Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6113629"><p>But there is no reason there needs to be a "moral quandary class". You don't really gain anything as a paladin for acting in a righteous way, you just don't lose anything. There's a stick but no carrot. Moral quandaries can be addressed by any character, of any alignment, they just simply need to be set up in a manner to make players think about their actions. Setting up a lose-lose situation for Paladins because you want to be a dick and force the paladin to fail is where most "moral quandries" go and why they're so obnoxious.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Clearly not only the player felt lying was unacceptable, but the DM did as well. This is exactly the sort of gotcha game I have no desire to repeat.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly, under the alignment restriction system there really isn't any room for moral quandaries. Players will do whatever lets them keep their cool powers, retreating to "lawful stupid" up until the point that the DM presents them with an impossible situation where everyone in the party walks away unscathed, even if they're lawful good, but the Paladin loses all his class features until they find a high level cleric to atone with. I HATE the idea that everything can be fixed by a high-level cleric. Hell even a high-level cleric who is LG, following a LG deity, heck, the SAME deity as the paladin gets out of the same moral issue completely unscathed.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>DON'T. YOU. DARE. </strong>Throw that kind of crap at me. I've played a paladin in nearly every game I've played, I'm a political scientist. Problems routinely come from the DM playing "gotcha" with the Paladin, and seeking not to challenge the Paladin's morals, but the PLAYERS. Classes should not allow DMs to assault your personal morality by presenting impossible situations that do nothing by slap people across the face for trying. LG alignment restrictions slide towards a conception of universal "lawful goodness", thus making players with a different idea of what "LG" means have to challenge the DM, who is using his <em>personal</em> moral code to determine alignment. </p><p></p><p>I don't play D&D to argue morality with my friends.</p><p></p><p>You know what happens when players get tired of this? They roll a Favored Soul or a Cleric and tell the DM to shove it. There are a dozen different "holy" classes whose powers reasonably should be tied to how well they hold to the commands of their god/religion, but only ONE class loses everything for it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6113629"] But there is no reason there needs to be a "moral quandary class". You don't really gain anything as a paladin for acting in a righteous way, you just don't lose anything. There's a stick but no carrot. Moral quandaries can be addressed by any character, of any alignment, they just simply need to be set up in a manner to make players think about their actions. Setting up a lose-lose situation for Paladins because you want to be a dick and force the paladin to fail is where most "moral quandries" go and why they're so obnoxious. Clearly not only the player felt lying was unacceptable, but the DM did as well. This is exactly the sort of gotcha game I have no desire to repeat. Exactly, under the alignment restriction system there really isn't any room for moral quandaries. Players will do whatever lets them keep their cool powers, retreating to "lawful stupid" up until the point that the DM presents them with an impossible situation where everyone in the party walks away unscathed, even if they're lawful good, but the Paladin loses all his class features until they find a high level cleric to atone with. I HATE the idea that everything can be fixed by a high-level cleric. Hell even a high-level cleric who is LG, following a LG deity, heck, the SAME deity as the paladin gets out of the same moral issue completely unscathed. [B]DON'T. YOU. DARE. [/B]Throw that kind of crap at me. I've played a paladin in nearly every game I've played, I'm a political scientist. Problems routinely come from the DM playing "gotcha" with the Paladin, and seeking not to challenge the Paladin's morals, but the PLAYERS. Classes should not allow DMs to assault your personal morality by presenting impossible situations that do nothing by slap people across the face for trying. LG alignment restrictions slide towards a conception of universal "lawful goodness", thus making players with a different idea of what "LG" means have to challenge the DM, who is using his [I]personal[/I] moral code to determine alignment. I don't play D&D to argue morality with my friends. You know what happens when players get tired of this? They roll a Favored Soul or a Cleric and tell the DM to shove it. There are a dozen different "holy" classes whose powers reasonably should be tied to how well they hold to the commands of their god/religion, but only ONE class loses everything for it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?
Top