Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 6110514" data-attributes="member: 529">The paladin class is incomplete as written.  There are no guidelines as to how to handle a paladin who ignores their oath.  What happens to a cavalier if they:Fail to protect the weak by not risking their lives to protect an innocent, helpless person?Let someone get away with an evil act like?Commit an evil act like murdering a merchant who won't give them a good price on armor?Furthermore, alignment rules are incomplete at this time.What acts are considered evil?  Is torturing a prisoner evil?  How do you define torture?  Who decides if alignment has changed?  Is it sudden or does it happen over time?And of course that leads to more questions regarding alignment restrictions:What happens to paladins if they change alignment?  Do they lose their powers? Become fighters or just paladins without powers?  Become NPC's?  What happens if they change their alignment back?What happens if a magic item or spell changes their alignment?There are many possible answers to all of the above.  The best answer IMO at this time is that the DM should decide.  But since they have once again made class abilities dependent on alignment restrictions and the moral behavior of player characters, I believe that the rules have an obligation to at least bring these issues up and say as much, and yet these common scenarios are not given any mention as of yet.  Regardless of whether these matters are left solely to DM adjudication, or detailed rules are created to answer the above questions and others like it, alignment restrictions are a can of worms and a burden on both the DM and the players more than they are a catalyst for roleplaying.  IMO to keep the flavor of the class and avoid these pitfalls, they should take the alignment restrictions out, leave the oaths in, and give some short guidelines on how to handle it when a player character breaks his or her oath to handle the implied moral restrictions.Despite my negative opinion of alignment restrictions, I do actually like the idea of paladins having some sort of moral obligation.  I agree that having such oaths helps distinguish them from clerics and fighters, and the oath part doesn't bother me much.  I just feel alignment restrictions codify these things too much and raise more questions than answers  when what is really needed from the rules is guidelines for the DM and players on what happens when paladins don't adhere to their oaths, and we haven't seen that yet. While I agree that a conversation between the DM and player prior to playing a paladin helps answer these questions, I think the rules should present default answers so that when there is not time to have that conversation, there is a common ground to fall back on.  The conversation should only be necessary when the DM wants to use an optional rule or house rule, not because of a lack of rules that are needed.</blockquote>

Verification