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

[JamesonCourage]

Hence my earlier suggestion that alignment restrictions be in a rules modual, in the core still. That way you have the rules for the option, but its not forced on anyone else.

Completely agree.

Wow 53 pages in this thread, not sure what's left to be said. Who expected it to explode like this?

This is one thread I haven't even bothered reading all the way through (rare for me, if I decide to post in a thread). It looked like a long alignment thread... I think I've read enough threads that are the same that I felt I could skip it. But, yeah, it did explode. But, you know, alignment As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

So, there MUST be a hard-coded rule, even though it causes no end of problems out there, otherwise what, mysteriously you can't do what you want?

Literally, yes. There must be a hard-coded rule in order for the mechanics to accurately reflect the fiction I want (that of the Paladin's traditional 'fall' mechanic). It the system doesn't provide for that, then it fails to give the fiction I want.

Now, of course it causes problems for many groups; thus my "keep alignment optional" stance, even if I wouldn't play D&D without it. However, I'm still a big supporter of a Paladin being able to fall (and him being only Lawful Good, in the alignment option).

I would be okay with other options being presented, though. Not even "alternative" options; just other options.

lol. Talk to the players, if they want to have things work that way, then what's the issue? If they don't, then maybe you should rethink your stance...

Well, of course, my players want things to work however I tell them the campaign details are (low magic, gritty, low population, spellcasters distrusted / revered, etc.), with very, very few exceptions; but, they really trust me as the GM, and have expressed that I have a greater vision when it comes to what will make for running an interesting campaign than they do (but I have so much more practice, as a lifelong RPG GM).

But, your solution is "if you want the traditional D&D Paladin 'fall' mechanic, then houserule"? Now, that I consider silly. But that's just me. As always, play what you like

 

[tomBitonti]

To reply to an earlier post: Multiple pages can be viewed as much as evidence of stubborn intransigence as it is taken as evidence of the difficulty of a question. YMMV.

To continue getting back to basics, is there any real disagreement that:

*) The original 1E game strongly put forth that Paladins were LG only, and that there were clear actions (murder, theft, lying to a just authority, lawbreaking, ignoring the plight of an innocent) which would cause a paladin to lose their powers?

*) That there are clear game editions (Eberron, 4E) which did not have a strict alignment system. (Eberron because alignment was largely a social issue: You got your powers regardless. 4E because alignment is subsumed by non-interpreted power key words.)

*) That some of the alignment rules can be a bit wonky (Poison, Positive and Negative Energy tied to alignment, Angel/Devil cross breeds).

*) GMs could play a game of gotcha (community rules prevent me from using a "properly descriptive" term for said GMs).

*) Equally, players could play a game of shrill munchkinism / power gaming / gimme gimme gimme (similar descriptive terms can be applied to said players).

*) There is enough space in the range to allow for quite a variety of games.

*) In the end, the key is a game which empowers and encourages players and GMs to work together to mutual enrichment, and players and GMs have a healthy attitude and respect for each other and the game.

One of the questions that seems to lurk in the discussions is what sort of rules should the proposed new edition have? If the discussions are telling me anything, its that there needs to be room for many styles of play, and "one true rule-ism" is quite counterproductive.

Thx!

TomB

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Literally, yes. There must be a hard-coded rule in order for the mechanics to accurately reflect the fiction I want (that of the Paladin's traditional 'fall' mechanic). It the system doesn't provide for that, then it fails to give the fiction I want.

Now, of course it causes problems for many groups; thus my "keep alignment optional" stance, even if I wouldn't play D&D without it. However, I'm still a big supporter of a Paladin being able to fall (and him being only Lawful Good, in the alignment option).

I would be okay with other options being presented, though. Not even "alternative" options; just other options.

Well, of course, my players want things to work however I tell them the campaign details are (low magic, gritty, low population, spellcasters distrusted / revered, etc.), with very, very few exceptions; but, they really trust me as the GM, and have expressed that I have a greater vision when it comes to what will make for running an interesting campaign than they do (but I have so much more practice, as a lifelong RPG GM).

But, your solution is "if you want the traditional D&D Paladin 'fall' mechanic, then houserule"? Now, that I consider silly. But that's just me. As always, play what you like

Well, these sorts of debates are quite pointless beyond everyone has staked out their position, but it SOUNDS to me like "your way should have to be the houserule, mine shouldn't" lol. No doubt this is mutual. I'd like to have a reasoned discussion presented to the players/DM which can talk about how the participants can develop a story around character obligations in general. Its not like paladins are unique even. Most non-evil characters have some sort of set of morals.

The problem with the whole AD&D-esque approach IMHO was that it destroyed all real debate. The PHB just plopped out this absolutist cause-and-effect statement that admits of no subtlety, provides no guidance either for its application or its story potential, and didn't even advise DMs to let the player know what was up. This wasn't really a highly useful approach. With the right players in the right situation, it could at best be one interesting option. It was simplistic and crude and we can do better. WotC can do better. I challenge Mike Mearls to do better. He has all of the last 20 years worth of RPG design to work with. I dare him to include ONE thing in DDN that isn't a throwback to 1992.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Hence my earlier suggestion that alignment restrictions be in a rules modual, in the core still. That way you have the rules for the option, but its not forced on anyone else.

Or, we could have a core paladin that was fine for 30 something years, and those that want a paladin to not be a paladin but something else and still keep their kewl powerz no matter what can have it in an optional module.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, these sorts of debates are quite pointless beyond everyone has staked out their position, but it SOUNDS to me like "your way should have to be the houserule, mine shouldn't" lol. No doubt this is mutual.

I very much doubt this is mutual. I've said "alignment should be optional; the Paladin fall mechanic needs to exist, but other options can exist alongside it." You've said "don't include the fall mechanic at all; if a group wants it, they can houserule." It is, in fact, your way that is "your way should have to be the houserule, mine shouldn't." It's not my view, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't make it sound like it was my view. Thank you. As always, play what you like

 

[Tovec]

Well, these sorts of debates are quite pointless beyond everyone has staked out their position, but it SOUNDS to me like "your way should have to be the houserule, mine shouldn't"

Actually this is a lot like saying...

Side A: Druids should be nature loving people, who do not wear metal armor and do XYZ. If you do not like this then houserule it out.
Side B: No one should be forced to play a hippy tree-hugger class if they do not want to. If you want to play that freeloader you have to houserule it in.

Then saying sides A and B are the same.

Again, I am not saying that this always applies, but it seem to me that in this case that it is harder to houserule the restriction of paladins or clerics or druids in than it is to houserule it out. I think most of the time it is almost always harder to houserule something weaker or more restrictive than to houserule it more powerful. Perhaps that is just me

 

[Hussar]

Or, we could have a core paladin that was fine for 30 something years, and those that want a paladin to not be a paladin but something else and still keep their kewl powerz no matter what can have it in an optional module.

ROTFLMAO. Core paladin that was fine for 30 years? Where have you been? There are numerous Dragon articles, never mind reams of online threads about how problematic and contentious paladins have been.

Never mind the rather passive/agressive cheap shot that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow an immature moron that only wants his "kewl powerz".

It's comments like this that add nothing to the discussion and only serve to show how disrespectful of other gamers some people are.

 

[Sunseeker]

Actually this is a lot like saying...

Side A: Druids should be nature loving people, who do not wear metal armor and do XYZ. If you do not like this then houserule it out.
Side B: No one should be forced to play a hippy tree-hugger class if they do not want to. If you want to play that freeloader you have to houserule it in.

Then saying sides A and B are the same.

Again, I am not saying that this always applies, but it seem to me that in this case that it is harder to houserule the restriction of paladins or clerics or druids in than it is to houserule it out. I think most of the time it is almost always harder to houserule something weaker or more restrictive than to houserule it more powerful. Perhaps that is just me

Even though it is for more particular thematic reasons, armor and weapon restrictions exist for every class.
Why does the rogue get limited to leather?
Why does the ranger get limited to hide?
Why does the Slayer get scale and the Knight plate?

These things play towards the thematic conceptions of those characters. Rogues are nimble sneaks, therefore lighter armor is better for their line of work. Rangers are hunters of great wild beasts, wearing their skins like trophies; Fighter-Slayers are agile, aggressive combatants and need the extra maneuverability provided by Scale. Knights are stalwart defenders of others, utilizing heavy armor for better protection.

Each of these things plays to the themes of the class, but each of these classes is designed in such a manner as to have ways to overcome their limitations. What rogues lack in AC, they have traditionally made up in high dexterity as a primary stat, and class features such as Evasion to get around wearing weaker armor. Wizards get powerful ranged attacks to counter for their melee squishyness.

So the question is, for the behavior limitations, in what ways are we giving Paladins to compensate? In 1e(from which all this is a holdover) you got better powers than other classes. As it stands, paladins have a limitation, but no corresponding enhancement to balance this out. This is one reason the alignment restriction on Paladins now seems so awkward, because Paladins are receiving no mechanical compensation.

 

[billd91]

So the question is, for the behavior limitations, in what ways are we giving Paladins to compensate? In 1e(from which all this is a holdover) you got better powers than other classes. As it stands, paladins have a limitation, but no corresponding enhancement to balance this out. This is one reason the alignment restriction on Paladins now seems so awkward, because Paladins are receiving no mechanical compensation.

One might argue that since they don't get extra powers to balance an alignment restriction and the potential to fall, then ignoring that aspect of the class as a house rule should be cake.

It's true that the 1e paladin had some quirky restrictions: tithe, magic item limitations, limitations on associates (which also tended to put paladins in groups that wouldn't have lots of alignment conflict - so it's really a wash), and the alignment restriction. But the biggest limitation they had was a fairly slow XP progression. Those days are gone. The alignment restriction since 3.0 days has pretty much entirely been a flavor issue, easily dispensed with if the table so chose.