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

[billd91]

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.

Of course it doesn't. Having a yardstick just gives them a bit more precision about what they can expect some consequences, if any, to be.

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.

The paladin's requirements are designed to be virtuous. Why would virtue require something else? If that's the case, then it's not a D&D paladin you want to play. How is someone's judgment of the consequences of actions preventing the paladin player from making his own moral decisions?

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

Aren't the definitions and expectations of the morals qualities you are working toward going to tell you an awful lot about what virtue requires? What are you working out for yourself - which specific moral qualities to work toward? If that's the case, are you really just complaining that the paladin's code is already set in the lore of the game rather than built at character design time?

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.

Clearly, upholding his code (the truthfulness certainly appears to be in line with the classic paladin's code in D&D) isn't "getting away with anything" since he's acting in line with his code. In that case, there's no difference whatsoever in how the event played out. The character played within his code. The question here is what happens when the PC acts against his or her code. If exploring morality means you can't have consequences imposed by the game's referee, it sounds really like you just don't want to suffer the inconvenience of your PC breaking his vows.
Or is this a really a question of "the kind of person you are is determined by how you act... when you think there's nobody watching you"? That your morality can best be measured when there's no authority around? Frankly, I don't believe I've ever subscribed to such cynicism.

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.

How? Does the existence of a code and external judgment of the consequences of breaking it stop the player from deciding to break it? It doesn't. It does, however, give them information enough to know what some of the consequences of the actions are.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Sure, why not? If I take an action which violates the code in my own view, why would I not take the penalties myself? That's the whole point of roleplaying. I shouldn't need someone standing over my shoulder making sure that I play my character right.

The difference has been shown pretty clearly in this thread. If I play in your game, my paladin loses his status. If I play the exact same paladin in another DM's game, I don't. Both DM's are playing by the rules. Both DM's are reasonable and good DM's. Yet, because of interpretation, I get mutually exclusive results depending on whose table I play at.

So, no, I'm not exploring the code or morality. The only thing I can explore is your interpretation of that code.

If, OTOH, my paladin has a code that is not enforced by the DM, I can play my character, and judge his actions based on my own interpretation of the code.

 

[pemerton]

Does the existence of a code and external judgment of the consequences of breaking it stop the player from deciding to break it? It doesn't. It does, however, give them information enough to know what some of the consequences of the actions are.

It gives them information about what they have to do to avoid losing PC abilities. But it doesn't provide them with any reason to accept that moral judgement over their own. Speaking frankly, when I play a paladin I trust my own judgement as to what virtue requires to that of any GM. And when I am GMing, I am not interested in telling my players what I think virtue requires. They're intelligent adults - they can make those judgements themselves.

There seems to be some assumption here that players whose paladins aren't policed won't remain virtuous - but it's only in a certain sort of rather gamist play (like that which [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] has described upthread) where it is a disadvantage to act virtuously, and hence where a player has a conflict of interest that would get in the way of self-guiding paladin play.

But in a non-gamist game - be it simulationist, or more narrativist - there is no particular advantage to be gained by acting non-virtuously, so why would we expect an unpoliced paladin to break the code?

Having a yardstick just gives them a bit more precision about what they can expect some consequences, if any, to be.

But those consequences are, ostensibly, consequences of failing to uphold virtue. So the yardstick replaces the player's own judgement as to what upholding virtue requires.

The paladin's requirements are designed to be virtuous. Why would virtue require something else?

<snip>

How is someone's judgment of the consequences of actions preventing the paladin player from making his own moral decisions?

The point is, if the player thinks that X is virtuous, and the other person (ie the GM) disagrees, the GM's judgement prevails. But why should I take the GM's view of what virtue requires more seriously than my own? Or, when I'm GMing, why would I want to prioritise my view of what virtue requires over that of my players?

Aren't the definitions and expectations of the morals qualities you are working toward going to tell you an awful lot about what virtue requires? What are you working out for yourself - which specific moral qualities to work toward?

No. My players are working out for themselves what virtue requires, rather than asking me as GM. That is, they are exercising their own moral and aesthetic judgement.

Clearly, upholding his code (the truthfulness certainly appears to be in line with the classic paladin's code in D&D) isn't "getting away with anything" since he's acting in line with his code.

The paladin is also committed to justice. Which in the story I described has not been realised - a wrongdoer has not received the punishment she deserved.

In that case, there's no difference whatsoever in how the event played out.

There is a huge difference - not necessarily in outcome, but in play experience. Rather than the player guessing (or asking) me as GM what virtue requires, and then acting expediently to preserve his PC's powers, the player agonised and argued with the other players before reaching a conclusion that truthfuness had to be upheld, even if that meant compromising justice.

The player's decision for his PC was motivated not by an instrumental concern - of keeping his PC's powers - but by a conception, worked out in the course of play, of what his PC should do in the situation, given his PC's commitment to virtue.

The question here is what happens when the PC acts against his or her code. If exploring morality means you can't have consequences imposed by the game's referee, it sounds really like you just don't want to suffer the inconvenience of your PC breaking his vows.

If one of my players played a vow-breaking paladin, I'm fairly confident that that player could play out consequences (eg as I described upthread, with the player who took his PC out into the wilderness to be beaten to a pulp by a demon).

 

[Bluenose]

Define the Paladin restrictions with bright, bold lines, in the core.

What happens when you step outside the code?

The restrictions, the code. Because there's only one conceivable way to be Lawful Good.

 

[billd91]

The restrictions, the code. Because there's only one conceivable way to be Lawful Good.

Patently false. Even if there's one paladin code, there are lots of variation within it. Some of the greatest creativity comes when working within restrictions. I've played near-pacifists, straight-forward ass kickers, and am working on an undercover agent against Chellish slavery (I don't have the undercover skills yet because I haven't had a chance to multiclass yet) all as paladins. And I've GMed forthright knights, laid-back archers, and singing defenders - also all paladins. And all adhering to the code but with substantially different results.

 

[Bluenose]

Patently false. Even if there's one paladin code, there are lots of variation within it. Some of the greatest creativity comes when working within restrictions. I've played near-pacifists, straight-forward ass kickers, and am working on an undercover agent against Chellish slavery (I don't have the undercover skills yet because I haven't had a chance to multiclass yet) all as paladins. And I've GMed forthright knights, laid-back archers, and singing defenders - also all paladins. And all adhering to the code but with substantially different results.

If there's that many different ways to behave while adhering to a code, it's rather hard to justify someone else's paladin falling because You-the-GM don't like what they do. Writing one Code for all the different deities with paladins isn't terribly plausible either.

 

[Hussar]

But, Bluenose, you have to realize that for some here, if the paladin isn't policed by the DM, the paladin will start burning down orphanages. The only thing keeping those pesky players who can't possibly actually want to play a virtuous character, from being Snidely Whiplash evil and tying the princess to the tracks is the Virtuous Dudley Do Right DM making sure that that dastardly Paladin Player walks the ((DM defined and patrolled)) straight and narrow.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If there's that many different ways to behave while adhering to a code, it's rather hard to justify someone else's paladin falling because You-the-GM don't like what they do.

I strongly disagree. All of those characters can fit while staying within a single code. Why would that preclude me, as GM, from judging whether or not they're breaking the code? If I judge all of them the same way, and they all work, then what's the problem? I don't understand your logic, here (even if I do understand that you don't want a single code). As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

I strongly disagree. All of those characters can fit while staying within a single code. Why would that preclude me, as GM, from judging whether or not they're breaking the code? If I judge all of them the same way, and they all work, then what's the problem? I don't understand your logic, here (even if I do understand that you don't want a single code). As always, play what you like

As it stands, nothing precludes the DM from judging the player's actions. That's the problem.

The player has to play Mother May I with the DM in order to know whether or not his action is kosher. The player's interpretations don't matter. Thus, all the player can explore is the DM's understanding of the code.

That, right there, is the heart and soul of the problem. And, I'm pretty sure, that's what Bluenose is saying. Because the code can be interpreted in multiple ways, it is impossible to really say, "The code" since there really isn't a single interpretation that is correct.

 

[JamesonCourage]

As it stands, nothing precludes the DM from judging the player's actions. That's the problem. [SNIP]

I don't get how this relates to with what Bluenose said. Sorry. As always, play what you like