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

[Imaro]

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?

This hasn't been true since at least AD&D 2e... there's no restriction, they start with these armor and weapons and can spend resources to expand them... and they certainly don't loose anything for using a weapon or armor not granted by their class.

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.

Apples and Oranges... What compensation does a fighter get for protecting his fellow adventurers? What compensation does a rogue get for testing out trapped items and places? What compensation does a ranger get for scouting ahead? None whatsoever but it's (usually) how someone playing the class is expected to behave and if they don't behave in these archetypical manners either the party or the character is made less effective for it.

 

[Wiseblood]

I just had a thought...What if all paladins fell? (not all of them at once) It may sound cynical. but they get wore down by the evil until they no longer shine. Make them powerful, not just a little but a lot (almost broken). Take it away and never give it back. Make it hard to get and hard to keep. Let them keep some power after the fall that will remind them of what they were. Then DM's will decide if they even want paladins in their game. People who want the restrictions that make paladins worthy of the name get what they want. Also, paladins get to be awesome.


If I waited too long, to make all right that was wrong, it was innocent. (Fireball Ministry)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Ironically it was the way AD&D 'balanced things out' that made it even worse. The paladin was just objectively FAR superior to a fighter, but then somehow its supposed to be made up for with various restrictions. This kind of design invariably works poorly and has a rather horrible track record. The problem is you can't just ditch the restrictions easily. Ironically this would be less of a problem in 4e in a sense, but you still wouldn't want to USE the restrictions to actually restrict the character if such existed, which is why 4e simply dropped them as ridiculous. Given that DDN is espousing a balanced design game how does this work at all? It just doesn't.

The thing is, there ARE qualitative differences between druids, paladins, rangers, rogues, etc. Just because some minor limitation on AD&D rogues or druids wasn't problematic didn't make ALL restrictions fine and workable, nor vice versa. In any case the differences are qualitative. Hide armor is not a matter of role playing. The fact that your character doesn't wear plate armor means very little WRT how the character is played, it just establishes a flavor. The restrictions put on the paladin are FAR different. The player is punished harshly by the virtual destruction of the character, potentially for no more than walking into an impossible situation. I don't really see that much similarity, so IMHO [MENTION=95493]Tovec[/MENTION] has not really provided a very good argument.

 

[Sunseeker]

This hasn't been true since at least AD&D 2e... there's no restriction, they start with these armor and weapons and can spend resources to expand them... and they certainly don't loose anything for using a weapon or armor not granted by their class.

Um....yes, they do. 3e had profeciencies up the wazoo and punishments for not having them. The fact that they can spend resources(feats) to overcome them means nothing because the Paladin cannot spend feats to overcome their alignment restriction. If anything it only shows how much MORE restrictive the code is than anything for any other class.

Apples and Oranges... What compensation does a fighter get for protecting his fellow adventurers?

Since when is that a class feature? Fighters can do a lot of things and are certainly not pigeon-holed into the role of defender.

What compensation does a rogue get for testing out trapped items and places?

Usually, in-game currency...since the BENEFIT of being a rogue is being able to do those things where others cannot.

What compensation does a ranger get for scouting ahead? None whatsoever but it's (usually) how someone playing the class is expected to behave and if they don't behave in these archetypical manners either the party or the character is made less effective for it.

I really just don't know where you're going with this because I was comparing in-game mechanical restrictions on classes to other in-game mechanical restrictions. You're comparing beneficial class features that are neither mandatory nor restrictive. They're complete irrelevent to the discussion. Playing a Ranger doesn't mean you MUST be the scout. Playing the Rogue doesn't mean you MUST be the trap-finder. Playing a Paladin DOES mean you MUST be LG.

You're the one comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Tovec]

There seems to be some confusion. To be clearer, my problem between Side A and Side B was only how they were interpreting, not what the terms of it were.

I personally DO have a problem with how paladins fall and what powers they lose. I always have. In my previous post that is not at all what I was discussing however and as such it has nothing to do with the 'proficiency' posts that have come after. At the moment all I am doing is seeking a solution for the future of the game, not the past.

Now, it seems that one side likes the restrictions of the class, in whatever form they end up being. To that end they see it as essential that those restrictions be the default set up and that if people dislike that option they should ignore it. I am mostly in this camp. I say this without knowing ANY details of how they fall, or what they lose.

The other side seems to dislike any form of restriction (by way of falling); not limited to but including what they lose and under which conditions they lose it. I also agree that this is a problem and something we should look into, as losing everything for a simple slip is not a healthy idea IMHO. I however do not agree, as this camp seems to think, that any set of restrictions here could reasonably be added onto the class after the fact.

In this case as with alignments, I think, it is MUCH harder to add the restriction for roleplaying in than it is to remove that restriction. In one case you have to convince a group of people that the paladin falling and losing their class abilities is a good idea (when I don't really think it is) and getting them to agree (authority to enforce the rule). The other option being that if the rule is the default one that the group can merely decide they are NOT doing that (paladins falling) and then go from there. I see this second option as much more easily accomplished as it does not impose a restriction into an otherwise un-imposed arena.

Again, that has NOTHING to do with the restriction itself, or the details of how they fall, or how a fall is dissimilar or similar to proficiencies or class goals (..and I don't know how we got onto a rogue's armor but whatever..) For those comments, I think you need to refer to my older posts. I leave you all to discuss that aspect, as I'm sure you will to no end. I don't really care right now about that aspect since none of you are writing the rule and it also seems that (for now) they need to work on what WILL be in the paladin class, not what the paladin class is without those abilities.

 

[Balesir]

Now, it seems that one side likes the restrictions of the class, in whatever form they end up being. To that end they see it as essential that those restrictions be the default set up and that if people dislike that option they should ignore it. I am mostly in this camp. I say this without knowing ANY details of how they fall, or what they lose.

The other side seems to dislike any form of restriction (by way of falling); not limited to but including what they lose and under which conditions they lose it. I also agree that this is a problem and something we should look into, as losing everything for a simple slip is not a healthy idea IMHO. I however do not agree, as this camp seems to think, that any set of restrictions here could reasonably be added onto the class after the fact.

In this case as with alignments, I think, it is MUCH harder to add the restriction for roleplaying in than it is to remove that restriction. In one case you have to convince a group of people that the paladin falling and losing their class abilities is a good idea (when I don't really think it is) and getting them to agree (authority to enforce the rule). The other option being that if the rule is the default one that the group can merely decide they are NOT doing that (paladins falling) and then go from there. I see this second option as much more easily accomplished as it does not impose a restriction into an otherwise un-imposed arena.

Speaking for myself, the concern with including restrictions and "fall" mechanisms is mainly that their inclusion provides huge impetus to make the initial class more powerful. After all, the Paladin needs some sort of compensation for taking the burden of restrictions and GM nerfhammer, right? And an alignment restriction brings the need for detecting and protecting from "evil", right? So, all of a sudden, because of one class's demands, we are back to unbalanced classes and mandatory and ingrained alignment, which are very hard to excise from the game if you don't want them (experience of OD&D to 3.x speaking, here).

That's not to say I don't think there's a compromise to be had. I suggested a "fall dice" idea upthread that I think could at least be interesting, and I can see potential for a module that encompasses both more "manifest" alignment and paladin "fall" mechanisms. Basically, roll abilities to detect, smite and protect from "evil" (the team, not the moral concept) into a set of optional paladin powers, and make these the powers they lose if they fall, plus perhaps some "regular" ones as compensation. The same module would have detect alignment etc. spells for other spellcasters, too.

I think that making alignment a mandatory and mechanical part of the game world is (a) disliked by a good number of folks for good reasons, (b) liked by different folks for equally good reasons, (c) hard to remove if woven into the general fabric of the game system but (d) quite suited to treatment in a separate module, for those that want it. Does this make it a part of the "core" or a "houserule"? I honestly don't really care - but it means that those who dislike mechanical alignment don't have to houserule extensively to get rid of it, while those that do like it don't have to make up all the rules pertaining to it.


Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

 

[Imaro]

Um....yes, they do. 3e had profeciencies up the wazoo and punishments for not having them. The fact that they can spend resources(feats) to overcome them means nothing because the Paladin cannot spend feats to overcome their alignment restriction. If anything it only shows how much MORE restrictive the code is than anything for any other class.

SO you agree apples and oranges, a "restriction" I can eliminate if I want is totally different from the type of restrictions Druids, Paladins, Barbarians, etc. have.

Since when is that a class feature? Fighters can do a lot of things and are certainly not pigeon-holed into the role of defender.

I'm not talking about class features, I'm speaking to behavior... and if none of the fighters do this (protect the squishier members of the party) then the party suffers (is punished) by being less effective.

Usually, in-game currency...since the BENEFIT of being a rogue is being able to do those things where others cannot.

So the rogue has to behave a certain way in order to utilize his powers...Hmmm

I really just don't know where you're going with this because I was comparing in-game mechanical restrictions on classes to other in-game mechanical restrictions. You're comparing beneficial class features that are neither mandatory nor restrictive. They're complete irrelevent to the discussion. Playing a Ranger doesn't mean you MUST be the scout. Playing the Rogue doesn't mean you MUST be the trap-finder. Playing a Paladin DOES mean you MUST be LG.

You're the one comparing apples to oranges.

No you were comparing the starting class features of certain classes with actual restrictions that other classes have. Then you spoke to behaviors and I in turn spoke to the behaviors that other classes must enact in order to be empowered by their abilities. The Ranger doesn't have to be the scout, but then he's basically loosing the ability to leverage all those wilderness powers he has... the rogue doesn't have to pick locks, search for traps and steal... but if he chooses not to behave in this manner, again he basically looses his powers since they are based around that behavior. Playing a paladin means if you want to continue leveraging the abilities of a paladin you must behave within the archetypal role of paladin... which in the context of the game is behaving in a LG manner. the problem is that the paladins abilities themselves are in no way based around him acting in the archetypal fashion of a paladin so another method is used in play to encourage this (since contrary to your assertion nothing forces a paladin to act LG).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There seems to be some confusion. To be clearer, my problem between Side A and Side B was only how they were interpreting, not what the terms of it were.

I personally DO have a problem with how paladins fall and what powers they lose. I always have. In my previous post that is not at all what I was discussing however and as such it has nothing to do with the 'proficiency' posts that have come after. At the moment all I am doing is seeking a solution for the future of the game, not the past.

Now, it seems that one side likes the restrictions of the class, in whatever form they end up being. To that end they see it as essential that those restrictions be the default set up and that if people dislike that option they should ignore it. I am mostly in this camp. I say this without knowing ANY details of how they fall, or what they lose.

The other side seems to dislike any form of restriction (by way of falling); not limited to but including what they lose and under which conditions they lose it. I also agree that this is a problem and something we should look into, as losing everything for a simple slip is not a healthy idea IMHO. I however do not agree, as this camp seems to think, that any set of restrictions here could reasonably be added onto the class after the fact.

In this case as with alignments, I think, it is MUCH harder to add the restriction for roleplaying in than it is to remove that restriction. In one case you have to convince a group of people that the paladin falling and losing their class abilities is a good idea (when I don't really think it is) and getting them to agree (authority to enforce the rule). The other option being that if the rule is the default one that the group can merely decide they are NOT doing that (paladins falling) and then go from there. I see this second option as much more easily accomplished as it does not impose a restriction into an otherwise un-imposed arena.

Again, that has NOTHING to do with the restriction itself, or the details of how they fall, or how a fall is dissimilar or similar to proficiencies or class goals (..and I don't know how we got onto a rogue's armor but whatever..) For those comments, I think you need to refer to my older posts. I leave you all to discuss that aspect, as I'm sure you will to no end. I don't really care right now about that aspect since none of you are writing the rule and it also seems that (for now) they need to work on what WILL be in the paladin class, not what the paladin class is without those abilities.

I think there are a few issues, one, maybe the root one, is the notion that games really consist of an authoritarian DM and subsidiary players who follow the DM's lead. Games may TRY to work that way, but in truth the game is always about the player experience (and the DM is a player, no more or less). Its fine if the players want to put the DM in charge of enforcing RP aspects of their characters, but in that case why does it matter if they are 'rules' or 'guidelines'?

Secondly I don't think it is fair to label everyone on "one side" as wanting "no restrictions". I don't think there are two clear sides and I don't think there are very many people who think paladins should just be fighters with different stuff and no RP consequence to their choice of class. At the risk of speaking for other people I doubt there is anyone who holds that view. A paladin is a 'paragon of virtue', we can argue a bit about exactly what that means, and some people will extend the term to include other attributes and causes besides 'virtue', but I think we all understand the basics of what we're going for here. The question is ONLY "what makes that work most effectively". I think there are plenty of ways that restrictions can come into play, but I advance the notion that what we want is a more nuanced approach than "be lawful good or else <mechanical punishment>".

Finally I don't agree with your "easier to remove than add" notion. We've seen by examining the AD&D paladin exactly what that lead to, a class that was 'balanced' on top of a role-play disadvantage, which made it exactly very hard to unravel the whole mess. This is ESPECIALLY problematic in a system like DDN which purports to have balanced classes in the 4e sense of balanced. I think it is far more likely that the thing will work out well if there is no default hard-coded set of simplistic rules for this, and instead the designers explain in the rules what the intent is, what the NARRATIVE ramifications of paladinhood are, and what sorts of mechanical realizations might arise from that in various situations. Its then perfectly fine if one of these points is "well, in SOME games the players may feel that there should be hard restrictions and consequences, like this..." That way the extreme end of the spectrum is cast for what it is and the choice is "pick something along this range".

 

[pemerton]

The other side seems to dislike any form of restriction (by way of falling); not limited to but including what they lose and under which conditions they lose it.

I think there are a few issues, one, maybe the root one, is the notion that games really consist of an authoritarian DM and subsidiary players who follow the DM's lead.

<snip>

I don't think it is fair to label everyone on "one side" as wanting "no restrictions". I don't think there are two clear sides and I don't think there are very many people who think paladins should just be fighters with different stuff and no RP consequence to their choice of class. At the risk of speaking for other people I doubt there is anyone who holds that view. A paladin is a 'paragon of virtue', we can argue a bit about exactly what that means, and some people will extend the term to include other attributes and causes besides 'virtue', but I think we all understand the basics of what we're going for here. The question is ONLY "what makes that work most effectively". I think there are plenty of ways that restrictions can come into play, but I advance the notion that what we want is a more nuanced approach than "be lawful good or else <mechanical punishment>".

What Tovec says does not speak for me, and what AbdulAlhazred says largely does speak for me.

The assumption that the only way to achieve a game in which players will play a paragon of virtue is to make their class abilities hostage to GM adjudication, is in my view deeply flawed. In fact, I know from experience that it is a false assumption. Because - as posted in some detail upthread - I have run multiple campaigns with rich and complex paladin PCs, who forego various expedient options in the pursuit of virtue, without any mechanical threat to their class abilities.

Furthermore, the idea of GM-adjudicated alignment in my view is expressly at odds with the goal of playing a PC who is a paragon of virtue - because it robs the player of the agency to express his/her conception of virtue through play, and instead imposes the GM as a moral arbiter. The suggestion from some that what the GM would be applying would not be "real" morality but "in-fiction" morality only makes things worse, because it means the paladin is no longer a paragon of virtue at all, but rather a GM-directed paragon of some purely imaginary value. For me, that has no point or appeal at all as a character in an RPG.

 

[jrowland]

I think Paladins suffer from "real world" morality. IN the "in-game" fiction, not only does good and evil exist, it has embodiments that are "real" such as demons and angels. In other words, in the D&D fiction, good and evil are drawn with very bright lines. A demon is evil and must be destroyed, banished, stopped, so say the forces of good, full stop.

I think restrictions for a Paladin can be good as long as they stay within the in-game fiction of bright, bold lines. Vague morality must be replaced with very concrete, If-then statements. If you kill a Helpless (helpless condition) creature then you are stripped of your Spells and Channel Divinity, eg. You must always engage what you perceive (knowledge checks, eg) to be the most powerful enemy or else you lose your paladin aura.

Things like that are fairly clear and are not up to the DM. Granted, in weird corner cases, the DM may have to make a ruling, but that is the referee role DMs play, and is more palatable than DM fiat.