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

[Weather Report]

Funny thing is, lots of classes in 3e have alignment restrictions, which are every bit as severe as paladins, but they are never enforced.

A barbarian who acts in a lawful manner loses his Rage ability and cannot advance any more as a barbarian. So, if the barbarian player plays his character as always following orders, never acting impulsively, creates elaborate plans, etc. he should be a "fallen" barbarian.

But, it never happens. For some bizarre reason, whenever a player puts Paladin under class, the DM suddenly feels empowered to force his view of how that character "should" be played on that player. But no other class ever has this enforced. It has always boggled my mind.

Sounds like personal bad experiences with (crap) DMs (bummer), as most paladin complaints do seem to be.

 

[Hussar]

Sounds like personal bad experiences with (crap) DMs (bummer), as most paladin complaints do seem to be.

Not really though. Look at this thread. Several people have flat out stated that the DM should be the final arbiter over the paladin. The paladin's actions should be judged by the DM. The DM must police the performance of the paladin character.

I don't play with people that I would ever feel that I have to police their performance. At least, not anymore. If someone steps up to play a paladin, I'm going to trust that player and believe that that player will interpret his own character to the best of his or her ability. I don't need to stand over that player's shoulder, making sure that his character fits with my interpretation of how a paladin should be played. Nor do I ever want a DM to do that to me.

That is my character. I am perfectly capable of portraying my character without being held to account by the DM.

And, as I said, I've yet to ever see a DM hold any other character to even remotely the same level of account. People have asked, what's the difference between a holy fighter and a paladin. Who cares? Really, there should be almost no difference between the two. They are both the exact same archetype. "Holy Warrior of a Diety" is an archetype, not a class. I should be able to fit that archetype with a lot of different classes. Having the DM stand over my shoulder making sure that I play my character right is not going to make a better character nor is it going to make for better play at the table.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Funny thing is, lots of classes in 3e have alignment restrictions, which are every bit as severe as paladins, but they are never enforced.

A barbarian who acts in a lawful manner loses his Rage ability and cannot advance any more as a barbarian. So, if the barbarian player plays his character as always following orders, never acting impulsively, creates elaborate plans, etc. he should be a "fallen" barbarian.

But, it never happens. For some bizarre reason, whenever a player puts Paladin under class, the DM suddenly feels empowered to force his view of how that character "should" be played on that player. But no other class ever has this enforced. It has always boggled my mind.

Sorry but this is comparing apples to oranges.

Barbarians "fall" when their alignment becomes lawful. Changing alignment usually happens only after a long period of consistent behavior. And even then, a chaotic Barbarian would first shift to neutral, which still lets him be a Barbarian and gives him ample prior warning that he's slipping down that slope. Out of nine alignments, Barbarians can be six. Easy-peasy.

But a Paladin can fall just from one single act. No slow shift, no prior warnings, just a switch that gets flicked like turning off a light bulb. Out of nine alignments, Paladins can be just the one.

So I think these are not the same at all.

On top of that, chaos and law is arguably the lesser axis of the 3x3 alignment grid. Either polar end can function perfectly within an adventuring atmosphere, which typically involves a lot of killing and looting. In such an environment it's far more easy to accidentally slip into an evil act than it is to slip into a chaotic one. (And even if it wasn't, performing a single chaotic act can't make a Paladin fall the same way an evil act can. See? The lesser axis.)

 

[Sunseeker]

That is my character. I am perfectly capable of portraying my character without being held to account by the DM.

And, as I said, I've yet to ever see a DM hold any other character to even remotely the same level of account. People have asked, what's the difference between a holy fighter and a paladin. Who cares? Really, there should be almost no difference between the two. They are both the exact same archetype. "Holy Warrior of a Diety" is an archetype, not a class. I should be able to fit that archetype with a lot of different classes. Having the DM stand over my shoulder making sure that I play my character right is not going to make a better character nor is it going to make for better play at the table.

Exactly. If someone wants to play a noble, holy, honorable knightly type, then I, as both a player and a DM, expect them to hold that that concept most of the time. I don't need to babysit their character to ensure they always are, and I don't want to. As DM I may have "final say" over if that guy is breaking from his code, and as DM I have the power to keep a guy who is willfully breaking their own archetype, in line, but I really don't feel that I should NEED to. I don't WANT to have to, and I don't want to feel like a game is telling me that I have to babysit Bob's Paladin for no other reason than Bob played a Paladin.

I trust my players to stick to the type of play they choose to play. If the game is telling me that players are untrustworthy....well, I don't think the game is starting out on the right foot.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Disagree... if part of the archetype of the class the game includes is being punished for certain transactions (as it is with all paladins up to 4e) then I think it is in fact a problem with the game if it doesn't back this up with mechanics.



Again I disagree, look at a game like L5R, the mechanics certainly punish you for not conforming to the correct actions of a samurai in Rokugan (of course if you want a little more leeway you can play a monk). The difference is D&D as a game is not concerned with this type of play on a widescale like L5R, however with the classic paladin it allows any particular player who is interested in that type of play to explore it. D&D in turn also gives plenty of other options to those who do not want to deal with such things... that's why I don't understand why having one class that is built around such things is such a big deal to some.

Because some people want the power of the paladin without the restriction. In my opinion, taking away the restriction and the punishment is like taking the magic away from a wizard, or taking favored enemy away from a ranger, it's a part of the class and it's a part of what separates the class from others. The whole point of the paladin is to be able to function in a magical world with awesome powers all the while keeping your cool and sticking to your morals. The paladin has a built in challenge that needs to stay.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Sounds like personal bad experiences with (crap) DMs (bummer), as most paladin complaints do seem to be.

Really?

 

[Starfox]

Because some people want the power of the paladin without the restriction...

And again, we are back to the power balanced by role-play restrictions problem. The central ill here to me is not that the Paladin has role-playing restrictions, it is that those are motivated to defend an overpowered class.

 

[Sunseeker]

Really?

Since I don't want to dredge that thread, though it was an interesting read, this is one reason I enjoyed the fact that 4e made dealing non-lethal damage a choice, rather than forcing the player to burn a feat on it. My Paladin made extensive use of that option when fighting "common rabble" type enemies.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry but this is comparing apples to oranges.

Barbarians "fall" when their alignment becomes lawful. Changing alignment usually happens only after a long period of consistent behavior. And even then, a chaotic Barbarian would first shift to neutral, which still lets him be a Barbarian and gives him ample prior warning that he's slipping down that slope. Out of nine alignments, Barbarians can be six. Easy-peasy.

But a Paladin can fall just from one single act. No slow shift, no prior warnings, just a switch that gets flicked like turning off a light bulb. Out of nine alignments, Paladins can be just the one.

So I think these are not the same at all.

On top of that, chaos and law is arguably the lesser axis of the 3x3 alignment grid. Either polar end can function perfectly within an adventuring atmosphere, which typically involves a lot of killing and looting. In such an environment it's far more easy to accidentally slip into an evil act than it is to slip into a chaotic one. (And even if it wasn't, performing a single chaotic act can't make a Paladin fall the same way an evil act can. See? The lesser axis.)

You're missing my point. It's not that it isn't easier for a Paladin to fall. I agree with that. It's that no other class EVER falls, nor does any other class have the DM riding shotgun, judging the actions of the player, despite having alignment based restrictions.

I mean, in my example, I have a barbarian that is in no way chaotic, is acting completely lawful (and is that gradual shift thing really a rule in 3e? ) but that's okay, despite the rules specifically saying that it's not. To the point where DM's will defend the one and then condemn anyone who thinks that paladin players are perfectly capable of self policing as munchkin power gamers who only want paladins without restriction a la [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION]. Sorry, but I'm a big boy. I'm perfectly capable of playing my character thank you.

 

[Sage Genesis]

You're missing my point. It's not that it isn't easier for a Paladin to fall. I agree with that. It's that no other class EVER falls, nor does any other class have the DM riding shotgun, judging the actions of the player, despite having alignment based restrictions.

I mean, in my example, I have a barbarian that is in no way chaotic, is acting completely lawful (and is that gradual shift thing really a rule in 3e? ) but that's okay, despite the rules specifically saying that it's not. To the point where DM's will defend the one and then condemn anyone who thinks that paladin players are perfectly capable of self policing as munchkin power gamers who only want paladins without restriction a la @ForeverSlayer. Sorry, but I'm a big boy. I'm perfectly capable of playing my character thank you.

Alright.

First, I still feel it's not very relevant to bring up the "fall-ratio" for other classes, because their restrictions are far, far more forgiving than a Paladin's. That's what I was getting at.

But more to the point, I do overall agree that forcing a Paladin to fall in the first place is undesirable. A lot of DMs are quite trigger-happy with making Paladins fall, too.