additional or more elaborate examples too but they can also fit into another book or even the DMG to help DMs handle PCs.

 

[gyor]

It appears from the latest Q&A they may have more Paladin options in mind, so I'm hoping to see in the next Packet a Holy Liberator Oath.

 

[Sunseeker]

From a campaign perspective that works. I am of the opinion that the "generic" Paladin code of ethics is sufficient for the core rulebook. Although I wouldn't object to having additional or more elaborate examples too but they can also fit into another book or even the DMG to help DMs handle PCs.

Sure, but I expect a core set of deities to be present in the core books. So I figure there should be a little blurb along the lines of "Followers of so-in-so generally do X Y Z."

 

[Jester David]

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. I hate the direction that Wizard's have taken since 4th edition by diluting what makes classes unique and special. I don't want Paladin's being able to smite anything, I want them restricted to smiting evil. 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.

In fairness I will say it's a step in the right direction to have have Lawful only but 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 half agree.
I think a code of conduct makes the paladin what they are: restrictions on behaviour and associations. While the default should lean towards LG, I think a restrictive code advocate LN or even LE is fine as well. Just as long as there's limits on what you can or cannot do with penalties for infraction.

Having to make hard choices and decide between two uncomfortable options, being forced between expediency and what is right... that's the point of playing a paladin. If there are no hard choices, if there is no moral quandary, then the class is diminished.

 

[Obryn]

Having to make hard choices and decide between two uncomfortable options, being forced between expediency and what is right... that's the point of playing a paladin. If there are no hard choices, if there is no moral quandary, then the class is diminished.

Would you argue that the same would hold true for every class?

-O

 

[Sunseeker]

Having to make hard choices and decide between two uncomfortable options, being forced between expediency and what is right... that's the point of playing a paladin. If there are no hard choices, if there is no moral quandary, then the class is diminished.

I don't really see the attraction of moral quandary in playing D&D....or playing a class specifically devoted to it.

 

[Obryn]

I don't really see the attraction of moral quandary in playing D&D....or playing a class specifically devoted to it.

Oh, I think it is great when handled well. "You lost you powers lol" is not handling it well, imo.

Stuff like fate points and aspects? Now we're taking. What's more, something like that isn't restricted to Paladins. Other characters should get to be involved with the "hard moral choices" stuff, too, imo, if that's how they want to play.

-O