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

[Hussar]

... okay?

I believe that AbdulA's point would be that if we haven't managed to clarify alignments in the past 30 years, it's likely never going to happen. If we accept that it's not going to happen, then perhaps moving on to a different system that can work is the next step. At the moment, we cannot change the alignment system as it stands because there is a fairly strong sentiment from some quarters that the problem doesn't even exist.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'll agree that a well rounded character likely doesn't fall under a single alignment 100% of the time. However, I shouldn't be able to ask three different people what the alignment of a character is, and have them give three opposite answers, all of which are supported by the mechanics.

I guess that depends on how you perceive alignment, and this is why the Batman reference is imporant.
Different representations by different writers, editors and story arcs, the representation of Batman(or almost any good-aligned super hero) is a sign of the times. A dictatorial leader may see themselves as LG, upholding harsh laws in strict fashion, because he sees the bigger picture. His citizens may see his as more NG, enforcing the law because doing so is important, even if they disagree with the content or the level of enforcement. Outsiders may see him as LE, enforcing poor laws against people who can't stand up to him in order to gain more power.

Being a real human being, it is entirely possible.

It all depends on if you think morality is absolute, or relative, and that is a matter of perspective.

The "godly" or "metagame" perspective, the "player" perspective sees the rules as absolute, because they have complete information. They know Pelor or whatever is LG because of his suite of domains. But the character lacks this information, so while they may know Pelor supports good things, they may see his followers do things they personally feel are unjust. Even in RL Classical Mythology where the gods and demigods were involved in mortal affairs on a reguar basis, there was still a fairly wide range of perception as to what their alignment would be.

I remember various board discussions talking about the alignment of popular characters, and you see people giving completely opposite interpretations of the same character. I mean, what alignment is James Bond? You can make a very good argument for good or evil, lawful or chaotic.

You'd think after 30 years of alignment mechanics, we'd be able to give interpretations that are at least in the same general corner. I mean, if you say a character is LG and I say NG, that's fair enough. I got no problems there. But if you say LG and I say CE and we're both right, according to how you interpret the mechanics, that's a mechanics failure.

Which is exactly why alignment restrictions are useless. The way your player perceives their actions, the character perceives their actions, and the DM perceives those actions can all be significantly different. That makes them useless as measurements.

 

[Hussar]

Which is exactly why alignment restrictions are useless. The way your player perceives their actions, the character perceives their actions, and the DM perceives those actions can all be significantly different. That makes them useless as measurements.

Agreed. The only thing I can really do is obey what the DM thinks is the right way to play a given alignment. Which is why most players I've met would rather chew glass than play a paladin. The player gives away far too much authority over his or her own character for pretty much nothing in return.

I mean, would you accept playing a wizard if the DM got to determine what spells you get? You have no control over what spells you get, only the DM decides. The DM decides what a "wizard" should look like in his game world, same as he gets to decide what a "paladin" should look like in his game world.

Would any player accept that?

 

[Sunseeker]

Would any player accept that?

I've seen some pretty heavily houseruled/banned-restricted spell lists to the point where the DM basically says "you only get the spells I accept."

I don't think it would be that horrible to simply flesh out the alignment positioning of each diety, based on their domains, attitudes and characteristics and give them each a "Code of Conduct" based on those alignments, values and ideals. Let the Paladin choose their deity, at worst say:
"Paladin must choose a "X"G deity."
"Warden must choose a N"X" deity."
"Blackguard must choose a "X"E deity."

 

[Warbringer]

I mentioned upthread my response to this.

If you decouple the morality and values of the gameworld from real life, then the paladin is no longer an "exemplar of everything good and true" (to quote the 2nd ed AD&D PHB). Rather, s/he is an exemplar of some fictional values that have been stipulated by the GM. Conversely, if we want the paladin to be an exemplar of the real values of goodness and truth, then unless we think the GM has some sort of special access to the content and implications of those values, we have (in my view) no reason to give the GM any special authority to judge when a player, in playing his/her paladin, has or hasn't exemplified them.

OK, I guess point by point.

Every aspect of D&D is a mere abstract of the fantasy world in which the players act out their characters through simulation in a game. These rules set boundaries to provide simple models of real world complex (real or imagined) events. No one really argues weather a sword really does d8 hit points of damage, they generally accept it as a rule to describe an event.

So absolutely I decouple the morality and values of the gameworld from real life by creating the morale boundaries as absolutes in the game world. Now, does the GM have authority to create those boundaries , either by fiat or by extension of the rules, yes s/he does, in the very way that they have over any other modeling rule in the game.

Does D&D do this well, no not really, but not because conceptually modeling the impact of morale actions, or prescence of evil, is hard to do in a roleplay, but because alignment has not be defined as a "point" based model, but a "fluff" based model.

Indeed, systems have successfully dealt with "alignment" in terms of expsoure to the corruptng force of evil, including D&D itself ("blight"), but perhaps "better" in the One Ring. These are "evil" only systems, but it is simple to concieve of a point based model across shared axis that both detail the impact of alignment scores and their in pay effect.

But the real difference here is that their is a difference between player and character action, and the two need to be treated separately. Having an "examplar of everything good and true" does not in anyway challenge the character's successes or failures in achieving to live up to those ideals.

In short, we can create a set or maorale absolutes that define morality within the context of the game, and by doing so create a framework that the relative moralty of the character can be judged.

 

[Sunseeker]

In short, we can create a set or maorale absolutes that define morality within the context of the game, and by doing so create a framework that the relative moralty of the character can be judged.

Which defeats the purpose of morality.

 

[Warbringer]

Yes, but by codifying them you remove their meaning.

By naming "evil" as an action or event it is already codified. The association of action to meaning, the action of "naming", is codification. Weather you belief in the Christian interpretation of the Ten Commandments or not, the fact that the laws layout morale rules of engagement (codify) does not render them meaningless.

RPGs "exist" in the imaginary world in only the most tenuous of ways, but they also exist in parallel in the "real" world inhabited by the players. In that real world, the terms "good" and "evil" have non-absolute, or at least incompletely defined, meanings. As soon as you place a fixed definition or "code" about such terms - even in a fictional and imaginary world - the terms no longer refer to what the players in the real world recognise as what the terms normally refer to.

If you want to play a game that allows for the dramatic and thematic impact of actual real questions of good and evil, therefore, no codification will work.

I have no problem with the in game definition of morale terms not matching "normally" to what they mean in the real world, because the real world is for the most part undefined, because morality is fungible in the real world; why? because we have no direct action of divinity and we don't get to peep inside the mechanics.

If you want to play a game that does allow for "allows for the dramatic and thematic impact of actual real questions of good and evil" then yes they are useless, but no more so than any other rule when put up against the test of "in real life"

 

[Warbringer]

Which defeats the purpose of morality.

Why, this is an RPG. The issues are ones to be overcome by the character, not the player.

 

[Warbringer]

I mean, would you accept playing a wizard if the DM got to determine what spells you get? You have no control over what spells you get, only the DM decides.

Would any player accept that?

Yes, it was called 1st edition

 

[JamesonCourage]

I believe that AbdulA's point would be that if we haven't managed to clarify alignments in the past 30 years, it's likely never going to happen. If we accept that it's not going to happen, then perhaps moving on to a different system that can work is the next step. At the moment, we cannot change the alignment system as it stands because there is a fairly strong sentiment from some quarters that the problem doesn't even exist.

If there's another option in the books, awesome. Feel free to lobby for that; I'm okay with it, as long as the nine alignments are in there as an option, in the general form found in pre-4e books. Heck, have 4e's alignment system in there as an option. As always, play what you like