|
4 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 11:36AM
#101
|
|
|
@lawrencehoy: That would be all well and good if those things were in fact merely descriptive suggestions and clearly marked as such. Instead they were cold hard mechanical facts. Sure a DM could houserule them away, by why design a game like that. Especially when you consider organized play.
Put those kind of things as flavor text, not mechanics. Text that says "most paladins follow a code of ethics similar to the morals of their god" is much better than:
Alignment: Lawful good only
One is fluff, the other is mechanics. One is good, the other is bad.
but don't mecahnics go togeather like peanut butter and jelly?
Can you explain why one is bad and the other is good? If you remove the fluff or change it then why would you have such a hard time removing any associated mechanics? I mean, if your campaign had drow living the clouds why would you want them to have darkvision? Would darkvision invalidate your floating drow city? I don't think it would. I think you would just replace that ability with feather fall or something more appropriate. You would replace the fluff and any associated mechanics.
Likewise, if the text says.
Paladins must follow a code of ethics similar to the morals of their god, but if the paladin breaks a vow his lay on hands power (which was attained during a divine initiation contingency ritual ) is automatically revoked, until such time that he attains reconciliation with his order/god/ethos.
Alternatively, the DM can impose role playing consequences like arrest and imprisonment.
and you don't like it then you can replace it with.
As a paladin you can rape, pillage, and do whatever you want. All the oaths and vows you have sworn mean nothing outside of any consequence that isn't self imposed.
I already explained the answer a few posts back. Fluff should "inform" mechanics, not "dictate" them.
A mechanically enforced code of conduct is dictated mechanics that hinders RP. A description in the paladins flavor text that says "most paladins follow a code of conduct aligned with their chosen diety. If a paladin strays from this code they may be stripped of their power, hunted down, or executed" is simply flavor text that leaves possibilities open to the player/DM.
I have played in game where the "church of the one true god" was evil, but everyone thought they were good. Our party's paladin had found them out and we spend many adventures running from the clergy who were hunting us down. Our paladin in this game did not lose his powers despite no longer following his faith.
And...so what if a paladin can rape, pillage, etc. If those acts go against the wills of the paladins god, the DM will punish the paladin (either by removing powers, sending avengers after him, or some other form). We do not need hard coded mechanics to state what happens when a paladin goes against their god. THAT ONLY SERVES TO STIFLE CREATIVITY!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 11:36AM
#102
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
Anytime I see the words "must", "will", "will not", "cannot", "never", "have to", or "always" in an RPG book, I feel the need to take a thick, black magic marker and draw right through them. Naturally, my OCD will not actually allow me to do such a thing, but it is a desire, nonetheless.
RPG rules are mutable by their very nature...and most RPGs expressly state so somewhere within their pages.
It's simply too easy to replace:
Must with Should
Will with Can
Will Not with Should Not
Cannot with Should Not
Never with Should Not
Have To with Should
Always with Should
When they don't, inevitably someone reads the rules, ignores or completely misses the part that states, "These rules are just guidelines", and blindly follows every rule verbatim...and usually later finds a way to express their disdain over the strict nature of the rules.
I'm not sure when the disconnect happened where people find it 100% acceptable to change any and all fluff, but adhere to printed rules as though they are some sort of gospel imparted upon us by the gods themselves. Yes, organized play must adhere to a specific ruleset to facilitate fairness between tables. Fortunately, they are not the majority of players, nor do they get to set the standard by which others play the game.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind."
- H.P. Lovecraft
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 11:45AM
#103
|
|
|
What you continue to fail to understand is that class is not concept, concept is not class. One may use the mechanics of a class to represent something entirely different via reflavoring (f'rex, someone once used the 4e Paladin on a Hengeyokai, with some of his 'paladin' abilities representing kitsune foxfire). The more forced fluff you impose on a class, the harder that gets.
Again; if YOU want YOUR paladin to tithe his stuff, YOU are more than free to. Enjoy yourself. YOUR way isn't THE ONLY way.
Why hijack the paladin class archetype for that concept? Why not just create a new class?
IMO, class = concept. That's how it works in D&D Next, but I guess you won't be happy with it.
If those mechanics best represented the character of the player, the ability to shave off the 'divine warrior' fluff to play a fox trickster from Japanese Mythology is In My OPINION, more important than staying staid, static, stagnant and unchanging with some locked in idea of what the class 'is'.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 11:48AM
#104
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Tithing = staggered payment plan for divine boons/blessing which have analogous effect of magic items... for the Paladin limit on magic items kept = preventing paladin from adding too much on top of aquired boons/blessings -- its economics ;-p
Attunement based on Charisma... but attunement slots filled by boons instead of items. (could be a core element of Paladin in 5e).
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 12:02PM
#105
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
@lawrencehoy: That would be all well and good if those things were in fact merely descriptive suggestions and clearly marked as such. Instead they were cold hard mechanical facts. Sure a DM could houserule them away, by why design a game like that. Especially when you consider organized play.
Put those kind of things as flavor text, not mechanics. Text that says "most paladins follow a code of ethics similar to the morals of their god" is much better than:
Alignment: Lawful good only
One is fluff, the other is mechanics. One is good, the other is bad.
but don't mecahnics go togeather like peanut butter and jelly?
Can you explain why one is bad and the other is good? If you remove the fluff or change it then why would you have such a hard time removing any associated mechanics? I mean, if your campaign had drow living the clouds why would you want them to have darkvision? Would darkvision invalidate your floating drow city? I don't think it would. I think you would just replace that ability with feather fall or something more appropriate. You would replace the fluff and any associated mechanics.
Likewise, if the text says.
Paladins must follow a code of ethics similar to the morals of their god, but if the paladin breaks a vow his lay on hands power (which was attained during a divine initiation contingency ritual ) is automatically revoked, until such time that he attains reconciliation with his order/god/ethos.
Alternatively, the DM can impose role playing consequences like arrest and imprisonment.
and you don't like it then you can replace it with.
As a paladin you can rape, pillage, and do whatever you want. All the oaths and vows you have sworn mean nothing outside of any consequence that isn't self imposed.
I already explained the answer a few posts back. Fluff should "inform" mechanics, not "dictate" them.
A mechanically enforced code of conduct is dictated mechanics that hinders RP. A description in the paladins flavor text that says "most paladins follow a code of conduct aligned with their chosen diety. If a paladin strays from this code they may be stripped of their power, hunted down, or executed" is simply flavor text that leaves possibilities open to the player/DM.
I have played in game where the "church of the one true god" was evil, but everyone thought they were good. Our party's paladin had found them out and we spend many adventures running from the clergy who were hunting us down. Our paladin in this game did not lose his powers despite no longer following his faith.
And...so what if a paladin can rape, pillage, etc. If those acts go against the wills of the paladins god, the DM will punish the paladin (either by removing powers, sending avengers after him, or some other form). We do not need hard coded mechanics to state what happens when a paladin goes against their god. THAT ONLY SERVES TO STIFLE CREATIVITY!
Since when is creativity stifled by defaults?
It's interesting that you advocate enforcement via punishment for breaking oaths and vows, but you don't want to provide the DM with any clue/defaults.
I'd prefer default mechanics for these kinds of things. That way I don't have to write my own and new DMs are not left in the dark. If your game is only focused on one pillar (combat) then just ignore the role playing defaults, it's no big deal.
All I want to avoid are DM vs Rules Lawyer arguments at the table. If the Paladins in my game suffer in game punishments like they have traditionally in AD&D, I don't want to spend time fighting about it. If the PHB doesn't at least have default role playing mechanics for such things then it isn't being inclusive of every playstyle. At the very least the PHB requires a line like "Note, depending on your groups playstyle the DM might require ..."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 12:03PM
#106
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
What you continue to fail to understand is that class is not concept, concept is not class. One may use the mechanics of a class to represent something entirely different via reflavoring (f'rex, someone once used the 4e Paladin on a Hengeyokai, with some of his 'paladin' abilities representing kitsune foxfire). The more forced fluff you impose on a class, the harder that gets.
Again; if YOU want YOUR paladin to tithe his stuff, YOU are more than free to. Enjoy yourself. YOUR way isn't THE ONLY way.
Why hijack the paladin class archetype for that concept? Why not just create a new class?
IMO, class = concept. That's how it works in D&D Next, but I guess you won't be happy with it.
If those mechanics best represented the character of the player, the ability to shave off the 'divine warrior' fluff to play a fox trickster from Japanese Mythology is In My OPINION, more important than staying staid, static, stagnant and unchanging with some locked in idea of what the class 'is'.
Well if I wanted that then I'd be arguing against a class based system, but that isn't D&D.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 12:04PM
#107
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />All I want to avoid are DM vs Rules Lawyer arguments at the table. If the Paladins in my game suffer in game punishments like they have traditionally in AD&D, I don't want to spend time fighting about it. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Then don't.
Before you start the game, before you make characters, tell people what your house rules are. Print them up and give every player a copy so they can see, in black and white, how things work in your game, and tell them to keep it so they can refresh their memory if necessary. If they don't like 'em, they can either choose not to play a paladin, or choose not to play at all.
No fighting.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 12:17PM
#108
|
|
|
Since when is creativity stifled by defaults?
It's interesting that you advocate enforcement via punishment for breaking oaths and vows, but you don't want to provide the DM with any clue/defaults.
I'd prefer default mechanics for these kinds of things. That way I don't have to write my own and new DMs are not left in the dark. If your game is only focused on one pillar (combat) then just ignore the role playing defaults, it's no big deal.
All I want to avoid are DM vs Rules Lawyer arguments at the table. If the Paladins in my game suffer in game punishments like they have traditionally in AD&D, I don't want to spend time fighting about it. If the PHB doesn't at least have default role playing mechanics for such things then it isn't being inclusive of every playstyle. At the very least the PHB requires a line like "Note, depending on your groups playstyle the DM might require ...'
The reason these decisions should be up to the DM is the same reason the punishment for a fighter murdering an innocent in a tavern is left up to the DM.
It is extremely easy to come up with a RP punishment for the paladin breaking his code, and at the same time, not all paladin's will have a code of conduct. This is why RP fluff should not include mechanics. Sure they can add an optional sidebar that gives examples of how to punish a paladin, just as they can include an optional sidebar for how to punish a wizard who breaks the law. These house rules should be described to the players beforehand and you will never have any arguing at the table.
Besides, you don't neeed to give all wizards this feature to represent that they follow the law.
Law Abiding Citizen: If you ever break the laws of the land 12 angry police officers come after you to imprison you. If you resist they will use deadly force to subdue or kill you. That would be silly to do so. Why must you impose somethign as equally silly on all paladins?
Lastly, because not all paladins follow a code of conduct (and even some who do should not randomly have their powers revoked when they break the code) it makes no sense to put strict codified mechanics for it in the core game. Afterall, my Paladin of Himself didn't follow a code, couldn't have his powers revoked, and had no church to pay tithes to or hunt him down if he misbehaved.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 12:20PM
#109
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
I want everyone to note this is me full on switching my stance because I now realize how they are designing the system:
All alignment based features should and most likely be in optional rules. It should in no way be baked in. We cannot ever agree on this subject. A large enough group of people is vehimently opposed...put it into optional subsystem.
As far as description goes I think someone else hit it correctly. you can set the flavor to say paladins regularly XYZ and from ther have the optional module right to the side:
If you would like a more mechanical representation of the paladin's code use these optional rules....
There is literally no valid reason not to do it like this. there are many invalid reasons to not do it...tradition, opinions, other one true wayisms. None of them work while considering the design of 5e.
Design the paladin to be good at all things people can reasonably agree it should be good at...balance it so it can't fulfill multiple roles at once (you're gunna need to in some way choose between healadin or ret pally basically) ...leave all the things we vehimently disagree about in optional modules. Don't choose a winner just say nope genuine vehiment disagreement has cropped up surrounding this feature it is optional.
We will all feel the sting of this design at some point but so long as we have options its cool.
Anyways about the only thing tradition even requires of the paladin is 1 thing: Lay On Hands. It is literally the only feature that has existed on the paladin in every incarnation (obviously not the evil ones). Even this can be an option in a larger subset of options.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 12:20PM
#110
|
|
|
What you continue to fail to understand is that class is not concept, concept is not class. One may use the mechanics of a class to represent something entirely different via reflavoring (f'rex, someone once used the 4e Paladin on a Hengeyokai, with some of his 'paladin' abilities representing kitsune foxfire). The more forced fluff you impose on a class, the harder that gets.
Again; if YOU want YOUR paladin to tithe his stuff, YOU are more than free to. Enjoy yourself. YOUR way isn't THE ONLY way.
Why hijack the paladin class archetype for that concept? Why not just create a new class?
IMO, class = concept. That's how it works in D&D Next, but I guess you won't be happy with it.
If those mechanics best represented the character of the player, the ability to shave off the 'divine warrior' fluff to play a fox trickster from Japanese Mythology is In My OPINION, more important than staying staid, static, stagnant and unchanging with some locked in idea of what the class 'is'.
Well if I wanted that then I'd be arguing against a class based system, but that isn't D&D.
Ah, got it, your way is the only true way to play D&D. I disagree.
*edit* To clarify, it seems to me you are saying "A paladin is X, that is the only way to play a Paladin, any other way needs a new class."
To me, Paladin is a group of mechanics that can be fluffed to represent one thing, or, with some imagination, can be fluffed as something else, represented by those same mechanics, right up until someone insists that the fluff is part of the mechanics and they cannot be used any other way.
|
|
|
