Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6110453" data-attributes="member: 6680772">The problem is that if a player and a DM are on the same page, it's awesome, but if not, it really, really sucks.  First, alignment is so fuzzily defined that rarely do two people have the same take on it.  So if your DM and you have different ideas about what Lawful Good is, and what's more, how a Lawful Good Paladin is distinct from any other Lawful Good character, then you get what Neal Stephenson calls "metaphor shear".  You put the DM in the position of negating the player's conception of the game space in quite arresting fashion, taking the player right out of the game.Now, maybe that could be alleviated with hard-coded rules: a Paladin's code means this, and if this is done they lose Paladinhood, or take penalties, or what have you.  But then you get DMs putting the Paladin's in Sophie's Choice after Sophie's Choice, so that the player doesn't enjoy being a knight in shining armor, but basically has to play on the DMs rails so they don't get punished.  That's just wrong on many levels.The clear answer to all this is, "Well, that's easily fixed by making clear expectations and having a clear understanding of the group's social contract."  And that's exactly the case.  Which is why the best way to go is no alignment restrictions (or broad alignment restrictions, with no penalties) so that people can choose how their particular group wants to play the Paladin.  The groups that want to take the trouble of clearly delineating expectations and how everyone expects a Paladin to behave can do that, while those that want broader strokes without those restrictions can get that, too.</blockquote>

Verification