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

[pemerton]

Game Master = moral arbiter for the game.

Not in all playstyles. That's more or less the point of the thread, I thought.

 

[jasper]

Not in all playstyles. That's more or less the point of the thread, I thought.

That thought got lost some where around page 33 for me. Sooner or later the DM is going to have to make a judgement call on morals in the game. Once it done and if no major egos get in the way, the call is final and the game moves on. With or with out major egos and the person they reside in.

 

[Starfox]

And this applies to all egos, all characters, and all classes. I've stopped playing with people a few times, and the class they've played made no difference whatever.

 

[Hussar]

That thought got lost some where around page 33 for me. Sooner or later the DM is going to have to make a judgement call on morals in the game. Once it done and if no major egos get in the way, the call is final and the game moves on. With or with out major egos and the person they reside in.

Why? Why is the DM "going to have to make a judgement call"?

What is added by that? What is lost by allowing the players to make their own judgement calls?

Granted, in traditional D&D, yes, it was the DM who got to tell the players what morality means in his world. But, that doesn't mean it has to be this way.

 

[pemerton]

Sooner or later the DM is going to have to make a judgement call on morals in the game.

As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] asked, Why? I've been GMing for 25+ years without having to do that. All it required was dropping that part of the rules which told me I had to (namely, AD&D-style alignment).

 

[billd91]

As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] asked, Why? I've been GMing for 25+ years without having to do that. All it required was dropping that part of the rules which told me I had to (namely, AD&D-style alignment).

Well then, as I've said before, it appears the ideal solution is to continue to include it in the game to satisfy the traditionalists because, as always, you can continue to omit alignment and a particular paladin's code from the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well then, as I've said before, it appears the ideal solution is to continue to include it in the game to satisfy the traditionalists because, as always, you can continue to omit alignment and a particular paladin's code from the game.

Except you have game designers trying to build classes around those mechanics, which removing the mechanics doesn't actually FIX.

A more easily seen example of this sort of issue being corrected by game design -in this case added mechanics- can be seen with both roles and power sources in 4e. Each of these introduces a degree of clarity where its lack led to poor design. 4e as a result has NO truly badly designed classes, they all work, and they all work pretty well. Even the ones people complain about the most are still quite playable and function in the expected ways reasonably well.

In the case of alignment, the REMOVAL has proven to be the superior choice, but we see quite clearly that the addition and removal of subsystems can and does have system-wide effects. I'm FINE with having alignment as ONE OPTION AMONG OTHERS where none of them are automatically assumed to be in play. This would necessitate certain things, that for instance paladins weren't overpowered with the vain hope of balancing that against alignment based hard-coded restrictions. For those who WANT such things this shouldn't present a huge problem, your players are simply going to have to play the paladin for RP reasons and not to be a munchkin, which 'overpowered with restrictions' promoted. Its not EXACTLY 1e-esque, but we're all going to have to move a little here to all get what we want.

 

[Manbearcat]

Except you have game designers trying to build classes around those mechanics, which removing the mechanics doesn't actually FIX.

To this point, in a recent thread I brought up how a Paladin in my home-game used a DemonSlayer (Paragon Path) feature (untyped damage - effectively psychic in my game - to Demons while adjacent to the Paladin) as a "Detect Demons" aparratus by way of Insight check versus of-level DC. That is my own and my group's threshold for such a mechanic in our homegame. Its fun, its functional, its melee only, its subtype Demon only, it requires mechanical resolution and it is cordoned off to a Paragon tier build. Conversely, an at-will, effectively automatic, evil alignment radar built into a core class as SOP is really unacceptable for my table; and I'm sure that my table isn't some extreme minority in this position.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To this point, in a recent thread I brought up how a Paladin in my home-game used a DemonSlayer (Paragon Path) feature (untyped damage - effectively psychic in my game - to Demons while adjacent to the Paladin) as a "Detect Demons" aparratus by way of Insight check versus of-level DC. That is my own and my group's threshold for such a mechanic in our homegame. Its fun, its functional, its melee only, its subtype Demon only, it requires mechanical resolution and it is cordoned off to a Paragon tier build. Conversely, an at-will, effectively automatic, evil alignment radar built into a core class as SOP is really unacceptable for my table; and I'm sure that my table isn't some extreme minority in this position.

Yeah, that's a whole OTHER branch of discussion, should alignment be a mechanical force in the game that things key off of? I don't have a huge problem with it in some sense either. I mean OK there's a 'Holy Avenger' sword somewhere that 'smites evil'. That implies in some sense that evil is an objective force, but you could also construe that as "you have actively dedicated yourself to specific causes opposed to those of the Holy Avenger", which still leaves plenty of room for moral questions/exploration. In fact in my first 4e game one theme was the exploration of the border between being a champion of lawful good and becoming a fanatic killer. Things like 'detect evil' I'm not real keen on, but as you say if it effectively is just a power that helps you find some bad guy who is obviously evil (IE a demon as you note) then its fine. If other people want to construct their games with absolutist alignments and interpret that power to work on random not-so-nice townspeople that's fine for them, go for it. I'd think the 'attribute' form of alignment/personality I was outlining earlier works well in that role.

 

[jasper]

As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] asked, Why? I've been GMing for 25+ years without having to do that. All it required was dropping that part of the rules which told me I had to (namely, AD&D-style alignment).

If you DROPPED the Rules of Alignment, then you don't have to make a call. And I can't reply to your why, because we are not on the same rule set anymore.

hussar..Granted, in traditional D&D, yes, it was the DM who got to tell the players what morality means in his world.... And I am following tradition. If I want to have a dicussion on morality, I will leave my dice at home, and have roundtable discussion.
At the table, my paladin wants to kick Amosdeus head in and get the loot. D&D = Game = DM who set some of the rules .
Players either play according to DM rules or get new DM. Both ways work. My games were black and white/ spidey punisher comic book morality. One or two players hated and either left the table or didn't play pcs with alignment restrictions. I played in their worlds and accepted their verison of good and evil.