|Words to Live By: an Alignment thread about Codes of Conduct

[Hand of Evil]

Noticing how many of these codes have a "chain of command" built into them. So, I ask the question; Do you provide a hierarchy for your players, does a cleric out-rank a paladin? How about a monk?

 

[Janx]

My thoughts about fantasy codes of conduct is this:

Unless everyone within the organization is expected to be literate, the code of conduct must be easy to memorize, recite, comprehend, and recall at a moments notice. If the list of items in the code is long enough that the least adept member of organization can not recall the majority of the code at any given moment's notice then the code maybe too long.

I disagree. I'm citing the Google effect here. Because of Google, people actually remember less now than we used to, because we instead remember how to find the info again. Going backwards, there was less to know, so people could remember more of it.

While its true that nobody's going to remember the whole bible or something, odds are good the typical medieval chap could remember all 10 commandments, whereas most of us moderns can't.

Basically, they got nothing else to stuff in their heads, and with no literacy, they pretty much HAD to remember it.

I also suspect a paladin got grilled on the code as part of his training.

Also, here's another real life code:
An Aggie does not lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who do.

If it sounds suspiciously similar to what US military officer candidates get trained to, remember that Texas A&M is part military school. There's a lot of cultural influence at that school.

 

[Relique du Madde]

It's funny how you disagree with my point by agreeing with it, but from a different angle. lol

 

[Summer-Knight925]

Lawful Good: THOU SHALT NOT FLATULATE!
Chaotic Good: Blame the dog.
Neutral Good: Everybody farts, its okay
Lawful Neutral: Taking the blame.
Neutral: Farting.
Chaotic Neutral: When walking, letting out a fart on the group behind you
Neutral Evil: Letting it out in church
Chaotic Evil: Farting in the elevator
Lawful Evil: BASK IN THE SCENT OF MY FART

 

[steeldragons]

Noticing how many of these codes have a "chain of command" built into them. So, I ask the question; Do you provide a hierarchy for your players, does a cleric out-rank a paladin? How about a monk?

Excellent question. I do, in fact. If a player is playing a paladin (or druid or monk or cleric) in my games, they are a member of an order and would be aware of the hierarchy thereof.

Do I expect a player to memorize it? Generally not (cuz you know they won't!) so the occasional "Do I outrank this guy?" or "Do I have to do what he says?" is to be expected.

You will note, I try to keep it relatively simple. A low-ranking title/range, a mid-rank and the "big guys". Something like knowing/understanding the titles/ranking system of a religion that is not your own would require a Knowledge: Religion check. But most temples/orders (at least of good or neutral alignment) are all too happy to explain their system, accepting people's questions to be the innocent ignorance of the uninitiated.

They would, understandably, be less forthcoming with things like, "How do you become [the next rank]" or "What does the ceremony involve when you reach [insert title]"...those kinds of things are for the initiated only. But just 'how do you properly address somebody" or "who outranks whom" is no big deal.

In the case of the temple of Celradorn (which I think is what you're asking about) where you the priestly branch and the paladinic branch, there is some room for administrative tangles and power struggle among the higher-ups, but generally speaking, yes, the paladins are subordinate to the clerics...to a point.

Upon achieving the rank of Crimson Star (7th level) the paladin receives a great deal more autonomy to either a) venture the world seeking out evil of their own (though they are asked to "check in" with the order from time to time to report on what they've seen, evils they've thwarted, provide general recon/info, but they are not bound/ordered to as lesser level paladins are.)

or b) fall into a position in the order's hierarchy that sees to the organization, training and distribution of "Redstar Knights" for the order (keep in mind this is a huge organization that spans a good amount of the continent. So choosing option "b" is not tantamount to becoming a pencil- pusher. Though I've never had a paladin PC reach 7th level in play yet, so...).

Crimson Stars are only subject to Highshields. Anyone in either branch is subject to the orders of a Highshield - think of them like a "Cardinal" in the Catholic system. But a lot more "Thor" than red-flowy robes and prayer beads . A Highshield's decrees are generally presented as "requests" to those of higher (above 7th) ranks, rather than "commands."

While I find it unrealistic that a 2nd level cleric would have the gumption to order around a 6th level paladin, in certain circumstances, I don't see why it couldn't happen. I've just never had a Celradornan paladin and a Celradornan cleric PCs in the same party before.

Monks (as in the kung-fu/martial artist class) are all their own orders/temples that have their own set of titles/hierarchy. Each temple, ya know, up on some hidden secret mountain that's impossibly treacherous to get to...led by a "master" teacher or council of masters, its all very Shiaolin. So they do not fall into/under the scope of any of the established temples of the Orean gods.

Druids are also a world-wide organization, the Ancient (Holy) Order of Mistwood. Very secretive. Very old (older than the organizations of the current gods). They have a somewhat 1e heirarchy...lesser numbers the higher in level you get, but I don't start that til after 10th level and it does not necessarily become a fight to the death. (Though, again, in play, I've not had to deal with the details as no PC has gotten to that point)

The 13 highest level druids, in the world, comprise the organizations ruling (though ultimately advisoral) body, the Grove.

The leader of the Grove, final authority on all things druidic, "keeper" of the druids' most sacred and largest holding (the primordial forest of Mistwood) and highest leveled druid on the planet is the Lord (or Lady) of Oaks.

Following him, there are the Lord/Lady of Birch and the Lord/Lady of Ash, watching over the order's second and third, respectively, most sacred sites/druidic holds.

Then there's the rest of the Grove, some with specific sites under their care, some roving, the Lords and Ladies of: Rowan (Keeper of Ef'Thriel), Aspen, Elm, Fir, Willow, Blackthorn, Alder, Ivy, Yew and Apple.

--SD

 

[Grydan]

1. A paladin may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A paladin must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A paladin must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

...wait, no, I've gotten them confused with something else.

 

[Desdichado]

I will, respectfully, disagree here. A paladin, specifically, lives by a code of conduct. He/she has a "contractual", if you will, agreement with his/her deity...and he/she believes in the terms of the contract. They are characters of and with ideals, as laid out by their deity and/or temple/order, by which they operate and make their decisions. Ideals by which they live and believe in and willingly CHOOSE to follow.

Precisely. But you're not really talking about that. You're talking about the "contractual" agreement between the player and the GM about who actually is in control of what actions the player character should or should not be able to undertake. In my view, that's clearly the player's bailiwick, not the GM's.

This concept that "I want to be a paladin, but I want to be able to do whatever I, the player, think is best or necessary or justify whatever I want to do" just baffles me...I don't understand where it came from/when it became common or acceptible in the game. It certainly never was in any group I played with.

And yet you clearly say that you've percieved a problem between GM and player expectations, right? Hence the whole point of the thread?

I think you're going about it the wrong way, is all. A GM mandated top-down approach to detailing player character codes of conduct is not likely to engender a lot of buy-in from players, IME. Hence, it's largely a waste of time. In fact, it's actually counterproductive, assuming that your goal is make the game more friendly to potential paladin players, or to make the paladin class a more attractive option to a player mulling over what to make his next character be.

As to the rest of that paragraph just posted; I don't know where you got that the players are "justifying" whatever they want to do from what I said. There isn't any other rule in the books, so why would the GM think it necessary to put a bunch of other restrictions on the player that the game doesn't? Also, I don't know when it became common or acceptable in game for the GM to proscriptively define how a player should or shouldn't play his own character, but I'd argue that it was never the way that any good games have ever been run from the very beginning.

No, you can't do that and be a paladin (or druid, or monk, or whatever alignment restricted class you happen to be playing) nor, would a character who is/chose to be a paladin seek to do that. Such a "person" (meaning, PC) wants to uphold the tenets of their order and spread the "correct-ness" of their god/dess as a beacon to the rest of the, generally, chaotic/uncertain world.

You keep switching back and forth from in-game to out of game discussion. It makes your point a bit hard to follow.

For that matter, this is out of game inappropriate by my book. You just told me what my character's motivation is. Bad form. Nuh-uh. It's my character, Mr. GM, not yours. I'll decide why he decided to become a paladin and what he hopes to accomplish as such, thankyouverymuch, not you.

The DM, in these cases, is that deity (in the case of paladins and clerics) in-game. They are the governing forces of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos in the game universe. In short, it most definitely is the DM's "business" how a character acts in (or out of) accordance with the player's chosen class and the code thereof.

If you say so. How has that worked out for you in the past? For me personally, I'm not so hard up for a game that I'm interested in playing one where the GM keeps trying to meddle with my interpretation of who the character is, what he should or shouldn't do, what he should or shouldn't believe, etc. That's not too far from, "why don't you just run my character for me and tell me what happened later?" Which isn't that far from "On second thought, why don't you not. Find someone who's interested, because it's not me."

Now, that in no way eliminates personal choice or possible moral conflict/ethical dramas, etc. There are (should always be) choices for the player to make, which then the DM must rule on their acceptability or questionable nature and adjust the story/game accordingly.

I remember once, when some friends were over with their kids, they decided it was time to leave in the evening and put the kids to bed. One of them was complaining about having to go, asking why they didn't ever get to make any choices for themselves. The dad, rather sarcastically, said, "You've got all kinds of choices to make! You can decide if you want to put your left arm in the coat first or the right! You can decide if you want to zip it up or just run to the car and hope you don't get too cold. You can put your coat on first or your hat! Or, if you like, you could even choose to put your snow boots on first! Can't you see all the crazy choices you have to make?"

I've considered playing a paladin in my current group. But otherwise, I've largely sworn off the class for exactly this reason; it's a class that gives many GM's the bizarre notion that they suddenly have a "say" in the motivation of my character, and what he should or shouldn't do. Quite frankly, that's just unacceptable. Any GM who believes that and doesn't relent has, at best, completely taken the paladin class off the table as a viable alternative, and at worst, completely turned me off from the game entirely.

 

[jonesy]

1. A paladin may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A paladin must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A paladin must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

...wait, no, I've gotten them confused with something else.

Might work otherwise, but as Daneel realized, they have a flaw. And if you include the Zeroth law it doesn't really work for paladins anymore:

0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

Unless you make it all inclusive, at which point you aren't playing a paladin, but a pacifist.

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>
As for Padadin codes, I favor the Boy Scout as a model, it has a sogan!
<SNIP>

Careful HoE, you should caveat that as BS of America, remember, the original BS Law only had 10 points, not 12. And it's still that way in many countries...

Sri, as a former ASM, I felt it my duty to inform... Carry on.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Noticing how many of these codes have a "chain of command" built into them. So, I ask the question; Do you provide a hierarchy for your players, does a cleric out-rank a paladin? How about a monk?

It really depends upon the order - the one I mentioned would be Yes...sort of.
Now comes the long drawn out explanation.

Clerics are the spiritual heads (therefore heart and mind) of the order and their guidance is always assumed to be divinely inspired. The Paladins are the "sword arm" thereof and are therefore utilized by the hearts and minds behind the order. This does not meant that a cleric always has the last word. If a paladin sees a threat that the cleric has either missed or ignored, they can intervene. Likewise, there are ranks within the order as well.

For instance a Captain of the Paladins is not under compulsion to take the orders of an initiate, but would be hard pressed to directly disobey the order of a full priest.

If it sounds overly difficult, think of the Military Chain of Command of the US Military when dealing with the elected government:
As a Soldier I obeyed the order of the officers and officials appointed over me. A Captain earned his rank by training and education, just like I did, the Secretary of Defense was a political appointee with no requirement other than being able to be approved by the Congressional Approval committee after being named by the President.

And speaking of the Commander in Chief, they are not required to have any military experience before being able to take charge of the nation's armed forces. So in that respect there is a real world example of the sort of multi-layer CoC I describe.

Also, it can make for some very good Role Play when you have a couple of
Paladins of various ranks and a full priest in the party all of the same deity. That's one of the reasons I posted the Codes I posted, I has 2 pallys and a cleric all of the big 'E'. What was even better, the cleric was a commoner, but both of the pallys had noble blood, with one being the crown prince.

Made for some great table moments - and only once in three and a half years did I ever question a decision that any made or had to give the "straying for the alignment" warning.