I think the idea was the GM would ask the players, not the PCs.
Irrelevent. The players are playing their characters in the game. The loot from the King is in the game. It doesn't matter what the players think if they're playing their characters, it's what their characters think that matters.
Even the player of the paladin might still have an interesting idea as to what it would be fun for the rogue to find in the king's pocket.
Of course, and he would likewise have fun turning the rogue in.
This assertion isn't especially convincing in Hobbes, where it is put in the context of governing a state, and thus where something important is actually at stake. In relation to a leisure passtime it's even less convincing.
As much as I would like to get into a theoretical political discussion, my point was for illustration, not a stepping stone into my favored past-time, political debate.
The point can be summed up as a variation of "never split the party". Don't split characters up in-game, as it's a great way for them all to die. Likewise, splits between players are a good way for the game to die because there will be a lack of cohesion, resulting in the game locking down and nothing being accomplished, or the majority siding against the minority.
D&D is as much a social gathering as it is a game. If you don't preserve the enjoyable social atmosphere, then you're left with a very barren game.
In many non-traditional RPGs, for example, authority over the backstory, or scene framing, rotates from player to player as the game is played.
I was under the impression we were discussing D&D. I readily admit there are other games that do things differently because IMO they were designed to function that way. IMO D&D is not.
I don't see any ideological impasse. It's not about ideology - it's about facts. RPGs actually exist, and are played by people, which don't work in the way you are describing - that is, they don't rely upon a GM who has the sort of authority over backstory, scene framing, action resolution and so on that you are asserting is a necessary feature of a roleplaying game.
I'm not sure what world you live in, but I've yet to find a single D&D game, even the most incredibly sandboxy, in which the DM is not in charge. "RPGs" are not what I'm concerned about. I'm talking about D&D. I'm certain we can come up with other games that are played differently, because they are in general,
different games.
I already cited four games where this explicitly isn't the case. Where the PCs design the setting and the NPCs in it, and their motives.
Great! We're agreed that different games are different.
Nope. But you have asserted that the GM creates the setting. And populates the world with NPCs. And decides where the guards are. And what the challenges are. So I gave you four games where that isn't true. I can cite you plenty more.
Great! We agreed different games are different!
This is super-interesting. By 'lawful good standards he must...' Really?
In every edition before 4.0, by lawful good HE MUST, or he was no longer a paladin. Though 4.0 has changed that, players playing "lawful good" understand that "good" and "lawful" means they don't support robbing people.
What if the rogue saved his life? Or saved his sister's life? Is the Paladin not allowed any sort of conflict between his morality and his personal feelings for, or obligations to, the thief? He has no feelings for that thief after, what was it, 15 levels of adventuring?
Of course he can. These make for all sorts of interesting conferences. They weren't included in my previous example. But I certainly agree that extenuating circumstances can change the way things would be expected to happen. I included none because we can add ANY extenuating circumstanes. What if the rogue is really the King's son?
Or is he not allowed to see the glowing Pendant of Orcus in the pouch and struggle to reconcile the thief's lawlessless with some possible greater good from investigating the King's motives?
Certainly, he could, he may likewise choose to not look in the sack and cover his ears until someone comes over and shows him the thing. At which point he may reconsider his stance.
Gaming gold right there. A PC with mutually exclusive courses of action, both of which he believes in. A classic bang. A moment where we really see what the Paladin believes in.
I kept my example simple for a reason. Because it was simple, adding "what ifs" to get out of the original problem created by it simply ignores the whole point and premise.
I've said all along that any disruption around the table is down to a clash of gaming styles at the table. I don't think locking the thief up and having the player roll a new character solves that. Do you?
As I said, I do not. What if the lawful good player does? How do I reconcile that? Certainly I could do something as you suggest, cause the paladin to question his support for the law. That however, can come out looking like I'm supporting one player against another, why must he be forced to question his morality when the guy who has none is not questioning his? Likewise, I could prevent the rogue from stealing from the King to begin with, and thus, never create a problem, sure, the player may be bummed he couldn't rob the King, but there are plenty of ways to do so without forcing a player to re-evaluate their character's moral standing because of the actions of another.
In my situation, I force the rogue's player to learn his limits. In yours, you force the paladin to re-evaluate his morals. One way or the other, someone is getting forced to do something they'd rather not do.
? Of course, they can if they wish, but that dosn't usually last more than a few moments of play time.
