What will be the consequences for having a Paladin fall in D&D Next?

In my current 4.0 campaign I'm running I have this really bad Paladin who won't follow her goddess's (raven queens) edicts, but there are no rules for having her fall from her goddess's favour. Thusly I have no real recourse when she does silly stuff like chum around with undead (for those who don't know a lot about 4.0 the Raven Queen is probably the most vehement of the deities when it comes to opposing the undead, who she believes are cheating)

Will D&D Next have real consequences for stuff like this? 

Stop the H4TE

I think I've seen this question (and heard this answer) before, but:

Perhaps they'll go back to first principles (like they've generally been doing), and a fallen paladin will suffer the terrible fate of /becoming a fighter/...

That's what happened to 1e fallen paladins.   

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Thusly I have no real recourse when she does silly stuff like chum around with undead (for those who don't know a lot about 4.0 the Raven Queen is probably the most vehement of the deities when it comes to opposing the undead, who she believes are cheating)

FWIW, the 4E books suggested that if a cleric/paladin acts in direct defiance of her deity's will, then she would catch flak with her fellow faithful, who might go so far as to hunt her down for her actions at the behest of a powerful church leader (if not that person's deity).

Will D&D Next have real consequences for stuff like this? 

Since Next's battlecry is "modularity", I expect the designers will use the entire gamut, going from the more hardcore (for lack of a better word) "you lose everything mechanically related to your god" to the ideas 4E provided.

My Sig
Reality is but the sum total of all illusions. Proud Hand of Karsus, now and forever Mess with one Hand, mess with 'em all I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
"just do what LM the lord of magical might does, and you'll be fine" - sfdragon, 10/12/09
Board Snippets
147048523 wrote:
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it." Repeat. Obstinance?
56790678 wrote:
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived. You haven't lived.
56902498 wrote:
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up! We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and.... One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to Go!
57062508 wrote:
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
56760448 wrote:
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison... MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development. TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment. You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
90571711 wrote:
Adding options at the system level is good. Adding options at the table level is hard. Removing options at the system level is bad. Removing options at the table level is easy. This is not complicated.
57333888 wrote:
112760109 wrote:
56902838 wrote:
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :| I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
158710691 wrote:
D&D definitely improves mental health; Just as long as you stay away from these forums ;)
I can tell you with certainty that no matter what the provided consequences are, I personally will utilize the 4e-style "in-world" consequences mentioned above.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
If that happened in my game then I would most likely talk to the player about what they want to do with their character before I resorted to hitting them with the nerf hammer.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Course there will be. I think they're deliberately leaving the space blank though. Plus, a paladin can "fall" in any direction, which means that even if they fall from grace with one sect there's probably another one that will have them.


So probably the only consequence is your powers will reflavour to fit your new order.

I suspect that there will no mechanical penalties by default.  There may be an optional sidebar suggesting potential in-game repercussions.  I also suspect they will fall short of actually suggesting that DMs change the PCs class.


I personally would like to see loss of any Channel Divinity type powers - assuming they have something similar (but not a loss of spells) until the character makes restitution and seeks atonement.  But that probably ought to be up to the DM and Players more so than the game mechanics (especially since the class will most likely not be alignment restricted).

Carl
Removing the mechanical weight to alignment causes this kind of nonsense. If 5th edition does not address the issue, I'd still offer a real punishment for cavorting with undead when your deity commands you to destroy them. What kind of ridiculous roleplaying is that?
Any action can have RP consequences.  Never underestimate your power as the DM to make a character's existence hell, or even just make things interesting.  If a powerful paladin falls from grace with one god, there should be a whole host of deities and demonic figures willing to step in and sieze that power for their own.  Roleplaying Arthas' transformation into the Lich King, or just having an inquisitorial squad come after the PCs, would be much more fun and rewarding for everyone involved than simply telling a player they lose their powers for having badwrongfun.  (Also, in DDN becoming a fighter wouldn't make you weaker, it would just make you suddenly able to use maneuvers.)

Removing the mechanical weight to alignment causes this kind of nonsense. If 5th edition does not address the issue, I'd still offer a real punishment for cavorting with undead when your deity commands you to destroy them. What kind of ridiculous roleplaying is that?

Whereas I think removing the mechanical weight of alignment is the best thing, ever.

The devs have said that there will be options to give alignment mechanical weight, but considering how contentious the subject of alignment is in general I think leaving alignment mechanics as "opt-in" is probably the best decision.

Again, RP consequences strike me as the best way to handle this, rather than punishing a player for roleplaying "wrong."

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

I expect that there will be a sidebar for consequences of a Paladin 'falling'. Breaking one's code of chivalry could result in a loss of stature in a knights' order, reduction of spell slots, or it may require a minor quest to restore one's code. (Or maybe the Paladin just needs to recite his code for one hour.)
Old school tradition wants that a fallen paladin double in power, because destruction is not enough easier to do by itself. And he has to wear black.

Removing the mechanical weight to alignment causes this kind of nonsense. If 5th edition does not address the issue, I'd still offer a real punishment for cavorting with undead when your deity commands you to destroy them. What kind of ridiculous roleplaying is that?

The assumption that people who don't roleplay their characters or justify their concepts will suddenly be normal and welcome in all table top gaming for want of mechanical restrictions is nonsensicle.
1d6 per 10ft.
1d6 per 10ft.



"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

They become Death Knights and can cast fire ball. In full plate.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Removing the mechanical weight to alignment causes this kind of nonsense. If 5th edition does not address the issue, I'd still offer a real punishment for cavorting with undead when your deity commands you to destroy them. What kind of ridiculous roleplaying is that?

Whereas I think removing the mechanical weight of alignment is the best thing, ever.

The devs have said that there will be options to give alignment mechanical weight, but considering how contentious the subject of alignment is in general I think leaving alignment mechanics as "opt-in" is probably the best decision.

Again, RP consequences strike me as the best way to handle this, rather than punishing a player for roleplaying "wrong."



There are infinite ways to roleplay a Fighter, or a Sorcerer, or a Bard. When you choose to be a Paladin, there are "wrong" ways to play that character. Worshiping a god who despises undead and then acting friendly with them anyway is an example. If you have a knight who disobeys orders, then roleplaying consequences are enough, but this is divine power we're talking about, it doesn't come free. Might as well let Druids wear full plate.
Might as well let Druids wear full plate.

Might as well let Druids advance past level eleven without murdering each other.

In my current 4.0 campaign I'm running I have this really bad Paladin who won't follow her goddess's (raven queens) edicts, but there are no rules for having her fall from her goddess's favour. Thusly I have no real recourse when she does silly stuff like chum around with undead (for those who don't know a lot about 4.0 the Raven Queen is probably the most vehement of the deities when it comes to opposing the undead, who she believes are cheating)

Will D&D Next have real consequences for stuff like this? 




Wow, I realize that 4e can seem kinda board-gamey, but what kind of DM doesn't have any recourse?

You're the DM! 
You create worlds.  You play the role of every single thing in the game that isn't one of the PCs....  Everything from 1 spec of dust up to fate itsef. 
You alone controll what the PCs see/hear/feel/taste/smell. 
You control the appearance, existance & continued existance of every single item of treasure.
And you determine the DCs of all things and the results of all effects.

So no more of this mewling about "no recourse".  Go, use your power.  Play a pissed off Raven Queen.  And be vindictive - but in creative ways.
Remember, your player has, in effect, asked you to do this.

And this will apply equelly well to 5th ed. 
Might as well let Druids wear full plate.

Might as well let Druids advance past level eleven without murdering each other.




Some traditions weren't the best ideas. But if we remove everything that makes classes unique and adds challenge to roleplaying, we'll get D&D4.5, and half of us will just keep playing Pathfinder.
Might as well let Druids wear full plate.

Might as well let Druids advance past level eleven without murdering each other.




Some traditions weren't the best ideas. But if we remove everything that makes classes unique and adds challenge to roleplaying, we'll get D&D4.5, and half of us will just keep playing Pathfinder.





Actually I suspect that half of us will keep playing Pathfinder anyways.  It's just that we might also play 5e.
These arguments always make me laugh.

What kind of mechanical punishment is there for the Chaotic Neutral Fighter who burns down an orphanage?

As a DM do you really need that kind of handholding or do you simply want to restrict the Paladin to "The One True Way"? 
Might as well let Druids wear full plate.

Might as well let Druids advance past level eleven without murdering each other.




Some traditions weren't the best ideas. But if we remove everything that makes classes unique and adds challenge to roleplaying, we'll get D&D4.5, and half of us will just keep playing Pathfinder.

Druids avoid plate because they're not proficient by default, and have way better AC in RAWRBEAR! Mode anyway.
What kind of mechanical punishment is there for the Chaotic Neutral Fighter who burns down an orphanage?

Eye irritation, for sure.

And in feudal systems, orphanages are handled by the wealthy people growing in power against the nobles from people proximity, so by clerics most of the time. So in D&D, I would say that burning an orphanage is a dangerous hobby.

Does this the player not want his character to act in accordance with the rules of the church? That could be a clear roleplaying decision and then there will be in-world consequences. The church itself will deal with this problematic paladin, other people (PCs or NPCs) might take offense just like any real life employer or church follower would. If it is a roleplaying decision the player needs to decide where he wants to go with this to make this interesting roleplaying-wise. But this would always be in-rpg-world, with or without alignment based mechanics. The roleplay does not become less challenging in 3e or any edition before 4E, which does not have alignment based mechanics.

If the player as a person simply does not care about the roleplaying part of playing a character with a close connection to a church (and their rules), then it is a problem with the player himself. He then needs to answer the question what he wants from playing the game with other people at the table who find this kind of behaviour disruptive. Then the problem is in the real world.

In both cases, you will need to talk to the player. And this has nothing to do with 4E or any other edition.
These arguments always make me laugh.

What kind of mechanical punishment is there for the Chaotic Neutral Fighter who burns down an orphanage?

As a DM do you really need that kind of handholding or do you simply want to restrict the Paladin to "The One True Way"? 



A Fighter is not a Paladin and Chaotic Neutral means no restrictions.

Yes, I do need mechanical weight to these things, or when a Paladin of Pelor goes off and worships Nerull and I say "Pelor's thundering voice berates you from the heavens and henceforth all of your Paladin abilities are stripped away until you atone," and the player says "that's bullshit, you're just a power-hungry DM who doesn't want us to have fun" I can't say "it says right here on page 97...you knew this when you created a Paladin."

Include an option to ignore this level of depth in the game for people who all want to act like Chaotic Neutral Fighters burning down orphanages regardless of what oaths and promises they've made, but don't make it default.
Yes, I do need mechanical weight to these things, or when a Paladin of Pelor goes off and worships Nerull and I say "Pelor's thundering voice berates you from the heavens and henceforth all of your Paladin abilities are stripped away until you atone," and the player says "that's bullshit, you're just a power-hungry DM who doesn't want us to have fun" I can't say "it says right here on page 97...you knew this when you created a Paladin."


"Nerull's thundering voice echoes from the heavens,'Hey buddy!'"
If a player isn't interested in roleplaying their paladin as loyal to their god/alignment, having a falling mechanic isn't suddenly going to make them a great roleplayer.  It's just going to push them to do the bare minimum they have to in order to avoid the stick.  

Personally, I don't think the reams of hassle that come along with alignment/fall mechanics is worth pulling a bit of subpar RP out of people.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
Yes, I do need mechanical weight to these things, or when a Paladin of Pelor goes off and worships Nerull and I say "Pelor's thundering voice berates you from the heavens and henceforth all of your Paladin abilities are stripped away until you atone," and the player says "that's bullshit, you're just a power-hungry DM who doesn't want us to have fun" I can't say "it says right here on page 97...you knew this when you created a Paladin."


"Nerull's thundering voice echoes from the heavens,'Hey buddy!'"



That's where you might become something like a Blackguard, and that would have roleplying consequences if you're in a good party.
Thusly I have no real recourse when she does silly stuff like chum around with undead

Err, like having the undead NOT be chummy with the representative of their "supposed" demise? Unless the undead is a PC, every undead is gonna look at a servant of the Raven Queen and enter fight/flight mode, for real. In the former case, I'd be talking to the other PC as well and find out how this friendship is supposed to work, since your new buddy will most likely have to kill you in the morning.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
In 4e it is quite easy for the DM to punish a paladin. They can either send divine agents to track down and "correct" the issue or the DM can simply remove the Paladin's encounter and daily prayers until the paladin repents.

RP problems should be solved through RP. The paladin should be no different than any other class in this regard. Asking for mechanics for these situations is lazy DMing plain and simple.
Asking for mechanics for these situations is lazy DMing plain and simple.

No, it's really not.

Asking for mechanics for these situations is nothing more than One-True-Wayism.

In 4e it is quite easy for the DM to punish a paladin. They can either send divine agents to track down and "correct" the issue or the DM can simply remove the Paladin's encounter and daily prayers until the paladin repents.

RP problems should be solved through RP. The paladin should be no different than any other class in this regard. Asking for mechanics for these situations is lazy DMing plain and simple.



^ This.
There would be one highly ticked-off Raven Queen, to say the least. Mr. Paladin's divine-inspired powers (channel divinity, etc.) would not work at all. He would be haunted by the Raven Queen (poor sleep = not as many regained HPs, daily powers, etc.). Scores of actually faithful followers would harrass the entire party at every logical, available opportunity. So many ways to remedy this issue...
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Removing the mechanical weight to alignment causes this kind of nonsense. If 5th edition does not address the issue, I'd still offer a real punishment for cavorting with undead when your deity commands you to destroy them. What kind of ridiculous roleplaying is that?



Maybe we can come to a compromise ?
as not all groups want to play with alignment

There would be a paladin class that does not asume that alignment is being used.
so would have a smite, instead of a smite evil.

With a side bar for the traditional lawfull good paladin, that works much like a template modifying abilities the alignment nutral paladin.
this is what would give the paladin detect evil at will.
changes the smite to smite evil (some bonus to damage and to hit but can only be used against evil creatures)
and allso gaind you the disadvantage of being able to fall for violating alignment.

if you do fall you can no longer use any of the powers that where granted or modified by the alignment template.
 
The same as it's always been: Some sort of warning followed by Divine Bolt of Lightning if they still don't straighten up. That's simply an affront to the deity granting him powers and deities have no problems dealing with an uppity mortal. 
In my current 4.0 campaign I'm running I have this really bad Paladin who won't follow her goddess's (raven queens) edicts, but there are no rules for having her fall from her goddess's favour. Thusly I have no real recourse when she does silly stuff like chum around with undead (for those who don't know a lot about 4.0 the Raven Queen is probably the most vehement of the deities when it comes to opposing the undead, who she believes are cheating)

Will D&D Next have real consequences for stuff like this? 


Just a small correction.  4e has no default rules for what happens when a paladin defies the edicts of their church or deity.  However, this doesn't mean that the DM is facing the player unarmed.  First and foremost, there is the mature discussion (talk to the player, explain your concerns, ask for explanations or claifications, etc).  Beyond that, no rule in 4e prevents the DM from inflicting mechanical penalties/problems for the kinds of violations that you mention.  It just isn't a default assumption in 4e that all paladins face power removal if they fail to uphold the edicts of their church/deity.  And, frankly, that's how I hope DDN handles this as well.  Not only because I feel that power removal is a poor way to model the displeasure of a religious organization or deity, but also because the punishment should be a setting/table issue instead of a one-size-fits-all punishment that can be quite disproportionate to the offense.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

1d6 per 10ft.


Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
It all depends on how they design the Paladin.

I'm hoping to see individual Paladins defined by the vow/oath/virtue/order that they're dedicated to. As such, in my opinion it makes sense thematically that a Paladin that violates their vow feels a disconnect and desire to atone.

Also in my experience, permanently stripping powers from the class simply results in a character reroll, which both defeats the point of the 'path to atonement' and robs the player of the experience. Serious mechanical stripping therefore shouldn't occur.

Rather there should be a set-up where the mechanics reflect the disconnect felt by the Paladin between their vow and their current behaviour. It can be rationalized a number of ways but personally I prefer having it originate internally - the Paladin is unsettled by cognitive dissonance. Like a house divided, the Paladin is diminished until restored by atonement.

The nature of diminishment should be tied to the vow, e.g. a LG Holy Paladin might get unreliability in sensing evil. More vow specific powers would be affected as time and/or violations increase.

Then there is the social consequences, which is world specific. In a chivalrous order the diminished one could perhaps hide things for a while but failing to do order rituals properly and/or through word of mouth rumour, things could come to the attention of peers/superiors. Given the likely proliferation of paladin types it's hard to say what the social consequences would be, but again, for a LG Holy Paladin possibly an inquisition, judgement and Quest (spell) to atone.
In my current 4.0 campaign I'm running I have this really bad Paladin who won't follow her goddess's (raven queens) edicts, but there are no rules for having her fall from her goddess's favour. Thusly I have no real recourse when she does silly stuff like chum around with undead (for those who don't know a lot about 4.0 the Raven Queen is probably the most vehement of the deities when it comes to opposing the undead, who she believes are cheating)

Will D&D Next have real consequences for stuff like this? 

It will, yes.

Painful and inglorious death to the player of the paladin. 

Danny

OK I saids it before and I will says it again... There are actual fantasy tropes associated with Oath Bound heros who break there oaths like CuCulaine/Sampson and to a degree Lancelot and they do offer roleplaying opportunities does anyone have ideas how to help enable those instead of generating a mechanically induced adversarial social dynamic between the player and the DM.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Isn't this exactly what Avengers were created for?

...

Or, you know, that 1d6 per 10' answer seemed good.

While I hope the earlier mechanical alignment material appears as optional sidebars I do hope it's never required ever again. 
In my current 4.0 campaign I'm running I have this really bad Paladin who won't follow her goddess's (raven queens) edicts, but there are no rules for having her fall from her goddess's favour. Thusly I have no real recourse when she does silly stuff like chum around with undead (for those who don't know a lot about 4.0 the Raven Queen is probably the most vehement of the deities when it comes to opposing the undead, who she believes are cheating)

Will D&D Next have real consequences for stuff like this? 



You have a recourse for this, and it's the correct recourse: Roleplaying.  In-character actions have in-character consequences.

If his superiors in the RQ's church find out about it, they're going to come down on him like a ton of bricks.  Someone else could blackmail him about it.  I'm sure there are more possibilities, many of which are mentioned explicitly in the PHB under the class description.

Roleplaying decisions have roleplaying consequences.  There should be no mechanical consequences (aka power loss/bolts from the blue/whatever) for roleplaying.