Roles in Roleplaying Games

[pemerton]

The fluff they wrote is lame because I don't think a Paladin of Torog is going to be a champion of "lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor." He'll probably champion ideas such as imprisonment and torture! A Wizard who is into Ioun might champion those lofty ideas - and might be considered a paladin by townspeople as well as the clergy of Ioun.

In other words, I think that, if you consider "paladin" in the text you quoted to mean the Class, it doesn't make any sense. If you consider it to mean something else - a Rogue who fights for those "lofty ideas" - then it makes sense.

A further complication is that the text [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] quoted seems to be written mostly in relation to Essentials paladins ("cavaliers") who must be either Unaligned, Good or Lawful Good (depending on virtue championed).

My own view is that the most important anchor between fiction and mechanics in 4e is keywords. So the divine keyword means something in the fiction - namely, that this particular character has been bestowed with power by the gods - and I think that creates scope within the fiction for NPCs to distinguish between a rogue or a knight who is lofty but not divinely empowered, and a "paladin" who is a divinely empowered warrior. The distinction between STR cleric and STR paladin, though, is not going to be one that can easily be drawn within the fiction. (On this account, blackguards are a fictional as well as metagame category - they are the armed and armoured STR guys who use power that is both divine and shadow!)

Of course, NPCs/monsters generally do not have power source keywords for their powers. Which makes identifying NPC "paladins" a bit trickier - some interpolation is required. Similar considerations arise in relation to paragon paths, which are often described in terms suggesting that there are orders of NPCs who follow the path, even though - mechanically - there is no obvious way to build such NPCs.

I think the game expects the participants to paper over the cracks a bit here. Is there anything important at stake here? To put it another way, is there any GM in the world who is going to blanche at a PC who is not built using the paladin class, but who fights with armour and weapons, who uses divine powers to do so (or at least to help with doing so), and who, in the fiction, calls him-/herself a paladin? Is there any real life GM who is going to insist that the player of that PC is doing it wrong, because you can only truly call yourself a paladin in the fiction if you are built using the paladin class?

EDIT: Having caught up with the rest of the thread, I see that the cavalier point was picked up.

Is a cavalier's embodiment of a virtue part of the fiction or not? Perhaps, a bit like a warlock's pact.

But this doesn't undermine my claim that, in the fiction, there is no inherent difference between a STR cleric and a STR paladin from the PHB. Neither has a class feature that singles them out as distinctively related to the metaphysics of the gameworld in the way that a cavlier's virtue or a warlock's pact does.

I'm inclined to think that the same reasoning applies to the WIS cleric and Avenger. Invokers, on the other hand, do have an inherent difference (eg the impliments they use, and the reasons for that).

Among the Arcane PCs there are clear differences: spellbooks for wizards, bloodlines for sorcerers, pacts for warlocks, and the absence of any of these things for bards.

But the martial PCs in this respect are like the divine ones - there is no inherent fictional difference between a STR ranger, a warlord and a fighter, for example, or between a DEX ranger and a rogue. And given that it was fighters and rangers that were the main focus of the discussion upthread, I don't see that this discussion of paladins and blackguards undermines the points made in relation to them.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not seeing anything in what you quoted that says the NPC cannot run away.

The target is "treated" as friendly for as long as he is Intimidated and for as long as the target remains in the presence of the person doing the Intimidating. The description goes out of its way to state that "the target retains its normal attitude" under those conditions, as well. The description does not state that the target is restricted to remain in the presense of the Intimidator and, since the target retains its normal attitude, the target would likely attempt to remove itself from being in that presence if its normal attitude would be of one not liking to be Intimidated.

I think the last sentence here must be wrong. If the target is permitted to remove itself from the presence of the intimidator, then intimidating becomes a (near-)useless strategy - you can't effectively cow someone, because they are always allowed to run away.

To put it another way - being treated as friendly while in your presence means that they are helpful and don't run away. (The original case does raise the issue of what "presence" means - did the PCs voluntary move away from the prisoner, thus permitting him to leave their presence?)

It's my opinion that diplomacy and intimidate should affect NPCs, but not make them puppets.

I don't think anyone is saying that the NPC should become a puppet. The reason they don't run is not because they have become a puppet. It is because the intimidator has cowed them.

The game-mechancial reason for setting strict parameters on what intimidated NPCs can and cannot do is to make Intimidate a mechanically viable option. Otherwise, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has pointed out, the players have a strong if not overwhelming incentive to go straight to combat, given that most GMs don't have NPCs reduced to 0 hp spontaneously run away.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think the last sentence here must be wrong. If the target is permitted to remove itself from the presence of the intimidator, then intimidating becomes a (near-)useless strategy - you can't effectively cow someone, because they are always allowed to run away.

Naw, it's just always more effective to convince someone to do sonething on their own than to try and force them. However, if you are intimidating someone by holding a gun to their head, they aren't like to risk trying to run away. That's an extreme example, of course, but there are more subtle ones. If, for instance, your PCs are the big adventurers in a small town and you are intimidating the blacksmith, where's he going to run? He's got family living here and he knows full well he's going to see the adventurers around from time to time and that they know where he lives. If they start bullying him for info, sure he's likely to give it up with a smile (even though he doesn't like being bullied and won't think of the adventurers in a friendly way henceforth). If you are Intimidating someone you don't know who could bolt, you'd best back them into a corner, literally or figuratively.

This is one of the results of the disassociation of mechanics from RPing. What do you guys think that Intimidating someone is? It has consequences. It manifests as immediate and also longterm results. NPCs won't like being Intimidated and will resist it (they get an opposed roll) but if they succomb they will acquiesce for a time (grit their teeth and do what they must) until such time as they think they can remove themselves from being Intimidated. Furthermore, they'll appeal to a higher authority if they can after the fact, like talking to the local guards if they believe that will help. If any of the adventurers belong to a Good-aligned church and the person being Intimidated knows this or finds it out, you can bet they'll be stopping by to complain about what one of their members was doing. You don't turn someone into a friend by threatening them, you only turn them into someone who will act as you expect them to act for as long as you have power over them and if they can remove themselves without risk from that situation, or with minimal risk, they will definitely do so. This is also one of those situations where common sense and the rules happen to agree.

 

[pemerton]

Naw, it's just always more effective to convince someone to do sonething on their own than to try and force them.

Sure, but isn't this handled by the fact that your Intimidation wears off over time and distance?

You don't turn someone into a friend by threatening them, you only turn them into someone who will act as you expect them to act for as long as you have power over them and if they can remove themselves without risk from that situation, or with minimal risk, they will definitely do so.

Sure. But on the line that I (following [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) am running, one consequence of a successful Intimidation check is that the NPC always judges it to be too risky to try and run while in the presence of the intimidating character.

This is also one of those situations where common sense and the rules happen to agree.

I don't disagree with this - it's just that I think that common sense has it that some victims of intimidation will be too cowed to flee, and this is the state that a successful Intimidation check engenders in an NPC.

However, if you are intimidating someone by holding a gun to their head, they aren't like to risk trying to run away.

This works better with mook/minion rules, I think. In D&D, against a hit-point laden foe, it gives rise to questions similar to the jumping-over-a-cliff-to-escape tactic eg is the NPC allowed to metagame his/her hit point total? I'm curious as to how you (or others) run this.

This is one of the results of the disassociation of mechanics from RPing. What do you guys think that Intimidating someone is? It has consequences.

Of course. I don't disagree with this at all. In my own game, three of five PCs have social skills - one Diplomacy and (limited, magical) Bluff, one Bluff and Intimidation, and one Diplomacy and Initimidation. A frequent feature of social situations is the need to decide which skill to use, because that choice then ramifies through the rest of the encounter, not to mention downstream implications (like whether people love or hate/fear you!).

But I think this is orthogonal to the more narrow rules point. It doesn't undo consequences to have an Intimidation skill which, if used successfully, permits an NPC to be so cowed by fear that s/he won't run while in the presence of the fearful one.

I also think the "dissociation" point is a bit of a red herring here. I'm not talking about "dissociation". I'm talking about (i) a mechanic which, like dropping a foe to 0 hp, allows a player a degree of confidence in the stability/resilience of his/her PC's victory, and (ii) a fictional gloss on that which holds that an intimidated NPC is to cowed to flee.

Is there a concern that Intimidate adjudicated in this fashion becomes too strong? (I don't have a very good handle on this aspect of the balance of the 3E rules.)

 

[Mark CMG]

Sure. But on the line that I (following [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) am running, one consequence of a successful Intimidation check is that the NPC always judges it to be too risky to try and run while in the presence of the intimidating character.

That's simply not always the case and probably why it isn't part of the rule.

I'm not talking about "dissociation".

I am. And why I am is because the rules you are adding to the actual rules automatically disassociates the rules from the situation.

 

[LostSoul]

This is one of the results of the disassociation of mechanics from RPing.

I find it's easier to resolve the in-fiction action - what the PC says - than it is to resolve "I got a 25 on my Intimidate check." I find that when I know how the PC is acting in the fiction, it's easier to determine if the NPC is going to bolt at the first opportunity or if he'll remain an ally of the PCs even when the PCs leave his presence.

This is how I run that sort of thing:

[sblock]As DM I role-play the NPC - get inside his head and try to figure out what he's all about. If I'm unsure or have a creative block I'll roll on a table. Reaction Rolls really help me out here.

When the players interact with my role-playing of the NPC via their PCs - through in-character dialogue - I simply role-play the NPC's reactions as I understand the NPC.

When I feel that I'm not sure how the NPC is going to react to something the PCs have said (or done - body language can be important) I ask for a check. The check helps to inform my role-play of the NPC.

Since I use 4E, the NPC will remain obstinate until a certain number of successful checks have been made (ie. I use skill challenges). I determine the number of successful checks by the NPC's Reaction, either by rolling on the Reaction Roll table or by assigning a value. (I have some detailed rules about the default Reactions of NPCs and how those change over time based on the PC's actions.)[/sblock]

 

[Imaro]

My own view is that the most important anchor between fiction and mechanics in 4e is keywords. So the divine keyword means something in the fiction - namely, that this particular character has been bestowed with power by the gods - and I think that creates scope within the fiction for NPCs to distinguish between a rogue or a knight who is lofty but not divinely empowered, and a "paladin" who is a divinely empowered warrior. The distinction between STR cleric and STR paladin, though, is not going to be one that can easily be drawn within the fiction. (On this account, blackguards are a fictional as well as metagame category - they are the armed and armoured STR guys who use power that is both divine and shadow!)

I don't know if I consider keywords to be the most important anchor between fiction and mechanics in 4e... but I can agree that some can/do differentiate classes (especially as concerns power source)from each other.

On the other hand I think this view ignores the sum of the whole by only looking at the specific parts. A strength cleric isn't different from a strength paladin because of a keyword... it's different because the class has different abilities, skills, and so on. A paladin is not taught ritual casting, Healer's Lore or Healing Word... while a cleric was never trained to use plate armor, call down a divine challenge or have to be the same alignment as his deity.

Of course, NPCs/monsters generally do not have power source keywords for their powers. Which makes identifying NPC "paladins" a bit trickier - some interpolation is required. Similar considerations arise in relation to paragon paths, which are often described in terms suggesting that there are orders of NPCs who follow the path, even though - mechanically - there is no obvious way to build such NPCs.

There is an NPC Paladin classs in DMG 1 we established this earlier in the thread...so as long as we don't narrow our criteria to "only keywords" it's quite easy to identify a NPC paladin... it's a character who the DM has built using the NPC Paladin class... so there is a mechanical way to build a Paladin NPC. Also, contrary to your assertion, DMG 1, while warning against it for every NPC, very much allows NPC's to be stated out as full characters... if they are considered by the DM to be important. So both of your points here seem a little off.

I think the game expects the participants to paper over the cracks a bit here. Is there anything important at stake here? To put it another way, is there any GM in the world who is going to blanche at a PC who is not built using the paladin class, but who fights with armour and weapons, who uses divine powers to do so (or at least to help with doing so), and who, in the fiction, calls him-/herself a paladin? Is there any real life GM who is going to insist that the player of that PC is doing it wrong, because you can only truly call yourself a paladin in the fiction if you are built using the paladin class?

First, I am not arguing for or against what any particular DM chooses or doesn't choose to do in their campaign (though I see nothing inherently wrong with playing up the fact that classes are discrete things, such as orders with specific training, skills and abilities in the world... for a good example of how this can be done check out the Earthdawn game.). What I was talking about were the default assumptions of the game... and IMO, the default assumptions seem to be that classes are actual archetypes in the gameworld akin to orders or disciplines, while builds are more specific concepts as opposed to packages of generic abilities.

Is a cavalier's embodiment of a virtue part of the fiction or not? Perhaps, a bit like a warlock's pact.

It's very much part of the fiction... as evidenced in the blackguard description and the mechanics as the cavaliers powers are based around whichever virtue he picks. Again any DM or player can reskin whatever they want but I am concerned with the default assumptions of the game... not whether they can or cannot be changed.

But this doesn't undermine my claim that, in the fiction, there is no inherent difference between a STR cleric and a STR paladin from the PHB. Neither has a class feature that singles them out as distinctively related to the metaphysics of the gameworld in the way that a cavlier's virtue or a warlock's pact does.

Well I can think of two fictional/mechanical differrences between the cleric and paladin...

1. A paladin must select a deity to serve... a cleric may select a god, pantheon or even philosophy. This right here creates a difference in both the gameworld fiction and mechanics of the two classes.

2. Paladins must have the same alignment as their deity when created... cleric's do not necessarily have to abide by this restriction if following an unaligned deity... or following a philosophy(which has no alignment).

I'm inclined to think that the same reasoning applies to the WIS cleric and Avenger. Invokers, on the other hand, do have an inherent difference (eg the impliments they use, and the reasons for that).

Again, an Avenger must serve a single deity... not a pantheon or a philosophy according to the class write up... also an unaligned avenger can serve any deity... an unaligned cleric cannot.

Among the Arcane PCs there are clear differences: spellbooks for wizards, bloodlines for sorcerers, pacts for warlocks, and the absence of any of these things for bards.

I see, so are you making the argument that ony some classes exist within the gameworld? That the designers/developers are inconsistant with their determination of this? Or what exactly?

But the martial PCs in this respect are like the divine ones - there is no inherent fictional difference between a STR ranger, a warlord and a fighter, for example, or between a DEX ranger and a rogue. And given that it was fighters and rangers that were the main focus of the discussion upthread, I don't see that this discussion of paladins and blackguards undermines the points made in relation to them.

Actually this discussion (at least the one I was involved in) was about whether classes were overarching archetypes or just packages of generic abilities, and whether combat role should be tied to them... I think I've proven that classes aren't just generic packages when you really examine them, and you apparently agree at least as far as some of the classes go. Now my argument didn't specifically focus on Rangers and Fighters, and I think martial is harder to draw the distinction because it is concerned with the mundane and mostly defined by combat styles, weapon types and skills as opposed to service to otherworldly forces or ideals (divine) or magical power and the techniques of wielding it(arcane).

The first fictional/mechanical difference in martial characters would be their respective variance in skills. For some reason in order to be a highly skilled warrior I have to be a Rogue or Ranger...Fighters, and to a lesser extent Warlords just aren't trained in a diverse number of skills... mechanically this shouldn't be the case if they are just generic packages of abilities... however it very much speaks to the archetype of the combat focused(whether in melee or tactics) warrior... vs. the crafty hunter or clever rogue.

The second fictional/mechanical difference is in fighting style/weapon use. You see this enforced by the builds available under each class as well as the weapons that can be used with the powers of the particular classes.

On a final note here's a line from the Rules Compendium, under Class and Race on page 76... Emphasis mine. It seems that either the developer and designers agree with the ascertion that classes are a specific thing in the gameworld or are just being sloppy with their language and the expression of ideas because the paragraph below equates clas with a particular vocation.

The first decision to make in character creation is picking the characters class and race. Many different types of heroes inhabit the world: sneaky rogues, clever wizards, burly fighters and more. Race defines a character's basic appearance and natural talents, and class is the character's vocation.

 

[pemerton]

There is an NPC Paladin classs in DMG 1 we established this earlier in the thread...so as long as we don't narrow our criteria to "only keywords" it's quite easy to identify a NPC paladin... it's a character who the DM has built using the NPC Paladin class

I've GMed modules with NPCs described as paladins - Jaryn, the fallen paladin in Heathen, and duergar paladins of Asmodeus - and they haven't been built following the NPC builds in the DMG.

I think the designers adopt a slightly looser approach here.

(Other examples would be Paldemar and the gnoll leader in H2, who are a wizard and a warlock respectively, but don't strictly follow the DMG NPC build rules.)

1. A paladin must select a deity to serve... a cleric may select a god, pantheon or even philosophy. This right here creates a difference in both the gameworld fiction and mechanics of the two classes.

2. Paladins must have the same alignment as their deity when created... cleric's do not necessarily have to abide by this restriction if following an unaligned deity... or following a philosophy

<snip>

an Avenger must serve a single deity... not a pantheon or a philosophy according to the class write up... also an unaligned avenger can serve any deity... an unaligned cleric cannot.

Yes, these are build rules. But I don't know that they draw distinctions in the gameworld. That is, I'm not sure that in the gameworld there is a ficitonal difference between a LG STR paladin of Bahamut and a LG STR cleric of Bahamut.

I see, so are you making the argument that ony some classes exist within the gameworld?

Yes.

That the designers/developers are inconsistant with their determination of this?

Probably this too. They produce a lot of text, and I think they expect individual groups to do their own thing with it to some extent at least.

The first fictional/mechanical difference in martial characters would be their respective variance in skills. For some reason in order to be a highly skilled warrior I have to be a Rogue or Ranger...Fighters, and to a lesser extent Warlords just aren't trained in a diverse number of skills... mechanically this shouldn't be the case if they are just generic packages of abilities... however it very much speaks to the archetype of the combat focused(whether in melee or tactics) warrior... vs. the crafty hunter or clever rogue.

I agree that the classes are designed to push in the sorts of ways you describe (crafty hunters, clever rogues etc). The utility powers also tend to support this. But I don't think there is anything in the mechanics-fiction relationship that would prevent a player trying to build against type. Whereas a warlock PC is of necessity, in the fiction, a pact-maker.

 

[pemerton]

That's simply not always the case and probably why it isn't part of the rule.

I agree that not every scared person is too scared to run away. Nor is every person incapacitated via weapon play unconscious and dying. But in the 3E and AD&D combat rules, there is no pathway to incapacitation by weapons other than to be unconscious and dying. And similarly, I'm suggesting that in 3E there may be no mechanical pathway to scaring an NPC other than to also cow them to such an extent that they do not flee while in your presence.

And why I am is because the rules you are adding to the actual rules automatically disassociates the rules from the situation.

I still don't agree. Like the combat rules, they don't "disassociate" from the situation. Rather, they permit only certain sorts of situations to emerge.

Another way to handle it (with respect to Intimidation) would be via degrees of success: "act as if friendly but will flee at the first opportunity", then for greater success "act as if friendly and too cowed to flee while in the intimidator's presence".

 

[Mark CMG]

I agree that not every scared person is too scared to run away. (. . .) I'm suggesting that in 3E there may be no mechanical pathway to scaring an NPC other than to also cow them to such an extent that they do not flee while in your presence.

My only point is that Intimidate does not prevent someone from removing themselves from your presence.

I still don't agree. Like the combat rules, they don't "disassociate" from the situation. Rather, they permit only certain sorts of situations to emerge.

That doesn't change the fact of the matter.

Another way to handle it (with respect to Intimidation) would be via degrees of success: "act as if friendly but will flee at the first opportunity", then for greater success "act as if friendly and too cowed to flee while in the intimidator's presence".

Any given GM can determine the circumstances and decide that a victim will flee, sneak away, or do something else to remove themselves from the presence of an Intimidator. A GM is also welcome to rule that no one will ever do so, but that GM is not bound by a rule to adjudicate in that manner.


Shall we let the thread get back on topic, since I agree that individual GMs can do as they wish and since your posts are saying the same and suggesting some nuanced approaches that amount to the same thing?