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

[Mournblade94]

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.

Dm's do not babysit the pc's paladin. If however the paladin does something out of line the DM then steps in, just like he would with any other player breaking the 'archetype'.

There is no where in the rules that say a DM must monitor the character.

 

[Obryn]

Dm's do not babysit the pc's paladin. If however the paladin does something out of line the DM then steps in, just like he would with any other player breaking the 'archetype'.

Not "just like." A Fighter doesn't lose his Fighterhood for doing unFighterly things. A Wizard doesn't lose his Wizarding for acting unWizardly. At least, the rules don't encourage this.

-O

 

[Hussar]

Dm's do not babysit the pc's paladin. If however the paladin does something out of line the DM then steps in, just like he would with any other player breaking the 'archetype'.

There is no where in the rules that say a DM must monitor the character.

So, if the DM doesn't monitor the character, why does the DM then enforce falling? If the DM has no need to monitor, then the paladin player is the one who determines whether or not his actions are in keeping with archetype.

I totally agree that a DM should never, ever babysit his players and ever tell them, "You are playing your character wrong."

 

[Libramarian]

So, if the DM doesn't monitor the character, why does the DM then enforce falling? If the DM has no need to monitor, then the paladin player is the one who determines whether or not his actions are in keeping with archetype.

I totally agree that a DM should never, ever babysit his players and ever tell them, "You are playing your character wrong."

I feel like I explained this just before you started posting in this thread--the classic paladin's alignment restriction is best understood as analogous to like...the fighter's inability to cast spells. If a player playing a fighter has them start casting spells, the DM should step in and tell them they're playing their character wrong. This is the type of wrong that a player playing a paladin is when they have their character commit evil acts (chaotic acts are similarly wrong, but slightly less so). They're "cheating" at the game.

This is kind of an oversimplification because it doesn't capture the fact that classic paladin fans (e.g. ForeverSlayer, Gorgoroth I think, myself) do enjoy the flavor of the paladin class and their alignment/conduct restriction; it's not purely enjoyed just because of the game impact. But it explains the main function of the restriction and why the DM rather than the player enforces it.

Or at least I see the game function being primary, the flavor secondary--maybe others see the flavor primary, and the game function as secondary.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Not "just like." A Fighter doesn't lose his Fighterhood for doing unFighterly things. A Wizard doesn't lose his Wizarding for acting unWizardly. At least, the rules don't encourage this.

-O

But a fighter does lose any abilities granted by a diety, just like a paladin. And the dm is not "stepping in." The dm is merely playing the part of npcs just as he's always done. Insult the innkeeper's daughter, and you're liable to lose your inn privileges and be sleeping in the street. Insult your deity and lose your spellcasting privileges. If a paladin jumps in a lake, the dm is not punishing him by declaring his lantern no longer works. Nor is he punishing him by stripping his powers after he burns the orphanage down. He is merely adjudicating the npcs of the world's actions. Actions have consequences, else why even play? If a thief gets caught stealing the crown jewels, should the king just shrug and do nothing? It's the same premise.

 

[Obryn]

Actions have consequences, else why even play?

Nice strawman. Thanks for that.

-O

 

[JRRNeiklot]

And thank you for adding such succinct points to the conversation.

 

[Hussar]

But a fighter does lose any abilities granted by a diety, just like a paladin. And the dm is not "stepping in." The dm is merely playing the part of npcs just as he's always done. Insult the innkeeper's daughter, and you're liable to lose your inn privileges and be sleeping in the street. Insult your deity and lose your spellcasting privileges. If a paladin jumps in a lake, the dm is not punishing him by declaring his lantern no longer works. Nor is he punishing him by stripping his powers after he burns the orphanage down. He is merely adjudicating the npcs of the world's actions. Actions have consequences, else why even play? If a thief gets caught stealing the crown jewels, should the king just shrug and do nothing? It's the same premise.

My paladin (1e) detects evil on someone and gets a ping. He kills that someone. Does he lose his status or not?

 

[Sunseeker]

But a fighter does lose any abilities granted by a diety, just like a paladin. And the dm is not "stepping in." The dm is merely playing the part of npcs just as he's always done. Insult the innkeeper's daughter, and you're liable to lose your inn privileges and be sleeping in the street. Insult your deity and lose your spellcasting privileges. If a paladin jumps in a lake, the dm is not punishing him by declaring his lantern no longer works. Nor is he punishing him by stripping his powers after he burns the orphanage down. He is merely adjudicating the npcs of the world's actions. Actions have consequences, else why even play? If a thief gets caught stealing the crown jewels, should the king just shrug and do nothing? It's the same premise.

There are some strong "buts" here.
First: not all dieties hold the same principles. So a LG paladin means he can only follow a LG good...because obviously a paladin of a Chaotic Good or Neutral Good god is not going to hold your paladin to LG standards that they themselves do not adhere to.
Second: A thief is expected to steal. I mean, that's why they're called a THIEF, a scoundrel or a rogue might not be expected to steal things. And if a thief doesn't steal then he doesn't lose his powers, or his rogue abilities. In fact, rogue abilities are trained, not granted, so even referencing a rogue is completely unrelated!

I mean what other classes with granted powers have alignment restrictions?....well, warlocks. But even then if a warlock follows a law or pisses of their evil patron, they don't instantly lose their powers! I mean, being evil and pissing off your evil patron is pretty much expected.

Of other classes with "granted" powers, there's the cleric and the druid. Now, druids have alignment restrictions, be neutral. But I don't recall them losing their powers for being good, or evil, or lawful or chaotic once in a while. Clerics who are arguably one of the most powerful classes, have no alignment restrictions.

So clearly, power is not a consideration, as the paladin has traditionally been a weak class. RP? Why do we need RP restrictions?

 

[billd91]

Of other classes with "granted" powers, there's the cleric and the druid. Now, druids have alignment restrictions, be neutral. But I don't recall them losing their powers for being good, or evil, or lawful or chaotic once in a while. Clerics who are arguably one of the most powerful classes, have no alignment restrictions.

Depends on which edition we're discussing. In 3e, clerics that violate the alignment or other purposes of their gods could lose their spells and class features. See page 33 of the 3.5 PH.
Druids, by comparison, are generally not held to alignment behaviors. Rather, they are held to other behavioral restrictions - carrying prohibited weapons and armor caused the loss of their spellcasting as well as spell-like and supernatural class abilities.

So clearly, power is not a consideration, as the paladin has traditionally been a weak class. RP? Why do we need RP restrictions?

Because we like them. A paladin who follows the straight and narrow path of righteousness, bound by his oaths before his god. That's awesome mojo to play, right there. It's about art. It's about the meaning of the class. The mechanics are secondary.