Should this be fixed

[LostSoul]

I can just imagine it:

No, I really don't think you can.

 

[Hussar]

This to me seems like judging the PC's far more harshly than any in game judgment is likely to be.

"Ok, that's it, you aren't playing the game [I envisioned], so either get back to playing the game [I envisioned] or we quit.", is simply applying the moral judgment of the players actions at the metagame level.

Really?

I point to the paladin as a prime example of the game enforcing a specific moral point of view to the degree of pretty much destroying the character if you stray from that moral point of view.

Any of the divine classes in D&D follow the same strictures as well. If you perform an act contrary to the alignment on your character, you get beaten with the mechanics stick.

I can just imagine it:

"What do you mean your terrorist/freedom fighter PCs like killing people? You're supposed to be agonising over the moral consequences of blowing up minor political officials of a regime you regard as oppressive, not enjoying it! Get out of my group!"

Yeah, this gets back to the idea of "don't play with douchebags". There's another thread on the forums right now, Players that Just Don't Get Genre which outlines precisely what you're talking about.

A player who decides that his amoral sociopath character fits into a game based around the theme of morality is no different than the player who brings in Sir Killsalot to the high RP court intrigue game, or any other player who brings in a character that just doesn't fit into the game.

Celebrim's example of the player who abuses the system and brings in his psychopath to DitV, pretty much by definition "doesn't get the game".

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'm a professional philosopher.

That's also known as a sophist.

 

[Celebrim]

Really?

I point to the paladin as a prime example of the game enforcing a specific moral point of view to the degree of pretty much destroying the character if you stray from that moral point of view.

Sure.

But a Paladin is a pretty specific sort of character. No one is forced to play a Paladin, and in 3e its hard to argue that there is an inherent advantage to be gained in agreeing to play a Paladin.

At some level, playing a Paladin is fundamentally no different than taking the 'Curious' disadvantage in GURPS. (And obviously, it's fundamentally no different than taking a particular 'Code of Honor' disadvantage in GURPS.) You are choosing to engage in an open social contract where by you agree to RP under certain restrictions. If you have 'Curious', then the DM gets to say, "You can't resist pulling the lever." If you have "Paladin of Tyr", then the DM gets to say, "You can't resist protecting the innocent."

I'm not saying that either situation might not be bad GMing in that particular situation, but bad GMing is not something a system can protect against.

Yeah, this gets back to the idea of "don't play with douchebags".

So, in my game world I the GM have to decide if the characters actions constitute obeying their stated alignment, and in your game world I the GM have to decide whether the characters actions constitute the player is a douchebag?

Call me crazy, but my game world seems to demand less judgementalism of me.

A player who decides that his amoral sociopath character fits into a game based around the theme of morality...

I absolutely and completely disagree. If a game based around the theme of morality cannot tolerate the presence and problem presented by an amoral sociopathic character, then it's not a very serious game about morality.

is no different than the player who brings in Sir Killsalot to the high RP court intrigue game, or any other player who brings in a character that just doesn't fit into the game.

And again, if you high court intrigue game can't tolerate a character whose primary motivation is killing the other nobles then its not a very serious or well thought out high court intrigue game.

Celebrim's example of the player who abuses the system and brings in his psychopath to DitV, pretty much by definition "doesn't get the game".

No, I think he gets the game very well. Because if the system doesn't have anything to say about one of God's Watchdogs that isn't well serving the interests of the King of Life, then it doesn't have much to say at all. I mean, just as an example of plotting, if a Dog can get his mouth washed out with soap by one of the Elders, then a Dog can certainly be put down as rabid by one of the Elders, right? Or should they?

So here's the plotting: One of the Dogs has gone rabid. There is a disagreement among the Elders. Some want the Dog put down. Others believe that putting down the Dog would undermine the authority of the entire Watchdog institution. Also, the Dog was considered by some in the institution a valued friend. They want some other solution. The Dog is one of the PC's.

Are you saying that's outside the scope of the game?

This is in my opinion the central conflict of DitV as the game world has been described to me: are the Dogs really servants of the King of Life or not? How would they know? Do they really have the right to judge, or just the authority? And play tests reports I've heard about the system suggest that its so brittle that its easy to break it even if you aren't trying to do so, which suggests that there could easily be disagreements about whether a person 'got the game or not'. Moreover, if the game is to be a really interesting discussion of morality, then there has to be some internal conflict over that either ideally between the PC's as they weigh and defend particular courses of action and ways to restore justice after it has been lost, and if not then between the PC's and the GM as he presents different viewpoints that they might not have considered. Telling someone that they 'don't get the game' under these circumstances is exactly like judging their moral stance and indicates to me that maybe you are only interested in the game if it doesn't challenge your perceptions beyond a certain point. One of these points beyond which you are comfortable talking is challenging the inherent morality of the God's Watchdogs themselves, which to me seems like THE one and overriding question of morality in the game which if it isn't addressed means the game is pretty dang unserious.

 

[Celebrim]

I've tried to say out of this really silly thread because I knew that ultimately it would devolve down to something like advocating "don't play with douchebags", which in my experience is a euphamism for, "deal with things you don't agree with by being a douchebag".

But, in the interest of actually answering the OP, if I was player in this group this is what I would do.

I would IC, have my character sit down with the other characters in the party, and I would try to create a mutually acceptable legally binding contract as the bylaws of our mercenary company. I would then make the lawful character, sign the contract. IF the contract demanded of the character things that his faith could not abide by, then he would have to according to the dictates of his faith refuse the contract and leave the party. And, if he did sign the contract, then I would think that he would be required by his faith not to break his oath regardless of the consequences. And if he did, we have legal recourse in game to redress the breach of faith, loyalty, and trust at the character rather than the player level. Problem solved, and no one has to resort to calling anyone else a "douchebag".

 

[the Jester]

To put it another way: if my aim, in play, is to explore the relationship between freedom and virtue; and the GM tells me that in his/her gameworld all elementals are evil because they wouldn't obey the dictates of the gods; then what is there left for me as a player to do in that game? I can move my PC through the GM's world and do whatever stuff I'm presented with opportunities to do, but how am I going to address my question, and express an attitude towards it, by playing my PC? The GM has already told me what the answer is: if my PC disobeys the gods, the GM's gameworld already tells me that I'm evil.

There's the prelude to the railroad.

And suppose me and my fellow PCs come across some angels fighting some elementals - who should we help? The GM has already told me what the answer is: on the (reasonable) assumption that we don't want to do evil or help evil, we have to fight with the angels against the elementals.

There's the railroad.

Your definition of "railroad" is MUCH bigger than mine, and I always thought that I was the poster child for "smacks of a railroad" hate with the ability to sniff out even hidden tracks.

But you can't say it's not railroading just because the players (via their PCs) are free to explore whatever they like, if the upshot of those explorations frequently negates or undermines the very reasons that the players have for engaging witht the gameworld in the first place.

Sure I can. To me, your "elementals vs. angels" scenario above is highly incomplete.

If a player wants to explore the intersection of virtue and freedom, then he has a LOT of opportunities. Interacting with humans or demihumans, or (especially) with humanoids that are traditionally thought of as "evil"; his own actions in regards to things like the kobolds enslaved by the goblins; his interactions with government, religion, etc in the campaign setting; the way he deals with prisoners; there are a million opportunities. Just because the dm says, "All monsters of type x are evil" doesn't suddenly invalidate the player's desire to explore the interaction of good and freedom. That's like suggesting that telling the player "All mind flayers are evil" is a railroad as soon as he meets mind flayers with a chain of slaves.

The railroad in your scenario would come if the pc went to attack the angels and the dm said, "Whoa there, you can't do that!" Only when a dm controls the path the players are on by forcing some pc actions or refusing others do I see a railroad. Setting decisions are NOT a railroad, although it's easy to build a setting that strongly promotes railroad style gaming; but a setting is not a railroad in itself.

Your post implies giving a great deal of control over the campaign to the players, to the point of letting them rewrite the world's mythic backstory, changing religion and political elements, etc. If a player wants to do that- if he needs that level of control over the setting- he needs to assume the dming chair. And run his own campaign. Not try to tamper with my milieu.

And what happens when one player wants to explore blah blah blah so you can't say "all elementals are evil" and another wants to explore blah blah complex religion stuff blah blah so you have to say "No religion is evil"? What happens when one pc wants to explore stuff that requires that orcs all be evil while another wants to explore stuff that requires that not all orcs are evil? Are you suggesting you have to simultaneously accommodate all of them or else you're railroading?

Yeah- I'm not seeing the rails here. Your definition of meaningful player choice seems to disparage hard decisions and devil's choices, which (at least in my playstyle) are a good part of the fun.

 

[Gentlegamer]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]

That sounds alot like the contracts that require a gawd oath in KotD/Hackmaster.

 

[Celebrim]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]

That sounds alot like the contracts that require a gawd oath in KotD/Hackmaster.

I haven't fully read through Hackmaster, but I have great respect for what I have read.

In my case, the notion of a party contract originated probably when I was 12 as a way of dealing with division of treasure in a way everyone thought was equitable. I believe it had been endorsed by the Basic and 1e AD&D rules as something a party should outline before play, and I probably hit upon it as important because it reminded me of the contract Bilbo agrees to in the Hobbit before joining Thorin & Co.

 

[the Jester]

The same question could be asked of Hussar's terrorism-oriented game. Or of a typical D&D game - what happens if a player has his/her PC rob the merchants and slaughter all the villagers? In my view this is not a problem about the adjudication of PC action - it is a metagame/social contract problem. It's solved by finding out whether or not the player is actually interested in playing the game.

Sooo kicking a player for doing something you don't want is not a railroad, but having actual consequences for actions and letting the pcs make choices about their course of action is?

 

[S'mon]

No, I really don't think you can.

What, you don't like my sense of humour?