jgbrowning said:
One of the reasons I don't like paladins, beyond the arguements they spawn, is that once a situation occurs that creates an arguement, someone invarably accusses the DM of "kick-the-paladin" or some such.
That in and of it self, the idea that in every game, every situation should be solvable using a very rigid code of behavior or else the GM has it out for the player really gets my goat. [...]
I don't think that every encounter must be solvable without breaking a paladin's code just because a paladin is part of a group especially when, when a paladin isn't part of a group, such requirements aren't necessary.
I think this line of argument falls apart when you stop to think that the only reason any character encountered the rapist in the first place was because the GM wanted
the paladin to encounter a rapist, to see what he would do, and to slap him down if he didn't follow the unwritten, unspoken, and (as the argument with the paladin's player shows) apparently unknown paladin's code that the GM felt he should.
In other words, this whole scenario sounds like a trap set by the DM for the paladin. If there hadn't been a paladin in the group, probably this whole thing wouldn't have happened at all...and by that comment I don't mean that there wouldn't have been an argument over whether it was acceptable to slice the rapist's head off, I mean there probably wouldn't have been a rapist in the first place.
And I don't begrudge GMs who look at a class like paladin and think that it would be fun to see how that character would react to morally challenging situations. It
is fun, and within the context of the game I think it's perfectly acceptable for there to not be a solution that allows the paladin to obey both his code and his heart. You can do some really cool stuff with those situations.
But before you can do that, I think the GM and the player need to sit down OUT-OF-CHARACTER and establish exactly what the paladin's code is, or the GM needs to give VERY EXPLICIT WARNINGS about actions that the player doesn't seem to think will get him kicked out of the paladin club but the GM does. (Just saying "Are you sure? Because you can kill him in one hit..." doesn't do the job as effectively as "Are you sure? Because that goes against the code your order taught you..." in this situation.) Otherwise, you might as well just play three-card-Monte with the paladin's player and take away his character's paladinhood any time he can't pick out the queen.
If you don't give an explicit warning or otherwise make the code clear to the player ahead of time, if you instead get mysteriously coy when the paladin is on the brink of making a huge mistake and then spin around after the mistake is made and say "Uh, no, in
my setting, that's grounds for losing paladinhood, and I don't care what
you think your character's code allows"...well, that's kick-the-paladin. It's unfair to the player, because the player can't read your mind and know all the paladin-code revisions you've concocted for your setting automatically; you need to actually tell the player what those revisions are if you expect them to be followed, or accept that you will create arguments and bad feelings and pick up the "Don't play paladins in my game, because I will screw you over" tag on top of all that.
That's all worst-case scenario stuff, obviously. I'm willing to believe that in this case it was an honest mistake, but I also stand by my belief that the entire rapist thing was thrown in specifically to take a poke at the paladin's ethics and thereby endanger his paladinhood, and that the critical gap between what the player thinks those ethics are and what the GM thinks they are is just going to lead to more catastrophes like this unless they both sit down and actually discuss in detail what standards this character is going to be expected to live up to.
--
and i'd hate to game with anyone who disagreed with that