Community

May 1, 2012 -- 2:59PM, Kalnaur wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 2:12PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:59PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:47PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

I'm fairly definite on that my self, but there will be alignment restrictions (even if self selected you will need to hold to a certain alignment) and rules that the paladin will have to hold themselves to (tenets of faith, strictures, codes of conduct).  I can almost guaruntee that those things will be there since every PHB in the past has had those things.

1.Proof?

2.4e PHB didn't have that.

1.  Like I said I gave the proof a while ago as has kaldric with his excelent graph that shows alignment restrictions in all but 4e (an error on his part because 4e still has alignment restrictions).

4e phb the Paladin must select a deity (it says the word must meaning it is not optional within RAW), and must have the same alignment as that deity (yet again must so not optional within RAW).  That is an alignment restriction.  You select the alignment you are restricted to by selecting a deity, but you are restricted none the less.  If you break the alignment, or break the tenets of faith your god decrees on a regular occaision(Every god has a three point set of tenets you must follow, uphold, and/or enforce as a paladin in 4e), then other followers of your faith will hunt you down and punish you.  Thats the RAW found in the 4e PHB as it was released.  They may have been selectable, but once you locked it in, your paladin was restricted to a specific alignment on pain of plot mutilation.

Alignment restriction of that nature is encouraged, because it can drive the story on, and involve the entire party (unless the rat bastards decide to abandon the paladin to the fate of his brethren), as well as not dictating a single player's abilities and thus what way is the "right" way to play their character.  Alignment restriction that effectively destroys a character's usefulness to their party unless they go tell their divine sugar daddy they're sorry isn't so much encouraged.

Unfortunately due to the fact they never describe what the punishment was the DM could essentially do whatever he wants to to your character short of stripping the title paladin from you, and there is nothing in the rules to save you.  He could decide that the paladins show up and punish you by removing all of your powers.  Sure you gained those by rights and rituals.  The other paladins show up and perform rights and rituals that remove your powers until you do better as a paladin of your god.  Enjoy basic attacking only for at least the next game.  Not saying I would ever do something that extreme but possibly taking away all channel divinity for a while might happen.  Thats completely cool and within the rules to do that.  I, as a DM, could choose any punishment I wished in the bounds of the rules for 4e.  While I can somewhat agree that previous editions were heavy handed with their punishments for Paladins, at least those editions had a listing of what was going to happen when your DM decided you weren't acting like a paladin should. 

With that in mind the alignment restrictions of 4e could be just as bad as in previous editions or possibly even worse given a truly terrible DM.  There isn't even a mechanical way to immediately get your powers back in 4e you just have to suck it up till ya get them back.  (Yet again just giving worst possible senario I wouldn't actually do this) 

However I like presenting both things as options.  You may send other members of the faith after the paladin or you may limit the Paladin's power in the following ways.....  Make it so that there are limits on what the DM can do that aren't just, "I can't ever make you stop being a paladin".  With both presented as options and both given rules on how to work it is then entirely left up to the DM to choose between the two.  That way the player can know what may be happening to them in the case of lapsing in their duties as a Paladin.  Possibly even with a caveat that the Character(and therefore the player) is always aware of what the penalties of failure will be.  

I figure the Paladin (especially since I assert that they are their code) knows every facet of their personal codes or restrictions and therefore would also know the inherent punishment for breaking those things.  This makes it so all of these things: codes, restrictions, and consequences, are agreed upon before play is begun and then there can be no surprises for what happens.  At least not for the paladin player.  I might attatch a bit of sidebar that it could be really fun if this process is done in private between the DM and the player playing the Paladin so that the rest of the party is surprised by the consequences and intracacies of the codes and restrictions.  The paladin may know that he will soon have fellow paladins searching for him, and he can entirely tell the rest of the party, or he could just let it happen whenever it happens with the party having no foreknowledge of what is happening and really drive up the drama and and intrigue on the table. (Just kinda musing in this last paragraph and tossing out some ideas).

May 1, 2012 -- 5:37PM, Maxperson wrote:

@SleepsInTraffic

So how do you respond to the fact that the alignment restriction and code aren't what make a Paladin a Paladin?  (the existence of 5 other base classes with alignment restrictions and codes shows this)

Since alignment restrictions and codes are not what makes a Paladin a Paladin, what do you think makes a Paladin a Paladin?

No defend your points. I have already defended mine.  Asking a question I have already answered is not a valid argument.

How can you defend the idea that alignments and/or codes are not central to the concept of the Paladin?  Where is your basis for this argument?  Where did the idea come from?  Where is your proof that alignment and/or codes are not central to the concept of the paladin as it has existed in D&D?

Give me an article or entry that denys the facts I have presented.  Give me a citation that can dispute, "Alignments, the entire basis of these paladin classes...".  A line that was within the entire basis of your argument that paladins of every alignment should exist.  The article you propose as the backbone of your argument also makes a distinct class for each alignment.  How can you defend against the fact that up until 4e every single paladin of an alignment other than LG, was given a class name other than "Paladin"?

How are the things I have suggested not a compromise on the Paladins of every alignment thing you want?  How can you complain about being able to make the exact character you want to make?