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

[MichaelSomething]

Since we're talking about restrictions, how about bringing back level limits for non human races? Heh heh?

 

[Sunseeker]

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

Sure, and I think it's partly an issue of making this stuff known up front before the campaign. Noone wants to play the "gotcha" game. A good DM should be able to give Paladin's fair warning that an action they're considering or currently doing is out of line with their faith. Turning the system into a "paying for penance" because you KNOW you're going to sin and there's no way you can even participate without breaking your faith so you have to atone every other quest really isn't going good places either.

 

[Elf Witch]

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

I on the other hand love the challenge of playing moral quandaries. I am not saying all the time but there are times when it adds a nice dimension to the role playing. It is why paladins are one of my favorite classes to play.


I thought the third edition paladin guideline was simple and straight forward and I found out that with some gamers somethings are never simple.

Take the lying aspect to me it seemed pretty straight forward I can't tell you how many arguments we had over it. To some a paladin could not play a game of chance that had bluffing or even use the little white lies we use to smooth over social situations like not telling the queen who loves her new dress it looks bad. So for a character with a high charisma they are supposed to be played as social bores.

Then the most silly example was not answering an evil guy who flat ask you if you are coming into the city to disrupt the human sacrificial offering to the evil gods. I kid you not the only way into the town was through the front gate and they questioned every one and they would ask are you here to disrupt the offering. The paladin said no and lost his abilities.

I am not sure why some people take everything to such absolutes or see everything as so cut and dried. In Kalamar paladins of the Valiant can't use range weapons they have a code of honor when fighting the DM ruled that the paladin could not flank because that was dishonorable.

I think the best way now to handle paladins is to give examples of codes based on the type of god they serve or idea they serve. And not have certain hard fast things like a paladin never lies. Maybe it would be said a paladin does not lie to avoid responsibility or for personal gain. Also if there is a code of fighting explain what that means and exactly what you can't do. Fighting with honor does not necessarily mean not using good tactics.

I also think it should be hard to lose abilities a paladin should not lose everything because of a small slip to lose all abilities it should be something really major. What I think works is that the paladin can't use healing or protection on himself until he mediates and prays for guidance on what he did to offend his deity.

But I think as long as we want to explore themes of good and evil and honor people will have disagreements so it is best to talk to your players about how things work in your world.

 

[Starfox]

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.

How is this even possible unless the DM actively pushes for it. How can a paladin sacrifice value fort experience, when value should be the basis upon which a paladin's experience is based? By seeking conflict when it is not really necessary? But then, resolving a situation peacefully ought to give at least as much xp as resolving it violently. Perhaps you meant they sacrificed value for material gain?

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.

This sums up the "paladins can be unbalanced because they have a moral code" argument pretty well. Let me just say I do not agree. A paladin that goes this far out of his way to be evil should be an antipaladin (not a problem at at with the 4E paladin, simply pick an evil god in the first place). Most likely, the player never intended to be good and chose to play a paladin solely for mechanical benefit (because the class was unbalanced and he wants the power) and now are "enjoying" that power. A very compelling reason IMO for not having the paladin be unbalanced in the first place. If the paladin is balanced with a fighter, only his powers are focused at fighting evil, this problem would never arise.

But if the DM punishes the player for picking a god who in play does not work out, that is the fault of the source materiel, not the player. It gives a very strong disincentive against playing religious characters. Just the risk of having the DM meddle in your behavior makes people favor other classes. Well, that and that I live in a largely atheist circle of friends.

 

[Starfox]

I think the best way now to handle paladins is to give examples of codes based on the type of god they serve or idea they serve. And not have certain hard fast things like a paladin never lies. Maybe it would be said a paladin does not lie to avoid responsibility or for personal gain. Also if there is a code of fighting explain what that means and exactly what you can't do. Fighting with honor does not necessarily mean not using good tactics.

Thankfully, this seems to be the way the wind is blowing - look at the 3.5 knight and the Pathfinder cavaliers' order codes.

 

[Starfox]

[...] 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.

This is one of the things 4E did well - their short bullet list expressed moral codes better than just an alignment. Then again, I still feel alignment is useful, it just fares well from that kind of elaboration.

 

[Elf Witch]

Thankfully, this seems to be the way the wind is blowing - look at the 3.5 knight and the Pathfinder cavaliers' order codes.

I will have to take a look at the Pathfinder material. I would like to see paladins and clerics for that matter who serve different gods look and act differently. I have always viewed paladins as the divine warrior of their faith or belief. They should be held to a stricter code of behavior than others of their faith. But I could see a paladin say of St Cuthbert being all about smiting evil and wrong doers but a paladin of Pelor be more into trying to redeem before smiting. They are both paladin and an outstanding of example of their faith but with different ways of doing things.

 

[Starfox]

Sadly, the code of the pathfinder paladin is as blunt as it ever was - it it she chavalier orders that are interesting, and the cavalier is a new, entirely mundane class.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/cavalier#TOC-Order-Ex-

 

[pemerton]

You're telling me you've never seen a munchkin paladin only interested in loot?

No.

From what I gather your POV, and maybe I'm misinterpreting this, is that since you are a good paladin player, that everyone else is equally proficient and would never even risk breaking the code

I don't mind a player of a paladin acting wrongly (by their own lights). But I want them to take it seriuosly, and I (as GM) would set up situations in which they have to take it seriously.

But that's perhaps an indicator of the more general sort of game I run.

If I had a player who wasn't interested in the game I was running, I woudn't faff around with codes and alignment to try and make them play seriously. I'd just boot them out!

Or to put it a slightly different way - I don't want a player playing his/her PC any less seriously just because s/he's not playing a paladin!

Just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't then the quest for atonement and/or redemption be such a story consequence?

By a story consequence, I mean something like "All your friends now shun you, and your steed shies away when you try to approach it." The player can choose to have his/her PC live with those consequences, or not - and maybe if s/he doesn't want to some sort of quest is in order. But I want it to be for the player to make the choice.

the Great Wheel or planar cosmology basically defined what were the ideals of alignment. The forces of the multiverse were such that you had an example of what it was to be a paragon in a Lawful good sense (Celestia). What chaotic evil is (the abyss), and the rest of the alignments.

<snip>

The Book of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness (and lesser extent Champions of Valor and Ruin for Forgotten Realms) does go on to define what are truly evil acts based on the alignment system. Torture, regardless of the circumstances was evil. Even if it was in a "means justify the ends" perspective. Why? Because it was a concession of Good to Evil that shifted the planar balance.

That it shifts the planar balance can't be the explanation for it being Evil, can it? - because it is only because it is Evil that it would shift the planar balance. Some other account of the evil of torture therefore seems to be needed.

Likewise for Celestia, the Abyss etc. The reason we can tell that they are paragons of good, evil and the like is only because we already have a conception of good and evil.

(This is the cause of my dislike of mechanical alignment. I don't particularly care to have to apply moral labels to my friends' PCs' behaviour as part of my GMing duties. I might have my own opinions, but I'd rather keep them to myself.)

I really don't see why we need to mollycoddle players for their bad in-game choices with kid gloves.

My players, at least, don't play to listen to my morality lectures!

I also think the idea of mollycoddlng is misplaced. Many years ago now, a paladin PC in the game I was GMing killed his first person at 5th level (if that seems high, the system we were using involved crit rolls - so up until then this PC had never actually got a killing crit against another human - but this time he rolled really high and lopped off his enemy's head). Feeling remorseful, he went out into the wilderness to pray.

I rolled on my random encounter chart to see what turned up, and low and behold it was a (low level) demon. The demon comes up to the praying paladin, and starts taunting him - "You've betrayed your values, you've failed in your vows", that sort of thing. Now, I was expecting the player to reason in the following way: this is a demon; and nothing a demon says can be true; therefore I'm not a failure or a traitor; therefore I can kill it and go back to the rest of the group. But instead the player interpreted the demon as having been sent by the PC's god as a punishment. And so as the demon started wailing on the paladin, the PC took no actions in defence. He simply endured his penance.

Eventually, after beating the paladin into uncosnciousness the demon got bored, and realised there was no one here it could corrupt. So it went off. And the rest of the group went out looking for the paladin, found him and revived him.

That's just an example of the sort of paladin play that I think is hard, if not impossible, to achieve if the play of the class is anchored to the GM's interpretation of alignment and code issues. And I don't think that that particular player was being "mollycoddled".

 

[pemerton]

How is this even possible unless the DM actively pushes for it. How can a paladin sacrifice value fort experience, when value should be the basis upon which a paladin's experience is based?

In the post I quoted I used the word "expedience", not "experience". Did you misread or mistype?