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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6122577" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>More-or-less, yes. Once you go for those "fictional" ideals, you've severed the connection between the paladin class and its archetype.</p><p></p><p>(That's not to say that you have to <em>subscribe</em> to those values to play a paladin - I can be a modern Benthamite bureaucrat, for instance, and still enjoy playing a premodern romantic paladin - but once, in play, you are not aiming at those values you've severed the link.)</p><p></p><p>Well, as I said to [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] there are board rules in play here that I don't want to violate. But one point to make would be that it is highly contentius to say that values are constructed and given definition by us.</p><p></p><p>A second point, and I think the more pertinent one, is that GM-arbitrated alignment doesn't involve construction and definition by <em>us</em>. It involves construction and definition by the GM.</p><p></p><p>Burning Wheel does permit a type of "paladin faling" scenario - a PC with the Faithful trait can have that trait stripped, and/or replaced by the Lost Faith trait. But this can't happen unilaterally. BW handles this process via what is called the "trait vote" - members of the group put forward nominations for changes in a PC's traits (and the player can put forward his/her own nominations for his/her PC), arguments are put, and then a vote taken (the rules leave it to each table to determine whether or not the player gets to <em>vote</em> for his/her own PC).</p><p></p><p>This is getting closer to the idea of <em>we</em> define and construct - although in this case it is not the value that is being defined and constructed, but rather the group's interpretation of a PC's psychological state - has s/he lost his/her faith?</p><p></p><p>If the falling of paladins was handled in something like this way in D&D, I would find it less objectionable - though there are enough other differences between D&D and BW that I would still not be a big fan.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6122577, member: 42582"] More-or-less, yes. Once you go for those "fictional" ideals, you've severed the connection between the paladin class and its archetype. (That's not to say that you have to [I]subscribe[/I] to those values to play a paladin - I can be a modern Benthamite bureaucrat, for instance, and still enjoy playing a premodern romantic paladin - but once, in play, you are not aiming at those values you've severed the link.) Well, as I said to [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] there are board rules in play here that I don't want to violate. But one point to make would be that it is highly contentius to say that values are constructed and given definition by us. A second point, and I think the more pertinent one, is that GM-arbitrated alignment doesn't involve construction and definition by [I]us[/I]. It involves construction and definition by the GM. Burning Wheel does permit a type of "paladin faling" scenario - a PC with the Faithful trait can have that trait stripped, and/or replaced by the Lost Faith trait. But this can't happen unilaterally. BW handles this process via what is called the "trait vote" - members of the group put forward nominations for changes in a PC's traits (and the player can put forward his/her own nominations for his/her PC), arguments are put, and then a vote taken (the rules leave it to each table to determine whether or not the player gets to [I]vote[/I] for his/her own PC). This is getting closer to the idea of [I]we[/I] define and construct - although in this case it is not the value that is being defined and constructed, but rather the group's interpretation of a PC's psychological state - has s/he lost his/her faith? If the falling of paladins was handled in something like this way in D&D, I would find it less objectionable - though there are enough other differences between D&D and BW that I would still not be a big fan. [/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