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

[pemerton]

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.

My problem with this is that saying it doesn't make it so. I mean, you can tell me that in the D&D fiction pi = (exactly) 22/7, or that Ioun can square circles with nothing but compass and ruler, but I'm not buying it.

I mean, if the paladin kills the orc babies, which side of the bright line is that on? If the GM makes one call and the player makes another, where does that leave us? If the player goes along with the GM, s/he is no longer playing a PC who is a paragon of virtue - s/he is playing a PC who is a paragon of some fictional value that the GM is putting forward as the touchstone for the campaign. But such a character has been stripped of (what is for me, at least) the defining feature of a paladin.

A demon is evil and must be destroyed, banished, stopped, so say the forces of good, full stop.

Sure, that's not hard. And if you want to play a bright line game, one way to do so is to set up the game so stuff like the orc babies never comes up. But in that case, you probably don't need falling rules either.

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

The problem with these statements is that, for those players who don't agree with them as expressions of virtue, they undermine the most important feature of a paladin, namely, that s/he is a paragon of virtue!

To put it another way, for some players any particular set of restrictions will be purely arbitrary. Whereas the whole point of the paladin's restrictions is that they're not arbitrary (and so are quite unlike many geases or taboos) - they are restrictions that exemplify the paladin's virtue, and his/her commitment to truth and to the good.

 

[billd91]

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.

Nobody is robbed of any moral agency because they have a yardstick to measure themselves by in the alignment system and the paladin's code. They're fully capable of making meaningful choices, including the possibility of taking on a significant negative consequence if that is what they wish to explore with their actions.

 

[Hussar]

The problem, [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91, is that the only choice I have is, "Will the DM believe X or Y". How is that meaningful if I want to explore morality?

Sure, I can explore the DM's take on morality. That has its points. But, what if I want to explore my own interpretations of morality?

 

[billd91]

The problem, [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91, is that the only choice I have is, "Will the DM believe X or Y". How is that meaningful if I want to explore morality?

Sure, I can explore the DM's take on morality. That has its points. But, what if I want to explore my own interpretations of morality?

And just how are you "exploring morality" in a way that is different without an alignment system and paladin's code vs with one? What exactly is the difference? Because you get to commit acts that the system would call evil without consequences? Is that really "exploring morality" in a different way or is it just getting away with stuff that would lead to sanctions in the other system?

 

[JamesonCourage]

And just how are you "exploring morality" in a way that is different without an alignment system and paladin's code vs with one? What exactly is the difference? Because you get to commit acts that the system would call evil without consequences? Is that really "exploring morality" in a different way or is it just getting away with stuff that would lead to sanctions in the other system?

This is kinda where I land on it. You can explore morality either way, regardless of the in-game, fictional morality system. But, I do understand pemerton's objections to it; I just don't think that it's somehow impossible to explore morality because of a 'fall' mechanic, or an alignment system. (Again, I'd prefer alignment be totally optional, even if I wouldn't play without it.) As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Nobody is robbed of any moral agency because they have a yardstick to measure themselves by in the alignment system and the paladin's code.

I don't understand this. The yardstick replaces their own judgement - which is, precisely, depriving them of the opportunity to make their own moral judgements.

They're fully capable of making meaningful choices, including the possibility of taking on a significant negative consequence if that is what they wish to explore with their actions.

But they are obliged to accept that those choices were at odds with what virtue requires. That is, someone else's judgement is substituted for their own. This is either the GM's judgement - ie GM as moral arbiter - or is some fictional determination of what virtue means in the gameworld - ie paladin is no longer an examplar of virtue, but rather some (in my personal view largely uninteresting) fictionally-characterised persona.

And just how are you "exploring morality" in a way that is different without an alignment system and paladin's code vs with one? What exactly is the difference? Because you get to commit acts that the system would call evil without consequences?

Because rather than the system (as mediated via the GM) telling you what virtue requires, you can work this out for yourself.

Is that really "exploring morality" in a different way or is it just getting away with stuff that would lead to sanctions in the other system?

I don't understand these repeated references (by other posters also) to "getting away with stuff".

I posted an example upthread - the paladin PC ends up bound by a promise given in his name by his agents without his approval, and hence has to spare the life of a prisoner that he believed deserved execution. This has nothing to do with "getting away with stuff". It is about the player expressing his own judgement about the priority of honour over justice, at least for that character in that context.

As with all such judgements, if the code/alignment rules leave it open then they add nothing; if they foreclose the evaluative question, then they are an obstacle to the player making his/her own judgement.

And as I (and others) said way upthread - if you want the code in your game because otherwise the players of paladins won't play their PCs as honourable warriors, you've got social contract problems that are probably better adressed out of game rather than via the alignment mechanics.

EDIT: Maybe some people see the paladin's code as no different from any old geas or taboo - an essentially arbitrary suite of restrictions which cannot be violated less magical blessing be lost. Whereas I see them as clearly not arbitrary, and rather as necessary to living a life as an exemplar of valour and honour.

 

[Hussar]

And just how are you "exploring morality" in a way that is different without an alignment system and paladin's code vs with one? What exactly is the difference? Because you get to commit acts that the system would call evil without consequences? Is that really "exploring morality" in a different way or is it just getting away with stuff that would lead to sanctions in the other system?

What? Who said that you wouldn't have an alignment system or a code?

The difference here isn't between a paladin with a code and one without one. The difference here between a paladin with a code and a paladin with a code that is dictated to him and adjudicated by the DM.

At no point does the paladin not have a code.

Unless you feel that the only way a player will actually play a paladin "properly" is if you stand over his shoulder with a stick and whack him with it any time he steps outside your view of what the paladin should be. Is that what you feel?

 

[jrowland]

not[/I] arbitrary (and so are quite unlike many geases or taboos) - they are restrictions that exemplify the paladin's virtue, and his/her commitment to truth and to the good.

The whole damn game is arbitrary for "some players". Vancian Magic? arbitrary. 6 second rounds? arbitrary.

But there is a world of difference between the arbitrariness of DM fiat at the table mid-game, and something pre-defined well before you roll a character.

Define the Paladin restrictions with bright, bold lines, in the core. Let players and DMs discuss nuance as an "advanced" module for their game table.

 

[jrowland]

I don't understand this. The yardstick replaces their own judgement - which is, precisely, depriving them of the opportunity to make their own moral judgements.

I think personal, PLAYER, moral judgements is a bad place for a GAME that is designed for BROAD appeal for ages 12 and up. Explore it at your table, by all means. I would enjoy it myself. But I want the game "pieces" to have a yardstick that that I could measure. Morality as a stat like strength is fine. Its a game.

 

[billd91]

What? Who said that you wouldn't have an alignment system or a code?

The difference here isn't between a paladin with a code and one without one. The difference here between a paladin with a code and a paladin with a code that is dictated to him and adjudicated by the DM.

At no point does the paladin not have a code.

Then what is the difference?

Unless you feel that the only way a player will actually play a paladin "properly" is if you stand over his shoulder with a stick and whack him with it any time he steps outside your view of what the paladin should be. Is that what you feel?

What happens when you step outside the code? Do you impose the loss of paladinhood yourself, the need for penance, the need for atonement? There's no reason you can't do that with a mechanical code that the GM administers as well. So what difference do you really expect to see?