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

[Imaro]

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.

How about conflict of interest? You know what, if we don't need the game rules or the DM enforcing people "playing their characters right"... why have weapon or armor restrictions? Can't we trust players to pick appropriate armor and weapons to their class as opposed to dictating what they are? In fact why not let the players decide what monsters they face and what the DC's of challenges are, I mean can't we trust players since if they are playing the game... they must want to face and overcome appropriate challenges in the game... 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.

Same as a DM setting DC's by judgement, or deciding on different complexities for the same skill challenge, and so on...Again, should we just let the players set these? I mean either you trust them or you don't, right?

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.

Yeah... because there is absolutely no bias there... none whatsoever.

 

[Grydan]

How about conflict of interest? You know what, if we don't need the game rules or the DM enforcing people "playing their characters right"... why have weapon or armor restrictions? Can't we trust players to pick appropriate armor and weapons to their class as opposed to dictating what they are? In fact why not let the players decide what monsters they face and what the DC's of challenges are, I mean can't we trust players since if they are playing the game... they must want to face and overcome appropriate challenges in the game... right?

Many campaigns do let the players decide what monsters to face and what (relatively speaking) the DCs of challenges are. I mean, isn't that pretty much what a sandbox campaign is? The DM lets the players know what's out there, and they go where they're interested in going, regardless of whether that means fighting the Astonishingly Wimpy Gumdrop Elves at Candy Mountain where all of the challenges are easy, or trying to arm-wrestle Cthulhu in the darkness beyond the stars with one arm tied behind their back. And a good many campaigns are run by DMs who take player requests into account: the players want to fight purple dragons? Well what do you know, there's a bunch of purple dragons just over that next hill!

Weapon and armour restrictions have mechanical impact. There's mechanical trade-offs: classes that get lesser armour get some other benefit to compensate. Either that, or there are certainly past editions where there is no mechanical difference between weapons, your weapon does d6 however you choose to describe it.

In any rules set where the Paladin is objectively more powerful than say, the Fighter, and the supposed trade-off is role-play restrictions, then yes, there's a potential conflict of interest in allowing the player to decide when they've broken those restrictions.

In any rules set where they're meant to be choice of equal value, a paladin played against type isn't more powerful than a fighter, any more than one played to type. So there's no conflict of interest: the only people playing a paladin are people who want to be paladins. Not because it's the way to gain extra power, at the cost of the trade-off restrictions, but because they like paladins. And people who like paladins? I'm pretty sure we can trust them to play their paladins as paladins. And if they don't, well, they're not getting any benefit for it, so it's up to the people at the table to decide whether or not that's something they can tolerate or not.

 

[pemerton]

How about conflict of interest?

I discussed this multiple times upthread. It applies in the sort of gamist play that [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] has described. But in simulationist play, or narrativist or narrativist-drifting play, it doesn't matter. There is no benefit, in that sort of play, gained by departing from the code.

Or, in other words, what [MENTION=79401]Grydan[/MENTION] said in the post above this one.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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?

I take Bluenose's point to be that if you concede that the code is pluralist in what it admits, the basis on which the GM can enforce some interpretations as invalid starts to break down. I mean, if multiple interpretations are plausible and valid, why is the player's interpretation, even though it differs from the GM's own preferred approach, not to be treated as plausible and valid?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I take Bluenose's point to be that if you concede that the code is pluralist in what it admits, the basis on which the GM can enforce some interpretations as invalid starts to break down. I mean, if multiple interpretations are plausible and valid, why is the player's interpretation, even though it differs from the GM's own preferred approach, not to be treated as plausible and valid?

He might mean that, but I'm not going to take your word for it; he'll have to say that. Based on his post ("If there's that many different ways to behave while adhering to a code"), it's not saying "people can interpret in opposite ways." It's saying "you can behave in different ways while adhering to a code." You can have two people that adhere to a well-defined code of honor while behaving in very different ways, can't you?

With that in mind, when he goes on to say "it's rather hard to justify someone else's paladin falling because You-the-GM don't like what they do", I can't follow his logic. You-the-GM can still determine whether or not they're following the code, even if they act differently from someone else adhering to the same code.

If he means what Hussar has been posting about "multiple DMs can rule different ways on the same code", then I agree; we should have much less ambiguous wording on the code, for those who use it. However, based on Bluenose's actual post, I didn't see that as his intent, and I'm not going to take your word for what he meant by it. If he clarifies, then of course I'll take his word for it, and address that point. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

it's not saying "people can interpret in opposite ways."

And it wouldn't need to. That people can interpret it in different ways is sufficient.

 

[Bluenose]

He might mean that, but I'm not going to take your word for it; he'll have to say that. Based on his post ("If there's that many different ways to behave while adhering to a code"), it's not saying "people can interpret in opposite ways." It's saying "you can behave in different ways while adhering to a code." You can have two people that adhere to a well-defined code of honor while behaving in very different ways, can't you?

With that in mind, when he goes on to say "it's rather hard to justify someone else's paladin falling because You-the-GM don't like what they do", I can't follow his logic. You-the-GM can still determine whether or not they're following the code, even if they act differently from someone else adhering to the same code.

If he means what Hussar has been posting about "multiple DMs can rule different ways on the same code", then I agree; we should have much less ambiguous wording on the code, for those who use it. However, based on Bluenose's actual post, I didn't see that as his intent, and I'm not going to take your word for what he meant by it. If he clarifies, then of course I'll take his word for it, and address that point. As always, play what you like

I don't think there can/should be one Code that applies to all paladins at all. I can't see how, in a setting with multiple deities that sponsor paladins, there could be one code that would apply to all paladins. It's not a matter of ambiguous wording in A Code - there often is, but that's a different problem. It's not because a Code won't cover every possible situation - though it won't. It's about multiple different Codes, and about having multiple legitimate ways to behave while adhering to one. I strongly object to a GM who decides that there is The Code and that their opinion of how to adhere to it is the only thing that matters.

 

[JamesonCourage]

And it wouldn't need to. That people can interpret it in different ways is sufficient.

Right. So, I'm all for a less ambiguous code. Unless that wasn't clear somehow, I'm not sure what you're adding, here. As always, play what you like

I don't think there can/should be one Code that applies to all paladins at all.

Okay, I get that much.

I can't see how, in a setting with multiple deities that sponsor paladins, there could be one code that would apply to all paladins.

Ah, here's where we separate. To me, I've never seen Paladins as being sponsored by gods, but by Good. Just, the tangible force of good. So, I think that's why I'm okay with the one code. From your deity-sponsored perspective (which I think it more popular than my take), I get the objection to one single code on these grounds. That makes sense.

It's not a matter of ambiguous wording in A Code - there often is, but that's a different problem.

Well, it's one that we're also discussing, but yes, this would be separate from your "multiple gods sponsoring Paladins" problem.

It's not because a Code won't cover every possible situation - though it won't.

Well, if worded well, it would.

It's about multiple different Codes, and about having multiple legitimate ways to behave while adhering to one. I strongly object to a GM who decides that there is The Code and that their opinion of how to adhere to it is the only thing that matters.

... okay? You object to my take on Paladins as a GM... and? And my way shouldn't be an option? I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. Maybe you can expand on this point? As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

I don't think there can/should be one Code that applies to all paladins at all. I can't see how, in a setting with multiple deities that sponsor paladins, there could be one code that would apply to all paladins. It's not a matter of ambiguous wording in A Code - there often is, but that's a different problem. It's not because a Code won't cover every possible situation - though it won't. It's about multiple different Codes, and about having multiple legitimate ways to behave while adhering to one. I strongly object to a GM who decides that there is The Code and that their opinion of how to adhere to it is the only thing that matters.

The issue of one code vs multiple is an issue more for settings books to decide, not the rulebook. I'm perfectly OK with the paladin's code in the rules serving as a template for codes for specific religions. Again, side bar it. That's a useful solution for all sorts of simple variations from a core class.

And again, if the player and DM discuss things beforehand (as they should) so that they have a mutual understanding of what the code means and where its limits are, then the DM's opinion isn't the only thing that matters.

 

[Imaro]

Many campaigns do let the players decide what monsters to face and what (relatively speaking) the DCs of challenges are. I mean, isn't that pretty much what a sandbox campaign is? The DM lets the players know what's out there, and they go where they're interested in going, regardless of whether that means fighting the Astonishingly Wimpy Gumdrop Elves at Candy Mountain where all of the challenges are easy, or trying to arm-wrestle Cthulhu in the darkness beyond the stars with one arm tied behind their back. And a good many campaigns are run by DMs who take player requests into account: the players want to fight purple dragons? Well what do you know, there's a bunch of purple dragons just over that next hill!

Wrong, even in the situation of sandbox play a player is not deciding DC's or the complexity of a SC. He's choosing what interests him or her and may have some idea of it's difficulty (just as a paladin would have some guidelines for his code) but ultimately the DM has either pre-determined this stuff according to his judgement or creating it on the fly, again using his judgement.

Weapon and armour restrictions have mechanical impact. There's mechanical trade-offs: classes that get lesser armour get some other benefit to compensate. Either that, or there are certainly past editions where there is no mechanical difference between weapons, your weapon does d6 however you choose to describe it.

You're missing my point... if we assume that players choose to play aclass because that's the thematic archetype they want (and this is always their reason) the mechanical benefits shouldn't matter... sionce we can always trust them to be un-biased and concerned with the archetype... or maybe not, especiallywhen the question of power builds, paragon paths/prestige classes, and so on exist.

In any rules set where the Paladin is objectively more powerful than say, the Fighter, and the supposed trade-off is role-play restrictions, then yes, there's a potential conflict of interest in allowing the player to decide when they've broken those restrictions.

In any rules set where they're meant to be choice of equal value, a paladin played against type isn't more powerful than a fighter, any more than one played to type. So there's no conflict of interest: the only people playing a paladin are people who want to be paladins. Not because it's the way to gain extra power, at the cost of the trade-off restrictions, but because they like paladins. And people who like paladins? I'm pretty sure we can trust them to play their paladins as paladins. And if they don't, well, they're not getting any benefit for it, so it's up to the people at the table to decide whether or not that's something they can tolerate or not.

Yet there has been no edition that was like this... even 4e had multi-class, and paragon class cheese which could be exploited.