Codes of Conducts should be rewarding, not punitive - a modest proposal [Archive]

elliott20

2014-07-10, 10:56 AM

I've loved paladins my whole life. They are just the juiciest characters to play.

But I hate actually playing one myself. Every single time I play one, I either end up playing a fighter with some religious overtones, or I end up fighting with my GM for why I ended up falling. My 3.5E years were filled with this kind of thing that I eventually stopped playing paladins all together.

but even today, the most sure fire way of generating a lot of conversation (and sometimes controversy) is to make a thread about a paladin moral quandary. It's generally interesting to read because I get to some unique ethical frameworks being discussed and it's fascinating... but it's exhausting to think that to play a paladin I must play like this.

And I realized WHY people fight so hard about this: loss of paladinhood, be it temporary or permanent, is a punishment. It is a punishment that is handed out by the GM for what he perceives as a moral failing, as if the GM is the keeper of the player's ethics and actions. This is not a good dynamic for a player and GM, as it puts them in an adversarial relationship, when in reality, any kind of awesome RP experience requires that you have a good rapport with your GM.

Therefore, I submit that instead of using code of conduct as restraint and as a negative reinforcement, we should use it in a positive manner. We should using it to reward players for doing something awesome with it.

Conversely, falling (or being stripped of your powers in any form) should NOT be something that is simply done to you by the GM via arbitrary fiat. It should be a decision from the player, collaborated with the GM. Why? Because when a player choose to do so on their own, they will roleplay the decision without resentment. To be clear, it is okay to suggest to the player that they're not really playing their alignment very well, and that maybe they should consider a change somewhere. However, if we can use codes of conduct positively instead of negatively, this will become apparent to the player when the player notices that he's not getting an awful lot of his code of conduct.

And how do we encourage falling gracefully? By incentivizing the player to complete it's transition. When you fall from grace, one of two things will eventually happen 1. you come to terms with it, based on some hard choices you had to make, and realize that your outlook is irrevocably changed and you will never be a paladin again. 2. you seek redemption.

Both of those can be GREAT stories. But it can't be forced on someone. Someone needs to choose to want to go through this. And the best way to incentivize people to go through this is to make sure that going through it will be rewarding for them (keep in mind, I don't mean XP or the like necessarily, but it CAN), or at least not cost them in the long run.

The second thing that can help with the code of conduct is precision. The paladin code of conduct is actually pretty vague as to what you're supposed to do. It gives you a bunch of things you CAN'T do, but doesn't give you anything that you SHOULD do.

That's boring. Honor codes, and ideals should spur action, not complacency and fear of the world.

So I propose that all characters whose background comes with a healthy dose of belief and conviction should write down two sets of things: goals that they have, and rules on how to act in specific situations. The goals are easy. The rules are trickier.

The rules, much like the normal code of conduct, can act as a limiter on actions at times and that's boring. So how do we use it? Well, by rewarding people for using it when it's not convenient, or when it will get the character in trouble.

i.e. "never lie". The king asks your group a question that if you answered honestly would jeopardize the group. You could just keep silent and nothing happens. OR you could tell the truth at that very moment, even though you know it will get you trouble later. In doing so you earn RP rewards from that rule.

I personally think, for a starter, you should probably have no more than 3-4 goals / rules, and any additional would have to be picked up through play.

conversely these rules and goals can serve as a marker for your character is mentally. A paladin who falls, but doesn't change his belief is either still in denial of his situation, or is trying to make up for his sins. The moment his belief changes and shows that he's no longer interested in the ideals of paladinhood, is when you know the character's transition is complete. (and that point I would work with the player to figure out how to get his character back on par with the rest of the cast, since he's now basically a fighter without feats)

Also don't forget, this allows you beliefs to evolve over time too! At first, you might be defender of <insert country>. through play, you realize that your heroic instincts makes you not just want to defend those of this one nation, but anyone who might need help. belief evolves, and so on.

The big question is what kind of reward you want to use. That will depend upon which homebrew system you like the most or if you just want to stick to good ol' XP. Personally, I'm a big fan of using action points for this purpose.

As you can see, with just a slight shift in the attitude and format of how you do codes of conduct, you can actually change the fundamental mechanic for characters of faith and how it's played.

thoughts?

Amphetryon

2014-07-10, 11:05 AM

FidgetySquirrel

2014-07-10, 11:12 AM

To be fair, there are times when I think unintentional falling is okay, albeit with a warning. If one of my players was playing a paladin, and decided to go full-on murderhobo, I'd remind him that he's playing a paladin before he screwed the pooch. Of course, my players know how to play Good characters, so I doubt that would come up.

elliott20

2014-07-10, 11:20 AM

Amphetryon

2014-07-10, 11:32 AM

Again, you don't get rewarded for not doing anything.This could just as easily read "Again, you get punished for not doing anything," so far as I can tell.

FidgetySquirrel

2014-07-10, 11:32 AM

It's when the players get really vested in their paladinhood without understanding what that entails that it becomes an issue.This is why I try to make sure that my players understand that paladins are different, so to speak. They have a personal code of conduct, albeit one where occasional violations aren't detrimental. They are, arguably, fanatically devoted to a particular moral outlook, that being righteousness, honor, compassion, and morality-guided justice. Paladins aren't cookie-cutter characters, but all core paladins have some major common ground. Paladin-hood is a responsibility, and if one of my players can't deal with RPing that, then there's an issue.

That said, I'm generally not one to bring about the whole 'Law vs Good' angle with my paladins. It's a boring, cliched plot device where the right choice is just too obvious. Paladins do not choose what is legally right over what is morally right. Ever. I don't contrive to cause falling. If character development seems to be headed that way, I'll ask if that is at all intentional. If it is, by all means I'll encourage it via plot. After all, I just love a good redemption arc.

This could just as easily read "Again, you get punished for not doing anything," so far as I can tell.Some people do respond better to the carrot than the stick. In the end it's just a different means to the same end, however. I'll agree with that. I guess it just depends on group mentality. Some might prefer this, others won't. Personally, I'm indifferent, and therefore wouldn't adopt it.

Zanthy1

2014-07-10, 11:34 AM

I do like your ideas, however one thing that I feel does give the GM a little power is that the paladin draws their powers and all that honky dory stuff from their deity. When it comes down to it, good and evil are determined by someones opinion on what actions fall into that category, and paladins trust in a deity that they assume is Good. As a paladin, you are Lawful Good by the standards of human society (as in the real world and the actual players) but also by the respected deity. I always believe that some warning is needed if a player is doing things that would lead to a Fall, however I feel like the reason why the GM has the decision is because the GM has control over the actions of the deities.

for example: I am a paladin of Pelor and I do something that Pelor would see has evil, then Pelor would strip me of my powers. There might be a warning, and I always think its fair to give them the heads up, but overall a Fall is meant to be a punishment for not following their LG code as established through their deity.

BWR

2014-07-10, 11:39 AM

You are rewarded for codes of conduct: you get awesome divine powers.
It's basically a contract between the PC and the god/philosophy/whatever - You do/do not do X Y Z, you get powers.

Until I came to these boards I'd never heard that people had a problem with paladins and codes of conduct. All I can say is you've all been cursed with crappy DMs, or if you are the kind person who likes to screw paladins over: you are a crappy DM.
I say this every time these threads come up: anyone who gets powers from an external source, such as divine casters, should have codes of conduct saying explicitly what they are required and expected to do and what they are supposed to avoid. The idea that clerics can basically do whatever they want and still get powers from their source is absurd. Paladins are held to certain standards, so should all divine characters. A cleric and a paladin of the same god should basically have the same vows, because the god expects all his or her devotees to act appropriately.

RogueDM

2014-07-10, 11:40 AM

The question of falling came up in a game I played in a while back. Luckily for the player I wasn't DM for that one, but our Knight (also subject to a code) punched out an old hermit and was about to transition from assault to a mugging when one of the less noble characters (my Marshall with the "merciless" flaw) CDGed the old man allowing everyone else to loot with impunity.

Positive reinforcement IS different from rephrased punishment in the same way that NOT being beaten with a stick is not a reward in contrast to being beaten with that stick is a punishment. The functional difference is that one is the established norm (not-being-beaten-with-a-stick/ having a functional PC class), while the other is an exceptional circumstance. Personally, I would use a low-grade Hero Point system. The player and/or GM should set up a list of behaviors the paladin should favor, and probably a list of hard "do not"s. I would also establish a list of ready rewards, like a little more Lay Hands healing, another smite, a smidge of xp, a +1 on a roll, etc.

Each time the Pali did a good deed he'd get a cookie (read as: point), and bank his points to gain later rewards. Some may only cost one point, others perhaps more. HOWEVER, as a matter of balance I would take this as an ACF since its potentially unbalancing. Or else everyone should have the option of taking a Code of Conduct.

Some days a very good paladin may be able to spend all of his accrued cookies and be fairly epic, but he'd have to forgo using those points on other days where he'd be less useful.

Alternately, the points could have an expiration date (24 hours) in which they can be spent and at the end of the day they either go away or you just get some paltry amount of RPXP. Again, may be too rewarding in contrast to the other characters, but I guess he's still not a Tier 1 so...

FidgetySquirrel

2014-07-10, 11:45 AM

our Knight... punched out an old hermitWhat in the nine hells!? Did the hermit besmirch the good name of the knight's mother or something?

ahenobarbi

2014-07-10, 12:29 PM

elliott20

2014-07-10, 12:34 PM

The focus of my post is to encourage collaboration, and focus the relationship with the GM.

At some level, the GM still will have his fall hammer if he ever needs it. However, by making it a positive reinforcement thing, the GM (in my own experience) will have to spend tremendously less time policing his players and can spend more time on developing the game itself.

To me, that's a win/win.

illyahr

2014-07-10, 12:41 PM

FidgetySquirrel

2014-07-10, 12:45 PM

A paladin falls by breaking his/her code, not by going against a particular deity.I'm kind of nitpicking, here, but paladins fall by committing gross violations of the code or willingly committing an evil act. Simply violating the code, in a minor sense, shouldn't result in falling.

Red Fel

2014-07-10, 12:50 PM

If you're interested in implementing a bit of homebrew, consider this mantle-based Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?33551-The-How-It-Should-Be-Paladin-v2-0). Basically, instead of a generic and all-consuming Code of Conduct, the Paladin takes on "mantles," representing sacred oaths or vows, personal to him. So no two Paladins need have an identical Code. More importantly, maintaining one's mantle provides a reward, in the form of various powers unique to each mantle. Violating a mantle causes the Paladin to lose its powers, but may not cause him to lose everything. I happen to like it as a model.

If you're not interested in homebrew, however, consider this.

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).(Emphasis added.) These excerpts tell us several things about the Paladin. The Code of Conduct is independent of the "loses all class abilities" clause above. Note the "additionally" disjunctive between the two. In other words, violations of the Code of Conduct are not inherently "evil acts" that trigger a fall. The Ex-Paladins section explicitly lists three causes of falling: Ceasing to be Lawful Good. Willfully committing an evil act. Grossly violating the Code of Conduct.In other words, matters beyond this - including minor violations of the Code - are not fall-worthy. A Paladin who tells a lie does not instantly fall. A Paladin who disregards legitimate authority once or twice does not instantly fall. And so forth.
People don't often realize this. A minor or isolated violation of the Code does not trigger punishment; or rather, it shouldn't. This is a case of "Paladins don't do that," but it's not a case of "Paladins can't do that." True, after a certain point, you don't really resemble a Paladin if you keep it up, but at that point you've hit the "grossly" point of violation of the Code.

That's the bottom line, for me. The Code is not and should not be a punitive mechanism constantly hanging over your head. It should be a schematic for compelling and entertaining character roleplay and development. And small, isolated violations - while they should be avoided - can be very rewarding ways to evolve a character.

Amphetryon

2014-07-10, 01:05 PM

Technically? None. Practically? Huge.

It's like the difference between telling a girl that she looks prettier in dress A and telling her she looks uglier in dress B. Logically equivalent but suggest something different (in girl example "you lookgood in both" vs "you look ugly in both, in RPG "you did well ( but not well enough)" vs "you screwed up").
Personally, I have always intuitively understood "you did well (but not well enough)" as equivalent to "you screwed up;" basic interpersonal communication theory dictates that, when you include a qualifier like 'but,' you eliminate from the mind of the listener everything that came before it.

Crake

2014-07-10, 01:31 PM

Or you could just play a crusader

jedipotter

2014-07-10, 01:48 PM

Therefore, I submit that instead of using code of conduct as restraint and as a negative reinforcement, we should use it in a positive manner. We should using it to reward players for doing something awesome with it.

I agree. This is part of my divine magic fix: if a paladin does the good that their god likes they get rewards. It does have punishments for failures too, of course.

Conversely, falling (or being stripped of your powers in any form) should NOT be something that is simply done to you by the GM via arbitrary fiat. It should be a decision from the player, collaborated with the GM. Why? Because when a player choose to do so on their own, they will roleplay the decision without resentment.

This wont work. This is the Fox guarding the Hen House. It's like when the king's advisers get together and vote themselves a raise, but ''don't have the money for anyone else to get a raise.'' A player is not going to say they ''violated'' anything most of the time. They will use double talk and work around it and say what they did was ''ok'' and ''not bad''. In short you will have the same problem

I personally think, for a starter, you should probably have no more than 3-4 goals / rules, and any additional would have to be picked up through play.

I go for: the DM makes all the rules and code to follow. At first this will be about a page of common things. What to do, what not to do, what your god likes, what your god does not like and possible exceptions. (I game in FR so a paladin must have a god)

Each would have a Lie paragraph along the lines of :

Torm-"You must tell the whole truth if asked. If you hear the question you must answer. You can only keep silent if the asker is of lower social or structural rank then you. You must answer a king, but could be silent to a farmer. You must answer even if it might bring harm or trouble to others or yourself.

Tyr-"You must tell a version of the truth if asked. You need only speak if asked directly. You are free to keep silent, unless the asker has a legal structural right to ask you. This is dependent on your own judgment of the local law. You are free to withhold information.

Sune-"You must still a vague version of the truth if asked, never lie, but in must be true enough. Your free to speak or not, an your own choice. You care more about the vague greater good then the laws of man. The one thing you must always be truthful about is love.

The big question is what kind of reward you want to use. That will depend upon which homebrew system you like the most or if you just want to stick to good ol' XP. Personally, I'm a big fan of using action points for this purpose.

I like ''any thing''. If a player role-plays a good paladin, their god notices. Often this can be something like a contingent type spell that the character will be given, or a magic item or even just information. It's best if they are direct. When the paladin of Helm stays to protect the place, he finds a potions of Restful Sleep and Healing on his bed. I like to keep it vague as ''it could have just been a normal fellow worshiper helping out quietly'' or it could have been a quick ''give him the potions'' type vision all the way to ''a divine servant dropped them off''.

SethoMarkus

2014-07-10, 01:57 PM

Personally, I have always intuitively understood "you did well (but not well enough)" as equivalent to "you screwed up;" basic interpersonal communication theory dictates that, when you include a qualifier like 'but,' you eliminate from the mind of the listener everything that came before it.

Operant Conditioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning)

Basically, "You did well (but not well enough)" is an attempt at promoting behavior. Do X and you will be rewarded with Y. Fail to do X and nothing happens. It is essentially Positive Reinforcement. "You screwed up" could be used as an alternate wording, sure, but it implies something a little different. Mostly, it infers a punishment; that the reward was guaranteed to you, but revoked because you did not succeed. You did not do X, so I am taking Y away. This is essentially Negative Punishment. Both are two sides of the same coin, but differ depending on if you are trying to increase or decrease a behavior. If you want to increase behavior that aligns with a code of conduct, you want to reinforce; if you want to decrease behavior that does not align with a code of conduct, you want to punish.

The OP's view on a Paladin's Code of Conduct is trying to shift view from Negative Punishment for breaking the code into Positive Reinforcement for following the code. A Paladin's powers are not inherent to the Paladin, they are a gift, a reward for acting within a certain code. The Paladin does not own the powers where they can be taken away if he displeases the cosmos, rather the powers are granted as a continuous reward for Lawful Good behavior (in essence).

So basically, no, there is not a major difference in the semantics of the phrasing. However, there is a difference in psychological effect on those that hear it.

Bloodgruve

2014-07-10, 02:16 PM

Haven't read all the posts but I agree with the OP. A concept like this, spinning it in a positive light, would give most players a better feeling for the class. 'Give' instead of 'take away'. The more 'Paladin' a paladin plays the stronger he gets but you should have a base line. I still agree that some acts could get your paladin'ness taken away but it should be a severe case. It's all about perspective of the player even if the system could be interpreted as 'giving' or 'taking away'.

Also, I let my paladins run a 'three strikes' system. I let my players have a couple chances to atone before they get stripped. And I usually look at the Deities profile before I judge if the act would give them a strike vs just looking at alignment. Unless they worship a god of Life and nonviolence killing something that's not necessarily evil may not necessarily be wrong in the eyes of their god, ends justify the means..

IMHO
Blood'

Amphetryon

2014-07-10, 03:06 PM

Operant Conditioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning)

Basically, "You did well (but not well enough)" is an attempt at promoting behavior. Do X and you will be rewarded with Y. Fail to do X and nothing happens. It is essentially Positive Reinforcement. "You screwed up" could be used as an alternate wording, sure, but it implies something a little different. Mostly, it infers a punishment; that the reward was guaranteed to you, but revoked because you did not succeed. You did not do X, so I am taking Y away. This is essentially Negative Punishment. Both are two sides of the same coin, but differ depending on if you are trying to increase or decrease a behavior. If you want to increase behavior that aligns with a code of conduct, you want to reinforce; if you want to decrease behavior that does not align with a code of conduct, you want to punish.

The OP's view on a Paladin's Code of Conduct is trying to shift view from Negative Punishment for breaking the code into Positive Reinforcement for following the code. A Paladin's powers are not inherent to the Paladin, they are a gift, a reward for acting within a certain code. The Paladin does not own the powers where they can be taken away if he displeases the cosmos, rather the powers are granted as a continuous reward for Lawful Good behavior (in essence).

So basically, no, there is not a major difference in the semantics of the phrasing. However, there is a difference in psychological effect on those that hear it.

I am aware of operant conditioning. I have never personally found it to make a difference, in my experience. Expressing negative reinforcement as if it were a positive ('You'll get Reward X' instead of 'You'll be denied Reward X') merely obfuscates the intention of the threat, without actually changing that intention.

icefractal

2014-07-10, 03:21 PM

You know, I actually liked the way 4E handled divine characters like Paladins. They were granted the spark of power by a deity, but once granted, it was part of them and couldn't be revoked. The consequence to a Paladin turning evil is that your fellow Paladins will hunt you down for your betrayal of the code if they find out. It just seemed like a setup that works better and supports a more interesting variety of plots.

I don't know about earlier editions - I've heard the Paladin was legitimately pretty strong in 1E? But in 3E, the "with great power comes great responsibility" thing is kind of a sick joke, given how Paladin's one of the weaker classes. That's why I don't even understand the "well you can't just let the players define their own code, they'll get away with things" mindset. If someone chooses to play a Paladin, they presumably want to be a paragon of holy behavior, because it sure as hell wasn't for the power.

elliott20

2014-07-10, 03:25 PM

You know, I actually liked the way 4E handled divine characters like Paladins. They were granted the spark of power by a deity, but once granted, it was part of them and couldn't be revoked. The consequence to a Paladin turning evil is that your fellow Paladins will hunt you down for your betrayal of the code if they find out. It just seemed like a setup that works better and supports a more interesting variety of plots.

I don't know about earlier editions - I've heard the Paladin was legitimately pretty strong in 1E? But in 3E, the "with great power comes great responsibility" thing is kind of a sick joke, given how Paladin was one of the weaker classes. That's why I don't even understand the "well you can't just let the players define their own code, they'll get away with things" mindset. If someone chooses to play a Paladin, they presumably want to be a paragon of holy behavior, because it sure as hell wasn't for the power.

yeah, that's precisely the problem I have with that attitude. It assumes that your players are children who don't understand that there is a social contract in place. Maybe it's my group, but I've never had a problem with them trying to abuse my trust. and I suspect that with most groups, this wouldn't be a problem with the right amount of expectation management.

Svata

2014-07-10, 03:32 PM

I am aware of operant conditioning. I have never personally found it to make a difference, in my experience. Expressing negative reinforcement as if it were a positive ('You'll get Reward X' instead of 'You'll be denied Reward X') merely obfuscates the intention of the threat, without actually changing that intention.

Well, instead of looking at it that way, think about this. Before performing an action, you're in neutral position D. Normally, if you fail to uphold the code you get punishment X, for example, falling. Instead, if you uphold the code, you don't just not fall, you get whatever set of bonuses. Your punishment isn't just witholding the reward, but some additional punishment. Your reward isn't just witholding the punishment, but also some additional thing.

malonkey1

2014-07-10, 03:34 PM

I usually dispense with the PHB code, and give different orders different codes. Paladin of Mystra? Your job is to strike down evil arcanists and promote magical understanding. Paladin of Fharlanghn? You must aid travelers in arriving at their destination largely unharmed. Etc.

Amphetryon

2014-07-10, 03:48 PM

Well, instead of looking at it that way, think about this. Before performing an action, you're in neutral position D. Normally, if you fail to uphold the code you get punishment X, for example, falling. Instead, if you uphold the code, you don't just not fall, you get whatever set of bonuses. Your punishment isn't just witholding the reward, but some additional punishment. Your reward isn't just witholding the punishment, but also some additional thing.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

That doesn't sound like a 'neutral position' derived from inaction, to me.

ahenobarbi

2014-07-10, 07:29 PM

Vorandril

2014-07-10, 07:45 PM

This could just as easily read "Again, you get punished for not doing anything," so far as I can tell.
The fundamental difference is this.

Reward, "You have behaved admirably today. Here is a magic sword."

Punishment, "You have behaved dishonorably today. I am taking away your magic hat."

Reward is the gaining of a thing. The punishment is taking a thing you already had. It CAN be the denial of something, but the loss of something you didn't have in the first place is fairly irrelevant to you, isn't it?

I think there is a lot of merit to the idea here. And HOW to reward the paladin can't really be summed up in a "here is a rule". Because every player/character has different motivations. So communication is key in all things.

Plus not having GM's who feel like they're the enemy of the party. A GM isn't the enemy. They are the catalyst that helps provide the story. Being a GM means that you are taking on the responsibility of everyone's entertainment because you provide the world they get to play in. You can't do that if you feel your job is to stick a ^&*$ in their eye.

Pan151

2014-07-10, 07:50 PM

The fundamental difference is this.

Reward, "You have behaved admirably today. Here is a magic sword."

Punishment, "You have behaved dishonorably today. I am taking away your magic hat."

Reward is the gaining of a thing. The punishment is taking a thing you already had. It CAN be the denial of something, but the loss of something you didn't have in the first place is fairly irrelevant to you, isn't it?

It's still the same exact thing, though.

"You have not behaved admirably today. You lose your magic sword"

"You have not behaved dishonorably today. I am giving you a magic hat."

No matter how you approach it, paladin abilities are something you are supposed to have, as a paladin. If your point of view is "Well, you didn't have them in the first place anyway, no biggie" that's faulty logic. The regular paladin didn't have them before gaining his paladin levels either - it doesn't make it suck any less when he loses them.

Amphetryon

2014-07-10, 07:53 PM

The fundamental difference is this.

Reward, "You have behaved admirably today. Here is a magic sword."

Punishment, "You have behaved dishonorably today. I am taking away your magic hat."

Reward is the gaining of a thing. The punishment is taking a thing you already had. It CAN be the denial of something, but the loss of something you didn't have in the first place is fairly irrelevant to you, isn't it?

If you're dangling the reward in front of them for good behavior, they're well aware of what you'd be denying them for bad behavior.

If the reward and lack thereof is made clear after the fact, they still get the "a-ha!" moment that informs them that their behavior resulted in their loss of a reward.

If the reward/lack thereof is NOT made clear after the fact, then you're willfully withholding information from them on how their behavior is being judged by the DM.

Vorandril

2014-07-10, 07:56 PM

It's still the same exact thing, though.

"You have not behaved admirably today. You lose your magic sword"

"You have not behaved dishonorably today. I am giving you a magic hat."

Then maybe your line of thinking is one aspect that the OP was getting at. I don't mean that to sound derisive so here's an elaboration;

If someone feels that a reward is the same thing as "avoiding punishment" then that is a matter of personal outlook. What might make playing a paladin more rewarding is if people moved away from the mentality of trying to screw their (assuming) friends over, and instead tried acting in a more positive manner. Perhaps even optimistic. Which is a distinct possibility when the PC in question is a paladin of good and justice. The character shouldn't think of it as "avoiding punishment" otherwise they're not a courageous paladin. They're a coward doing what they're told.
Which is against the flavor of what the class is supposed to be.

I wouldn't mind seeing the discussion moving away from "Glass half full" kinds of discussion and more towards ways they might try implementing this mentality in conjunction, or perhaps in replacement of, current mechanics.

Gabrosin

2014-07-10, 08:02 PM

I'm disappointed... this thread isn't about eating children at all.

Pan151

2014-07-10, 08:06 PM

Then maybe your line of thinking is one aspect that the OP was getting at. I don't mean that to sound derisive so here's an elaboration;

If someone feels that a reward is the same thing as "avoiding punishment" then that is a matter of personal outlook. What might make playing a paladin more rewarding is if people moved away from the mentality of trying to screw their (assuming) friends over, and instead tried acting in a more positive manner. Perhaps even optimistic. Which is a distinct possibility when the PC in question is a paladin of good and justice. The character shouldn't think of it as "avoiding punishment" otherwise they're not a courageous paladin. They're a coward doing what they're told.
Which is against the flavor of what the class is supposed to be.

I wouldn't mind seeing the discussion moving away from "Glass half full" kinds of discussion and more towards ways they might try implementing this mentality in conjunction, or perhaps in replacement of, current mechanics.

This however has nothing to do with whether or not paladin abilities should be approached from a reward or punishment point of view and everything to do with whether or not the DM wants to screw over the paladin.

Changing the paladin abilities from losable benefits into winable benefits has no tangible effect whatsoever. A paladin that acts like a good paladin should has access to all his abilities in both cases. A paladin that acts contrary to how a good paladin should loses access to his abilities in both cases. A DM that wants to screw the paladin can screw the paladin just fine in both cases.

Unless you are willing to craft a wholly different system for paladin abilities, changing the flavor from reward to punishment is just wasted paperwork.

PS. Well, if you change it into reward form, it actually makes it easier for the paladin to "fall" - before all he had to do was act in a non-evil, non-chaotic way, while now he has to act in a strictly Lawful Good way... So, instead of rewarding the paladin, what you're doing is punishing them even harder...

Phelix-Mu

2014-07-10, 08:17 PM

Paying a price for coolness is okay with me. The problems generally are

1.) Classes like paladin didn't actually get much in the way of coolness in the grand scheme of things.

2.) Prices are wildly inconsistent (a la druid, the most open-ended code of conduct for a class with more options than almost any other right out of the gate).

I think punitive v rewards is fine either way. I think the reason that it gets sketchy sometimes is that, if class X gets special reward just for doing its schtick, and no one else can earn that reward, that seems a bit unfair (or may seem so to some players...it's really not a big deal, but may appear otherwise). Giving coolness up front, but taking it away if you fail to do x, y, z is more traditional.

I think some of this was likely grandfathered in from earlier editions, too.

georgie_leech

2014-07-10, 08:47 PM

This however has nothing to do with whether or not paladin abilities should be approached from a reward or punishment point of view and everything to do with whether or not the DM wants to screw over the paladin.

Changing the paladin abilities from losable benefits into winable benefits has no tangible effect whatsoever. A paladin that acts like a good paladin should has access to all his abilities in both cases. A paladin that acts contrary to how a good paladin should loses access to his abilities in both cases. A DM that wants to screw the paladin can screw the paladin just fine in both cases.

Unless you are willing to craft a wholly different system for paladin abilities, changing the flavor from reward to punishment is just wasted paperwork.

PS. Well, if you change it into reward form, it actually makes it easier for the paladin to "fall" - before all he had to do was act in a non-evil, non-chaotic way, while now he has to act in a strictly Lawful Good way...

Not necessarily. Thinking of Paladin-ness as a reward opens the door to using it as a modifier instead of a standalone class, sort of like how Saint is a Template and doesn't have it's own progression. After all, barring the expanded skill list, an ex-Paladin is basically a Warrior with an increased HD size. So as a slap-dash approach, you could have the Paladin Template increase HD by 1 size and staple the existing Class ability section onto another class. Presumably this could be better designed for individual classes; the existing abilities and code don't mesh well with, say, a Rogue. If I wanted to do this properly, I'd make separate lines for each class, all based on the existing set of abilities, probably with minor modifications for the Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter variants. If I was feeling ambitious, I'd add a scaling "Virtue" (or whatever name you prefer) slider that determines how potent the abilities you're gaining are, rather than a binary on/off switch. Said system would allow for a more nuanced approach to how the Code is currently upheld. In the example of the King asking an uncomfortable question, the choices are some variation of being honest, telling a lie, not answering, and being evasive/telling a technical truth that deceives. In the existing system, the first is upholding the Code, the second is a clear violation, and the other two may or may not be violations depending on your interpretation of how strict the Code is supposed to be. In the sliding scale system, I'd probably divide actions into Major/Minor Violations/Observances (best thing I can think of as an opposite for Violation), and non-related. Violations accrue when you fail to uphold the Code. Observances should generally be more difficult to achieve than Violations, requiring you uphold the Code in difficult circumstances. In the above example, where a question is asked where it would be expedient to lie, lying would be a Major Violation, being a clear breach of the No Lying part of the Code; the deceptive option, while technically telling a truth, isn't honourable so would be a Minor Violation; not answering is acting neither to break nor uphold the Code, so doesn't affect it one way or the other; Telling the Truth would be going out of your way to act with honour so would be a Minor Observance. In the previous example, there was no Major Observance option. That would be reserved for, say refusing payment for defending innocents, or fighting single-handedly against multiple enemies in a choke point to give his allies a chance to escape, or otherwise heroic action. The Template could have different thresholds for various abilities, giving greater powers for greater adherence. This has the advantage of failing to uphold the Code not immediately revoking granted powers.

Vorandril

2014-07-10, 08:53 PM

Actually I quite like the idea of having paladin be a template based on roleplaying. If we were to just lift the mechanics as-is it would definitely only help martial classes, but with some tweaking could be fun to make a sorcerer or rogue benefit from being a devout paragon of justice and good...

Maybe call it Templar or something along those lines to minimize confusion.

georgie_leech

2014-07-10, 09:07 PM

Nilehus

2014-07-10, 09:12 PM

I agree with the 'more of an agreement between the DM and the player, with a warning if the Paladin goes murderhobo."

The paladin should fall, instantly, if they do something incredibly stupid like stab a child for no reason... But I'm sick of "Oh, that Orc you saved from death went on to lead a tribe that kills hundreds. For aiding an evil monster, you Fall."

facelessminion

2014-07-10, 09:16 PM

I feel this proposal needs more baby eating.

FidgetySquirrel

2014-07-10, 10:33 PM

georgie_leech

2014-07-10, 10:47 PM

I hope I'm not going on too much of a tangent here, but all the talk of this fix basically being operant conditioning and Amphetryon's response gets me wondering about something.

If someone is entirely aware that operant conditioning is being employed, does it still work on them?

To an extent. Positive Thinking (making a conscious choice to look on the bright side) can be seen as a form of auto-operant conditioning, and it certainly has an effect on some people.

Any psychological principle doesn't map perfectly with any individual. Rather, they're used to describe how the general populace reacts. In this case, more people will respond better to things portrayed as a bonus rather than a detraction from the baseline. A good example is the WoW Rest Bonus XP. A Gaming-related overview of it can be found here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c)

FidgetySquirrel

2014-07-10, 10:54 PM

So basically, people can be well aware that the carrot is offered conditionally, and some will still try to get the carrot because they want it. Makes sense to me! Thank you, georgie, for helping me see the painfully obvious. Clearly someone needs to cast blatantly true seeing on me.:smallredface:

AvatarVecna

2014-07-10, 11:31 PM

Morally speaking, every action a paladin can take has three levels of response: good, neutral, and evil. Good options follow the paladin code, even if it's not in their best interest to do so; Evil options go against the code for selfish or malicious reasons; neutral options are either refusing to act, or doing so in a way that avoids conflict between morality and pragmatism, or similar conflict.

It has been my opinion and observation that a character's alignment is best defined by conflict. Similarly, there's not always a right answer: the alignment system takes thousands of years' worth of moral quandaries, social mores, natural rights, and other social issues...and boils it down to a line between good and evil. Sometimes, the answers isn't clear-cut: the BoED gives the example of two demons being in love, forcing a paladin to choose between destroying evil and letting love continue. It also shows a redeemed villain, showing that the "always Evil" part of a creatures stat block isn't necessarily set in stone.

As for your code: I've seen it brought up that there's not a real difference between being rewarded for good and being punished for evil. This isn't true; it is, in fact, the reason neutral exists as an option. Most people try to be good, because in society they're raised with certain morals; that said, they're selfish sometimes, or can't afford to help others. They aren't evil because they don't help, but it does mean they're not good.

And that's what this code should do: when a paladin acts selfishly, or with malicious intent, it should come with a penalty, whether from their deity, the church, or another figure of authority. A DM should understand that not every issue is clear cut; in the same vein, a DM who sets up a Lawful vs. Good alignment conflict who will make the paladin fall either way isn't understanding the nature of the code.

If the paladin does neither good nor evil with their actions, give them a warning: paladins are the mortal ideal for both good and lawful, they should be doing good whenever possible. But don't make them fall for a series or choices where they aren't being evil. The morally gray choices shouldn't be punished as hard as the evil ones.

The good actions should be rewarded, provided they weren't the easy choice. The conflict between doing the right thing and the easy thing brings rewards and punishments. That should be the focus of your code: that conflict.

Segev

2014-07-11, 01:10 AM

To really achieve this, you'd need to effectively rewrite the Paladin and attempt to make it - under certain conditions - a Tier 1 class. That is a very tall order.

Those "certain conditions" are when he is 100% in alignment with all the tenets of the Paladin's Code.

There are a couple of ways to approach it, some involving an Code that is a bit variable from Paladin to Paladin, but for now, I'm going to discuss something closer to what we have: a singular Code in multiple parts.

Basically, the idea is that your class features are each tied to a line/tenet/sutra/whatever of the Code. Perhaps the Code you follow gets longer as you level up, or perhaps you start with a massively front-loaded set of class features, each tied to a part of the complete Code, and as you level up, various new class features each get tied to new parts of the Code.

To tie this to "reward, not punish," half or more of the Code should be affirmative, and the class features and abilities granted by those parts should only be available when the Paladin can explicitly say, "I am [doing something that is a direct paraphrase of a line of the Code], so I can use [class feature associated with that line] on this action." There will have to be passive/restrictive parts, and those should hold to things which are more commonly considered "always on." But the active ones should be the more powerful ones.

Another tricky part of this design is figuring out how falling and atoning work. Obviously, the active parts of the Code and their active-use powers require no atonement for not ALWAYS actively performing the duty listed. When nobody is in danger, "protecting damsels in distress" (as an example) isn't possible. A beauty of this style would be that "I will defeat Fiends wherever I find them" and "I will protect the innocent from harm" are both active clauses, which means that yes, the Paladin who is faced with the "cart or fiend" scenario will get a different active class feature depending on which choice he makes...but he isn't even close to looking like he should fall for failing to do both when he can only do one.

But for the passive parts, when violated, they likely count as "falling." That's probably where Atonement comes in. Violating the clearly passive strictures - they could be called "taboos," but that's taken by Wu Jen - will require atonement. A true and final fall, caused by alignment change, would be something that might need more clear-cut adjudication. There should come a point where a (now ex-)paladin finds that even affirmatively acting in accordance with the Code doesn't lend him the powers normally associated; the weight of his sins has pulled him to Neutral (or his repeated oathbreaking has made him non-Lawful). Determining that compared to individual breakings of the Code will take some effort if one wants to design the class that way.

Baroknik

2014-07-11, 01:28 AM

So the idea is that Codes of Conduct are Aspects and we are playing FATE, right?

Segev

2014-07-11, 01:32 AM

So the idea is that Codes of Conduct are Aspects and we are playing FATE, right?

Maybe. I haven't ever read FATE. It sounds like it has some interesting ideas, but I have seen too many efforts to insist that settings with purpose-built systems should be run in FATE. I've heard some good and some bad results from that, but it tends to annoy me because purpose-built systems have an inherent link of mechanics to fluff that I find attractive, and adapting the setting to FATE feels like it loses something fundamental.

I say all that to explain why I instinctively go "meh" when FATE is brought up.

From what little I do know of Aspects, however, the similarity would be there. I don't think it identical, though, since the tenets of the Code enable SPECIFIC powers when being actively followed, rather than being some sort of dice bonus or narrative-shift meta-game feature. (I'm not quite sure how Aspects work mechanically to give advantage when invoked.)

Oko and Qailee

2014-07-11, 02:06 AM

What's the difference between withholding a reward and administering a punishment? Other than phrasing, how is "all adventurers who intone the holy rites of Tyr over their fallen adversaries will have a seat at the jarl's table" actually different than "any adventurers who fail to intone the holy rites of Tyr over their fallen adversaries will be denied a seat at the jarl's table"?

I just want to make a comment on this, and I didn't really see anyone kind of express what exactly is the difference well enough.

Yes, something can be practically the same, but have a massive different feel. It's a frequent topic of game design that things should feel rewarding, rather than punishing, even when logically they are the same. Even in the case of a PVP game, where a reward for you is effectively a punishment for everyone else, how you convey the effect makes a huge difference. An example would be in a 1v1 PvP situation, a player becoming temporarily invulnerable feels better to both players (though still bad for the not invulnerable one) than for a player to get stun-locked. In both cases one player is helpless vs another, but one feels better than another.

That's the problem with the Paladin. You feel punished and everything else is the norm. Whereas it should be, everything is the norm, and doing good deeds should feel like rewards. Naturally, because of the lore, there should still be a factor of punishment.

A paladin that nearly always (excluding vastly gross evil acts) has power access, and then gains bonus power for committing good acts would feel immensely rewarding. Yes, the entire set of Paladin powers is what you gain for doing good acts, too bad it doesn't feel that way, it feels like you get those just for not doing bad acts.

A paladin that had something like (ignoring balance):
Lay on Hands (Su)
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin with a Charisma score of 12 or higher can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can heal a total number of hit points of damage equal to her paladin level × her Charisma bonus. A paladin may choose to divide her healing among multiple recipients, and she doesn’t have to use it all at once. Using lay on hands is a standard action.

For every significant good deed a Paladin does the amount the Paladin heals increases the total amount of healing a Paladin can do by 1/2 x paladin x Charisma bonus, to a maximum of 3 times her normal healing amount.

Alternatively, a paladin can use any or all of this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity. The paladin decides how many of her daily allotment of points to use as damage after successfully touching an undead creature.
---

Yeah, it's not perfect, but it makes the player encouraged and excited to be a GOOD character. It also makes WAY more sense, why wouldn't a diety give a paladin more powers the holier they are?

SinsI

2014-07-11, 02:20 AM

There is one way to make falling not arbitrary or DM-based: fallen Paladins should receive great abilities more easily than their brethren that still keep to their strict codes of conduct, instead of just losing their abilities.
Make falling akin to embracing the "Dark Side of the Force".

Nilehus

2014-07-11, 02:22 AM

HockeyPokeyBard

2014-07-11, 02:59 AM

I agree wholly with the OP in that the paladin code needs revamping. Theres a reason its not displayed as prominently in any more recent editions (so I've been told). As a budding psychologist, it has been made obvious to me that random interval conditioning is the best way to generate a desired action. An example is the pokies machines. You don't know when a reward is coming, but it will come if you continue to put money in the machine. You don't know when your DM will reward you for doing good, but you will get the reward if you keep saving orphans, smiting evil-doers and so on.

In my experience, the paladin code isn't something for most Paladins to aspire to. Its something for the, to try to work around. Its not "I will attack the creature in the name of good and justice" and more "My code says I need to fight this guy, and I want to keep playing a viable character, so I have no choice, I just hope the DM hasn't forced me into a situation I cant win." This is usually where fights between DM's and players start. And it leads to no paladins, or paladins that spend more time trying to avoid losing their powers, than actually saving people and doing good.

The only time I've ever played a true Paladin is as a challenge. They just aren't powerful enough to warrant the strict code. So yes, an adaptation to reward roleplaying would be incredibly beneficial to the class. Paladins are meant to be champions of good. So if evil characters get bonuses for slaughtering villagers and causing strife, so too should Paladins get bonuses for telling difficult truths, taking a crossbow bolt for their liege or facing down the BBEG. Personally, I'm a fan of the hero point option. Good deeds get points, points can be used on bonuses, etc etc. It will lead to Paladins more interested in helping others, which is what a paladin aught to be.

SinsI

2014-07-11, 06:34 AM

... Do players really need another reason to hate Paladins that actually try to play LG? :smalltongue:

No need to make LG only worse than LE: i.e. while fallen paladins will be able to Smite Anything, they can Lay Hands only on themselves, while LG paladins can only Smite Evil, but can help others, too.

Jergmo

2014-07-11, 07:05 AM

I feel for those who are tired of fighting the conditions for why they fell, or DMs that made them fall intentionally, just because they "could". As a fellow paladin lover, I've gotten tired of it.

I've come to an interesting conclusion. In order to combat these mindsets, why not go in deep whenever a DM forces such things on you without good reason? Take a heel face turn for evil, and become a fallen paladin with full vigor, going into Blackguard. Wreck their day with your newfound passion for wickedness, as surely it is the only logical conclusion, for the character was obviously unworthy and irredeemable. Or, instead of Blackguard, ask if you can become a Paladin of Tyranny or Slaughter.

How's a DM to react?

Amphetryon

2014-07-11, 07:20 AM

A paladin that had something like (ignoring balance):
Lay on Hands (Su)
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin with a Charisma score of 12 or higher can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can heal a total number of hit points of damage equal to her paladin level × her Charisma bonus. A paladin may choose to divide her healing among multiple recipients, and she doesn’t have to use it all at once. Using lay on hands is a standard action.

For every significant good deed a Paladin does the amount the Paladin heals increases the total amount of healing a Paladin can do by 1/2 x paladin x Charisma bonus, to a maximum of 3 times her normal healing amount.
Compare to:

Lay on Hands (Su)
Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin with a Charisma score of 12 of higher can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can heal a total number of hit points of damage equal to 3x her paladin level x her Charisma bonus. A paladin may choose to divide her healing among multiple recipients, and she doesn't have to use it all at once. Using lay on hands is a standard action.

For every failure to do a significant good deed on the paladin's part, the amount the paladin heals decreases by 1/2 x (paladin x Charisma bonus), to a minimum number equal to her paladin level x her Charisma score.

Assuming I didn't bork the math, why is one a positive, while the other is a negative?

Fizban

2014-07-11, 08:37 AM

Absolutely agree with keeping the player in control of the character's story. Aside from obvious gross violations a Paladin shouldn't fall, which means it's up to the player if they want to take the character down a slippery slope, as well as if they want to climb back up or dive down. Atonement and Blackguard are already at either end, though they're boring and/or require a specific build.

Rewarding players/characters for making poor choices based on roleplaying is how New World of Darkness uses Virtues and Vices. You pick a Virtue and a Vice, and when you act according to them at some penalty (taking a risk, burning a resource, whatever) you get a point of Willpower you can spend to boost rolls and sometimes do other things. Vices are more "spammable" because following them is usually a bad idea, but if you line up your Vice and your job by being wrathful Hunter or something then you can use that drive to spam Willpower everywhere (and it's the only way to come close to matching monsters, by embracing your dark desires to get Willpower to burn for bonuses). Mutants and Masterminds has a similar system where if I remember right, having a dependant is normally a flaw worth a few extra character points at the cost of having to keep them safe, but if they're threatened you also get a Hero point so you can crush whoever threatened your kid (by re-rolling or boosting a power).

I quite like these mechanics and yeah they'd work just fine for codes of conduct in DnD. Say, Paladins use Action Points even if they're not in the game, and gain them based on the code. Decide what the limits are on gaining points (none if it benefits you, say 1/day if it doesn't hinder you, and 1/action if it puts you in over your head). For incentivising the fall, you could give points for giving in and breaking the code, but once you do so you can't gain them for following it again until you Atone.

Bloodgruve

2014-07-11, 08:59 AM

Assuming I didn't bork the math, why is one a positive, while the other is a negative?

Most people would rather gain then lose. Hence the positive vs negative. Mechanically there's very little difference but human thought process is a very strange thing. I deal with this sort of thing every day managing a business, its like saying 'Employee bonus if we're productive at a certain level' vs 'We're going to dock you $500 if you don't meet this extra level of productivity'. People view the first option much more favorably. Choosing a class in DnD is making a commitment in time and attention, I'm going to choose options that I feel reward me rather then punish me.

Blood~

elliott20

2014-07-11, 10:23 AM

So the idea is that Codes of Conduct are Aspects and we are playing FATE, right?
Now that I think about it, yes. that's actually a very good way to describe what I'm proposing here. FATE's structure is similar enough to D&D that it's entirely possible I might have had that in mind when I was doing this. However, the systems that I borrowed this from really started with Burning Wheel, using their Artha system.

I'm disappointed... this thread isn't about eating children at all.

I feel this proposal needs more baby eating.
*sigh*

to appease this crowd, please everyone endeavor to work in Child-eating into your paladin moral quandary examples...

Segev

2014-07-11, 10:35 AM

Amphetryon

2014-07-11, 10:52 AM

Most people would rather gain then lose. Hence the positive vs negative. Mechanically there's very little difference but human thought process is a very strange thing. I deal with this sort of thing every day managing a business, its like saying 'Employee bonus if we're productive at a certain level' vs 'We're going to dock you $500 if you don't meet this extra level of productivity'. People view the first option much more favorably. Choosing a class in DnD is making a commitment in time and attention, I'm going to choose options that I feel reward me rather then punish me.

Blood~

I will continue to see the whole 'positive vs negative' here as a false choice, and be in the minority, I suppose.

malonkey1

2014-07-11, 11:02 AM

You're a warforged paladin alone on a deserted island with 5 kids, ranging from two months to 6 years in age. There is no food for the children to eat, and you do not have Create Food and Water on your spell list nor in your magical item selections. How do you keep them fed?

Well, that depends. Are there mammalian animals whose milk you could use? If so, find them, domesticate them, use them for milk. Then, after that's taken care of, take advantage of the fact that you need no food or sleep yourself to guard them all night, and hunt and forage across the island for food during the day, eventually teaching the children about your god.

On another note, what if we made it so Paladins add half their class level to checks made to perform actions that pertain to/further their gods' portfolios?

A Paladin of ChaunteaFR (lv. 16) adds +8 to all Profession(Farmer) and Knowledge(Nature) rolls, as well as adding +8 on attack rolls vs. vermin.
A Paladin of St. CuthbertGreyhawk (lv. 10) adds +5 to Profession(Law) checks and +5 to attack rolls against chaotic opponents
A Paladin of BalderNorse Mythos (Lv. 18) adds +9 to Perform(Poetry) and Heal checks, and +9 to attack against giants and evil outsiders (representative of his being held in the Underworld).

Vaz

2014-07-11, 11:09 AM

This could just as easily read "Again, you get punished for not doing anything," so far as I can tell.

Back when i was in the Military, we had a training method called Carrot or Stick. Either they get punished for doing something bad, or they get rewarded for doing it wrong. There was no 'upside' to Stick, you either did it correctly first time with no reward, or you did it wrong, in which case you were beating face until the instructors got tired. Ironically, every time the rectuits chose stick - mainly because we're masochists, and they didn't trust us DI's to not play a trick on them with carrot.

The difference is purely mental, however. You might have got it a bit easier with carrot, earlier finish to leave enough time for scranning in peace or whatever, but there is still a different between punishment, withholding of punishment and reward.

If anything, there could be seperste paths -

Orthodox Paragon; matching the deities actual alignment, and observing creed completely = bonuses similar to vows
Orthodox = following Deities creed and maintaining an alignment allowed by deity.
Unorthodoxy = not following deities creed, and/or alignment step is no more than 2 step away from the deities own.
Heretic = following own interpretation of the deities creed and is 2 or more away from deities own.
Blasphemer/Anti Paladin/Decryer of Faith - Diametrically opposed alignment to deity and his creed is the exact antithesis of the deity.

Following the code of conduct gives you a greater bonus, and greater resilience to falling, but also provides narrower bands to maintain it.

If you go the opposite routes, you still gain some benefit, but lose the god based bonuses like vow equivalents, while the antipaladin recieves alternative benefits equivalent to the PlOrthodox Paragon, but in the opposite dimension such as Heretic of the Faith type feats, or opening up an Ur Priest type caster for them.

This is worded in such a way to allow antipaladins of a CE god to be a LG Antipaladin. This isn't someone necessarily a follower of a LG deity, but one who has become disillusioned with his god and followers.

georgie_leech

2014-07-11, 11:12 AM

I will continue to see the whole 'positive vs negative' here as a false choice, and be in the minority, I suppose.

Look at it this way. Negative reinforcement in the form of losing powers from a baseline means you can only ever avoid loss. No matter how hard you work, the best you can hope for is your baseline, being "not-punished". Positive reinforcement in the form of gaining powers, even if the same amount of work is needed to get to where the negative reinforcement starts, means that you can strive and achieve and exceed your baseline. On their own, Negative reinforcement means that there's nowhere to go but down; Positive that there's nowhere to go but up.

Bloodgruve

2014-07-11, 11:14 AM

I will continue to see the whole 'positive vs negative' here as a false choice, and be in the minority, I suppose.

It is a false choice. But it's simply appealing to the 'reward' and positive outcome of a decision. I fall victim to this type of maneuver all the time, its just good marketing for the general public;)

Segev

2014-07-11, 11:20 AM

It is a false choice. But it's simply appealing to the 'reward' and positive outcome of a decision. I fall victim to this type of maneuver all the time, its just good marketing for the general public;)

There is a slight difference, actually, in an objective sense.

"A paladin may only use smite on evil targets" is a rule as we have it. It's actually a positive reinforcement rule: when attacking evil targets, he has something else he can do!

If the rule was, instead, "when he attacks non-evil targets, he loses access to his Smite class feature," it would be negative reinforcement. Worded that way, it's possible he would have to atone before even beign able to smite evil things again.

Bloodgruve

2014-07-11, 11:28 AM

There is a slight difference, actually, in an objective sense.

"A paladin may only use smite on evil targets" is a rule as we have it. It's actually a positive reinforcement rule: when attacking evil targets, he has something else he can do!

If the rule was, instead, "when he attacks non-evil targets, he loses access to his Smite class feature," it would be negative reinforcement. Worded that way, it's possible he would have to atone before even beign able to smite evil things again.

Depending on how the hypothetical Smite was worded, I would agree.

Phelix-Mu

2014-07-11, 11:33 AM

...snip...

+1. Well-said and incisive.

Amphetryon

2014-07-11, 12:34 PM

Look at it this way. Negative reinforcement in the form of losing powers from a baseline means you can only ever avoid loss. No matter how hard you work, the best you can hope for is your baseline, being "not-punished". Positive reinforcement in the form of gaining powers, even if the same amount of work is needed to get to where the negative reinforcement starts, means that you can strive and achieve and exceed your baseline. On their own, Negative reinforcement means that there's nowhere to go but down; Positive that there's nowhere to go but up.

"An optimist can never be pleasantly surprised."

Thiyr

2014-07-11, 03:44 PM

Because this thread reminded me of it, an example of this concept in practice elsewhere. Anyone here play/played World of Warcraft? Well, back during the original beta (that is, for vanilla), there was a mechanic put in to disincentivise the long marathon play-session (that is, playing for excessive amounts of time in one sitting). After a certain point, your experience gain from all monster kills would drop in half, and the only way to remove the debuff was to be offline for a certain amount of time. The players did not like this at all. So the system was removed, and instead the Rest Experience system was implemented. Rest exp, for those who haven't played, works as follows. While you are offline, you accrue "rest exp" up to a limit. When you log in next, whenever you gain experience from a monster kill, you gain an equal amount of bonus XP from that rest XP pool. The players actually quite enjoyed this, and it is still present in the game. But even blizzard admits, it's the exact same thing with the terminology reversed. instead of all exp being halved after a time, you get double exp for the period that was "normal XP" before, and "half XP" before has become the baseline. People like feeling rewarded, even if the result is the exactly the same. Sounds obvious, but can still be easy to miss.

The problem with implementing that for the paladin as it stands now is that it's a less simple system being applied to (class design), and we've had years to recognize what the actual status quo is. Changing the wording alone wouldn't help at this point because we all know that's all that's being done, and we all can tell that a paladin without their powers is pretty much nothing. That doesn't mean this is a useless revelation though. Personally, I think the easiest implementation would be cutting the code of conduct from the paladin, and then using a Code of Conduct as a bonus thing, similar to the previously mentioned Aspects in FATE, or like flaws in WoD. You choose things that will be points of conflict, and then when they come up as a source of conflict in game, you gain what amounts to an action point, but they're persistent between sessions and such conflicts are one of the only means of getting them (I'd say probably add in one freebie a session as well). That means if you're never in a situation where you uphold your code to your own detriment, you're not getting benefit for it. But if you're in a situation where, say, lying would make life a lot easier, you COULD lie without crippling yourself, but you're missing out on something that may save your life later on. That said, it's a fairly radical shift from most games, but it could work rather well, and you're not being punished if you DON'T take a code.

elliott20

2014-07-11, 04:14 PM

Personally, I think the easiest implementation would be cutting the code of conduct from the paladin, and then using a Code of Conduct as a bonus thing, similar to the previously mentioned Aspects in FATE, or like flaws in WoD. You choose things that will be points of conflict, and then when they come up as a source of conflict in game, you gain what amounts to an action point, but they're persistent between sessions and such conflicts are one of the only means of getting them (I'd say probably add in one freebie a session as well). That means if you're never in a situation where you uphold your code to your own detriment, you're not getting benefit for it. But if you're in a situation where, say, lying would make life a lot easier, you COULD lie without crippling yourself, but you're missing out on something that may save your life later on. That said, it's a fairly radical shift from most games, but it could work rather well, and you're not being punished if you DON'T take a code.

This is exactly what I did with my own implementation. For my kingmaker game, I worked with the paladin player to come up with 1 goals, and 3 beliefs.

- Goal: Create a knightly order

- belief: when a man lies, he murders a part of the world. therefore, never lie
- belief: a life without compassion is no life at all. therefore, always show compassion to those who deserve it
- belief: it is my duty to protect the king. Protect the king at all cost

These would be layered on top of his vanilla paladin, with a standard load out of abilities.

We then created two kinds of action points for him to use: actions points, and destiny points.

The action points function very much like Fate points, they give a flat +2 to a roll, can be used to declare minor facts to make life easier. On a case by case basis, they can also be used to power abilities. In his case, he negotiated with me that he wanted to be able to use it to power his lay on hands. I was okay with that.

The destiny points, on the other hand, gives him an auto-20 roll, no questions asked. (the player immediately announced to me that he's going to start hunting for a vorpal sword as soon as he's able to, I wonder why.)

Using this system, he was pretty much able to drive his own conflicts for me. Any time he's in a situation where the truth would cause him trouble, he would volunteer to me that fact to me, and then immediately tell the truth on the spot, putting himself in trouble.

But is even more interesting was the character growth that his drove. His first goal, to create a knightly order, was eventually fulfilled (earning him a destiny point), and then he had to come up with a new belief. At this point, his character had been very jaded by some of the political stuff happening around him. He decided his paladin's frustration was going to be manifested in the form of a new belief

belief: the world needs protecting not just from monsters of the field, but those in our hearts. Smite the wicked and show no mercy.

This belief became his start of darkness, which eventually led him to falling. (he got a lot of destiny points for that one)

after his fall, he tried to reconcile with his new belief and his old, and eventually after reconciliation, (and a quest) he regained his paladinhood, earning another destiny point.

Krobar

2014-07-11, 04:30 PM

Paladins don't need fixing. As long as you don't go against your deity and what he stands for you should be fine. If you do, you won't be fine.

In my games that's what it comes down to.

FreakyCheeseMan

2014-07-11, 04:39 PM

I usually have a few house rules surrounding paladins (Or anyone else with a code.)

1: Players write their own oath. (Like, they actually have to write out a set of vows that there character would have made at some point.) This doesn't have to be anything like the official Paladin oaths, and should be able to work with the rest of the party.

2: I *will* try to mess with your vows, and put your character in a position where difficult moral choices are required of you. (So, if your code includes "Never Lie", expect to be put in a situation where telling the truth will have severe consequences, probably for innocent people.)

3: If you fall, you'll be taken care of, mechanically. Details will be worked out when it happens, but expect to either be given some advantage for your paladin levels, or be allowed to re-train them. This doesn't apply if you don't role play anything and just ignore your oath, though. Big point is, there is no mechanical punishment for falling - it might be that, faced with the choices they're given, a player would actually choose to do so.

HockeyPokeyBard

2014-07-11, 06:19 PM

I will continue to see the whole 'positive vs negative' here as a false choice, and be in the minority, I suppose.

People like to be given a reward for increased effort. But the options being discussed here arent a false choice. The current system is negative. You lose base powers for being bad. The system proposed is positive. You keep base powers AND you get extra abilities for being good. Most people would prefer to keep their job and get a cheeseburger for doing well at work, as opposed to losing the job for not doing extra work.

Think of it like this. There are two jobs. Absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT in one, if you do overtime, you get a raise. In the other, if you dont do overtime, you get fired. Everyone, and I repeat, everyone, is going to go for that raise. But its all about a psychological thought pattern in the end. Its how you choose to view the different options.

Amphetryon

2014-07-11, 09:56 PM

People like to be given a reward for increased effort. But the options being discussed here arent a false choice. The current system is negative. You lose base powers for being bad. The system proposed is positive. You keep base powers AND you get extra abilities for being good. Most people would prefer to keep their job and get a cheeseburger for doing well at work, as opposed to losing the job for not doing extra work.

Think of it like this. There are two jobs. Absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT in one, if you do overtime, you get a raise. In the other, if you dont do overtime, you get fired. Everyone, and I repeat, everyone, is going to go for that raise. But its all about a psychological thought pattern in the end. Its how you choose to view the different options.

Everyone will go for that raise, because their alternative is getting fired. There's a very clear 'carrot and stick' approach here, and there is no way you'll convince me that 'everyone' will work exclusively for the carrot (as your 'everyone is going to go for the raise' implies) when the stick is just as clearly visible.

malonkey1

2014-07-11, 11:01 PM

Well, if you have the kind of boss that will force you to work overtime or else fire you, on a regular basis, I don't know if you really want to keep that job.

Thiyr

2014-07-11, 11:36 PM

Everyone will go for that raise, because their alternative is getting fired. There's a very clear 'carrot and stick' approach here, and there is no way you'll convince me that 'everyone' will work exclusively for the carrot (as your 'everyone is going to go for the raise' implies) when the stick is just as clearly visible.

That was kinda the point i made at the start of my second paragraph, actually. The problem with applying this logic to the paladin as it stands now is that we all KNOW what's going on. Because we've had so many years to soak up the suck that is how they implemented the code of conduct, no matter how you pretty it up, -we know better-. The spell has been broken. But knowing how things like this work can help when attempting to redesign how to implement codes of conduct in the future. Its basically the same as first impressions. Like how for many of us, it feels worse knowing the party has a -2 to AC rather than knowing that our enemies have +2 to hit. Even if its the same net effect, it -feels- worse, and i get the feeling that if we set up some kind of survey, all science-like, there'd be a higher skew towards people disliking the penalty more.

Amphetryon

2014-07-12, 07:25 AM

That was kinda the point i made at the start of my second paragraph, actually. The problem with applying this logic to the paladin as it stands now is that we all KNOW what's going on. Because we've had so many years to soak up the suck that is how they implemented the code of conduct, no matter how you pretty it up, -we know better-. The spell has been broken. But knowing how things like this work can help when attempting to redesign how to implement codes of conduct in the future. Its basically the same as first impressions. Like how for many of us, it feels worse knowing the party has a -2 to AC rather than knowing that our enemies have +2 to hit. Even if its the same net effect, it -feels- worse, and i get the feeling that if we set up some kind of survey, all science-like, there'd be a higher skew towards people disliking the penalty more.

My point all along is that I have consistently seen the illusion for what it is, and thus find the concept of pretending that a reward system isn't, at its core, a variation of a punitive system, is simply fooling yourself, and possibly others.

georgie_leech

2014-07-12, 10:06 AM

My point all along is that I have consistently seen the illusion for what it is, and thus find the concept of pretending that a reward system isn't, at its core, a variation of a punitive system, is simply fooling yourself, and possibly others.

Wouldn't that imply that a punitive system is a variation of a reward system? I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that getting paid to do work is avoiding the punishment of not getting paid, nor that being sentenced to prison is not achieving the reward of not going to prison.

Amphetryon

2014-07-12, 12:45 PM

Wouldn't that imply that a punitive system is a variation of a reward system? I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that getting paid to do work is avoiding the punishment of not getting paid, nor that being sentenced to prison is not achieving the reward of not going to prison.

It implies that they're fundamentally the same thing, at their core. Labeling them one way or the other is simply putting up different window dressing on the exact same window. No amount of window dressing actually changes the view.

georgie_leech

2014-07-12, 12:50 PM

It implies that they're fundamentally the same thing, at their core. Labeling them one way or the other is simply putting up different window dressing on the exact same window. No amount of window dressing actually changes the view.

So the default of everyone being imprisoned except for those that follow certain rules is fundamentally the same as lawbreakers being sentenced to jail? :smallconfused:

Thiyr

2014-07-12, 01:52 PM

It implies that they're fundamentally the same thing, at their core. Labeling them one way or the other is simply putting up different window dressing on the exact same window. No amount of window dressing actually changes the view.

Well yea. Still doesn't change the effect that it has on people as a general rule tho. Further example, along with a real world example that plenty of people don't think of can be found here. (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEsQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQxf kWZPAUg4&ei=6YPBU8jbEcyyyASRloFI&usg=AFQjCNER2peQGzC4hFlbO9vcmN3go7g8tw&sig2=L6xt4cf6B2S_2zZGRhNyPw&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw)

If you're -never- effected by this, if you honestly have never fallen prey, or at least recognize whenever it happens, good on you. Seriously, that could come in real handy. But it's still really useful to understand that it happens. a lot. to the vast majority of us. And thus, when you know about it and how to use it, it can be a wonderous tool.

ImNotTrevor

2014-07-14, 08:50 AM

Former lurker, wanna give my 2cp.

What you guys are arguing about is basic behavioral psychology. In behavioral psych, there are 4 methods that can be used to change behavior:

Positive reinforcement: in response to a behavior, you give positive stimulus. (Jim does a good job on his financial report. He gets a bonus.)

Negative reinforcement: in response to a behavior, you remove a negative stimulus. (Jim does a good job on his financial report. We remove the shock collar.)

Positive punishment: in response to a behavior, you add a negative stimulus. (Jim does a poor job on his financial report. We beat him with sticks.)

Negative punishment: in response to a behavior, you remove a positive stimulus. (Jim does a poor job on his financial report. He loses his coffee priviledges.)

If nothing else, that should clarify the points of conflict.

The current Paladin system is based on Negative Punishment. (If Jim the Paladin lies, he loses all his paladin abilities.)

What is proposed is a system based on Positive reinforcement. (Jim the Paladin was creative in solving that pointless moral conundrum. He gets a small xp bonus or his weapon is given a temporary +1 bonus from his god for 24 hours.)

Those are distinctly different ways of handling a Paladin.

As a final pet peeve:

Why is the only method of making a paladin become "less naive" is to confront them with moral conundrums? What about the normal moral difficulties already presented to the guy just by being with a group of psychopaths?

Why the fascination with the "no lying" rule? I'm a religious dude from one of the 3 million religions that believes lying is bad. I don't get excommunicated if I lie. I pray to my deity and apologize and strive do better.

The paladin code in RAW says a paladin falls after a Gross Violation. Gross meaning SEVERE.

DM's. Talk to the players before you start trying to pull moral conundrums out of your butt to trip up the paladin. Better yet, if you must "open the Paladin's eyes," at least do it creatively.