D&D 5E Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?

[pemerton]

Permerton the DM had his goddess send him a vision that he was on the wrong track I think when your goddess chose to tell you something you if you are a paladin should listen. It is a tool in the DM tool kit to help players. I use it to give guidance to a player. This is along of the lines of a DM giving a player an incredulous look and asks are you sure you want to do that and instead of thinking maybe this is a bad idea they go yes.

<snip>

I think the DM should have the power as I have said before they are the final arbitrator of the rules and they run the world and the gods in it.

It's one thing for the GM to let the player know the odds of success are low. But if the player decides - for whatever reason - that s/he want to proceed in that way, I don't see how it is the GM's job to second-guess the player. Maybe the player knows something the GM doesn't (eg the player has a magic item in mind the GM has forgotten about) or maybe the players have a plan the GM doesn't know about (my players can't be the only ones who email one another to make plans for the game without keeping me in the loop!) or maybe the player is just feeling lucky (plenty of d20s have rolled 18 or higher in my gaming lifetime!).

 

[Elf Witch]

[MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION] - your posts 215 and 216 are very good, but unfortunately I can't give you XP at this time.


What you describe in these posts is, to me, an example of excellent paladin/cleric play - the conviction that miracles happen, and that divine providence is both a mystery and an inevitable reality. And a parallel conviction that human choices have to be humble in the face of that reality.

In my experience, it's not always easy to predict which way players will go with this sort of stuff. For instance, sometimes they (via their PCs) might express the view that they are agents of divine providence in the gameworld, and hence have their PCs do something that the GM wasn't expecting, and perhaps isn't even comfortable with. Your group decided to save the babies. Their humility is displayed by choosing to do the right thing, and not taking it upon themselves to be the sole authors of whatever consequences ensue - the miracle of redemption is always possible, and it's not their place to foreclose the matter via murder.

I could imagine a different group, by reasoning along very similar lines, might decide to kill the babies - they have been sent as agents of providence to free the world of the scourge of orcs, and if that means killing babies then so be it. What the babies did to deserve death, and their fate in the next life, is a matter for the gods to know - mere humans don't take responsibility for such matters.

I think the fact that different players, playing with basically the same tropes and thematic outlook, can come to very different responses, is an excellent reason for the GM to let the events of play take their course. When I GM an RPG, what I am hoping and looking for (among other things) is to see my players engage in a sincere and spontaneous way with these sorts of thematic issues. I want to be moved, surprised, sometimes even enraged, by their choices! Sticking my bib in as GM, to tell them how they should really choose, would be self-defeating and pointless.


I think this is another good point. If my players come at a situation in a different way from me, because of their particular moral, aesthetic or other emotional/evaluative response, why would I want to force them to disregard their own reactions and embrace mine? Why would I want to turn their PCs into characters they would prefer not to identify with?



Like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said, in commenting on this episode I can only talk about what's been presented, and use it to make some more general points about my own approach to GMing.

Was the paladin being appropriately faithful/trusting? Or hubristic? Or cowardly, as the player of the rogue alleged? I don't think it's my job as GM to stipulate an answer to this by playing the paladin's god. If the d20 roll comes up 18, the paladin was in the right! If the whole things turns into a fiasco, and his companions shun him or jibe him or make him pay for the Raise Dead or whatever, then it turns out he was wrong, and was being hubristic.

To me, it's a bit like the player of any PC coming up with, and then trying to implement, a wacky plan and other players criticising it as too risky, too crazy, whatever. Let the play of the game, the roll of the dice and the responses of the players to what actually happens sort it out.

If the GM is going to decide in advance what does or doesn't count as good play - via the sort of "micromanaging" that GSHamster describes - then what is the role of the players?

It is true of the PC that he is sworn to carry out his god's will. But the player is there to play a game, not just to dance to the GM's tune.

It's one thing for the GM to provide the player with relevant information (eg that the chance of successful turning is very low). But if the player decides to continue taking that chance (eg because the player has decided that the chance of success in melee is comparably low or even lower), then I don't see that it's the GM's job to step in and micromanage.

I don't agree with this analysis.

One of the PCs in my 4e game is a drow sorcerer/bard, who is also a Primordial Adept (theme) and Emergent Primordial (epic destiny), in the service of Chan, Queen of Good Air Elemental Creatures. The same character is also a member of a secret, primarily drow, sect that worships Corellon and is devoted to liberating the drow from the yoke of Lolth and undoing the sundering of the elves. He wears a symbol of Corellon which (being a symbol of the god of magic) lets him recall a low-level spell once per day (a bit like a Pearl of Power; in the 4e system it is a species of divine boon from DMG2).

This character is not a reskin. But divine (or quasi-divine, in the case of the primordial Chan) entities are as central to the play of this character, arguably moreso, than they are to the play of the cleric-ranger in the party (who is an undead and demon hunter devotee of the Raven Queen, but who mostly remains aloof from the theological arguments that increasingly break out among the other PCs).

D&D, at least as I play it, is a game in which supernatural forces are rife, and real, and play a role in the lives of characters beyond those with the divine power source. This approach is the clear default for 4e, but I think has been an implicit approach in other editions too - eg the war between Law and Chaos in early D&D and B/X, and the role in the Greyhawk campaign of gods, demigods and demons that Gygax talks about in his DMG. I think it makes for fun and satisfying high/gonzo fantasy RPGing - the tropes are readily available and reliable, the stakes can be drawn clearly yet have a degree of thematic depth and resonance, and it marks a difference between fantasy gaming and simply mediaeval gaming with a veneer of magic on top. (Not that there's anything wrong with the latter - but I personally wouldn't use D&D for it.)

In this style of game, leaving the players with a meaningful sphere of action means the GM leaving it to them to decide, to a significant extent, what the gods demand and what counts as honouring those demands. For instance, with the sorcerer I mentioned, it is the player who has decided that this cult exists, and that Corellon wants them to undo the sundering of the elves, and hence that the proper attitude towards Lolth-worshippig drow is pity rather than hatred. I'm not going to step in and rewrite all this - that wouldn't make for a better game. My attitude towards the player of a paladin or cleric is the same.

I don't really understand this point - I agree that D&D has an implied setting. But as I've tried to explain, both in my previous paragraph and in my quote from Gygax and in my reference to the Law/Chaos war that was an element of earlier D&D, I think an inherent aspect of that implied setting is that not just the clerics and paladins are bound up with supernatural forces.

This sounds like an allusion/reference to something, but if it is I've not got it, sorry.

But treating it literally - my problem is with a GM unilaterally contradicting a player's conception of his/her PC, and what is proper for that PC, and on that basis rewriting the PC. If the player and GM want to rewrite the PC together - eg the player deliberately chooses to have his/her PC turn on his/her god - then that's a different thing altogether. And, as I said, there is plenty of material over multiple editions of D&D to support the player and GM working out consequences together.

I don't think anyone is asking you to play the same as them. But I don't see how the 5e paladin (as presented, say, in the last playtest packet with one LG and one LN/N oath) makes it hard for you to do what you want to do.

I don't use baby orcs/goblins whatever - when the PCs in my game assault goblin or hobgoblin fortresses there are no non-combatants. They've never asked where the children and civilian goblins are, and I've never felt any need to address this.

Prisoners, on the other hand, are a recurring part of my game. The wizard/invoker has a habit of killing them, which shocks the other PCs (and their players). More often , prisoners are released on their own parole, after swearing appropriate oaths etc. Except in one or two special cases where it was known to the players from the get-go that the prisoner was not going to keep faith, the whole table has always taken it for granted that these prisoners keep their word and don't go back to their lives of wrongdoing. Or to put it another way (which fits with your comment about "valuable table time") - the decision to parole the prisoners is about the players expressing their PCs' values; it's not about setting up a potential challenge/threat to recur in the future (the exception being that small number of special cases where it's obvious in the whole situation that this is what is happening).

That was my point that putting in a moral dilemma about orc babies gives some excellent role playing choices for the party if they like that thing. Now what the DM did in question in this game should be taken with a grain of salt he was 13 years old. But with a mature group this can be a chance for some meaty role playing. Like I said I would never make a paladin fall over a situation like this. There would be more than one right answer.

It is not easy to predict the way a player will go so a good DM should have more than one correct answer. Also what has happened in the game world so far should be taken into consideration. I have read DMs complain that the PCs kill every prisoner but digging more you find that the DM has used spared prisoners to screw the PCs over do that enough you train the PCs to kill them as the best tactical way to play. On the other hand reward them for their mercy you will often see a different result.

But there is a difference between a DM sticking their nose in and telling a player how to play and giving consequences because of the way players chose to play.

As for the situation Greg K described I look at it differently than you do. I don't see it so much as trying to control the way the player was playing but more guiding the play because it looked like the other PCs were going to die and the player playing the paladin was attempting to do something that had a very small chance of success based on what the DM saw as the player trying to protect his PC from getting killed.

I can understand why a DM might chose to use in game sticks to prevent this. I have seen players get really upset over their characters death when they feel it happened because another player was not pulling his weight. And it can have a lasting impact on the game.

It really is a DM style some DMs who let the dice fall where they may and practice totally neutral style of DMing may find this wrong other DMs have a differnt style and try to aide the players.

 

[Elf Witch]

It's one thing for the GM to let the player know the odds of success are low. But if the player decides - for whatever reason - that s/he want to proceed in that way, I don't see how it is the GM's job to second-guess the player. Maybe the player knows something the GM doesn't (eg the player has a magic item in mind the GM has forgotten about) or maybe the players have a plan the GM doesn't know about (my players can't be the only ones who email one another to make plans for the game without keeping me in the loop!) or maybe the player is just feeling lucky (plenty of d20s have rolled 18 or higher in my gaming lifetime!).

That is all true and at that point maybe it is time to take a time out and the DM and the player in question actually communicate about what is going on.

Greg K did say that his player was fine with the consequence and that it was more of the player being afraid of being killed rather than having a plan and feeling lucky.

There is a lot of all or nothing being discussed here. You are making it sound that a DM should never interfere or should never offer guidance in a way to guide the game or prevent an issue and you tend to imply that anyone who ever does this does it all the time and with a heavy hand. I believe with anything that there are times to let the pieces fall where they may and there are times to step in and try and help.

 

[pemerton]

But there is a difference between a DM sticking their nose in and telling a player how to play and giving consequences because of the way players chose to play.

I agree with this but I think we have different views over what the consequences should be and how they should be applied.

Which is fine - I'm intending that as an observation, not a criticism.

As for the situation Greg K described I look at it differently than you do. I don't see it so much as trying to control the way the player was playing but more guiding the play because it looked like the other PCs were going to die and the player playing the paladin was attempting to do something that had a very small chance of success based on what the DM saw as the player trying to protect his PC from getting killed.

I can understand why a DM might chose to use in game sticks to prevent this. I have seen players get really upset over their characters death when they feel it happened because another player was not pulling his weight.

<snip>

some DMs who let the dice fall where they may and practice totally neutral style of DMing may find this wrong other DMs have a differnt style and try to aide the players.

I think your diagnosis of what was going on is a plausible one.

You're probably not surprised, though, that I personally wouldn't handle it that way. For instance, on obvious option that the GM had was to have the dracolich ignore the shaman and swoop on the paladin, mocking him for his futile attempts at turning. As a GM I prefer to use my tools first - NPCs, monsters, etc who are opposing the PCs - rather than trying to manipulate the players (especially via the sorts of threats and penalties that were used here).

 

[pemerton]

maybe it is time to take a time out and the DM and the player in question actually communicate about what is going on.

<snip>

You are making it sound that a DM should never interfere or should never offer guidance

I completely agree with the first sentence I have quoted.

And I want to respond to the second: I don't think the GM should never interfere or offer guidance. I interfere all the time, making suggestions or mocking my players or taunting them with reference to the level of upcoming threats or whatever. And sometimes they ask for advice, like "What would the Raven Queen think about this" and sometimes I'll answer them. (Other times I'll put it back onto them - "You tell me.")

But taking away PC abilities is not offering guidance. It's a type of punishment - in the particular case being discussed, it looks like punishment for not taking the GM's advice. You're right that I don't believe in doing that. Like I said, there are other options - the dracolich attacks the paladin, who is now out of range for the shaman's healing spells, and the rogue can get the glory by being set up for a backstab.

 

[Elf Witch]

I agree with this but I think we have different views over what the consequences should be and how they should be applied.

Which is fine - I'm intending that as an observation, not a criticism.

I think your diagnosis of what was going on is a plausible one.

You're probably not surprised, though, that I personally wouldn't handle it that way. For instance, on obvious option that the GM had was to have the dracolich ignore the shaman and swoop on the paladin, mocking him for his futile attempts at turning. As a GM I prefer to use my tools first - NPCs, monsters, etc who are opposing the PCs - rather than trying to manipulate the players (especially via the sorts of threats and penalties that were used here).

No I am not surprised. In some ways we approach the game the same and other ways very differently.

In this situation I would most likely do something along the lines you suggested first. But I will be honest here and say I might do what the DM did depending on if I thought it would work and how irritated I was with was going on. I am human and sometimes players antics can annoy me. Though I only once acted on it and instead of pulling my punches let the wrath of the NPC kick a PC butt to the point of death. I didn't cheat I just stopped pulling my punches.

As a DM I have never taken away all a, monk, druid, cleric or paladin abilities without talking to them first and them being on board with it. And I would never do it as punishment for not playing like I think they should. Unless it was something blatant like murdering innocents or something drastic. I think communication is the key. I have had alignment conversations with players and they have convinced me that they really think this is what their PC would do and while I might not always agree I can accept that this is how they view the situation.

 

[DDNFan]

That is all true and at that point maybe it is time to take a time out and the DM and the player in question actually communicate about what is going on.

Greg K did say that his player was fine with the consequence and that it was more of the player being afraid of being killed rather than having a plan and feeling lucky.

There is a lot of all or nothing being discussed here. You are making it sound that a DM should never interfere or should never offer guidance in a way to guide the game or prevent an issue and you tend to imply that anyone who ever does this does it all the time and with a heavy hand. I believe with anything that there are times to let the pieces fall where they may and there are times to step in and try and help.

Why help a cowardly paladin? Let him suffer the wrath of excommunication. He knows what he was doing, even if he wouldn't admit it. He'd have slunk off out the back door of the dungeon while the lich was chewing on his chewy squishy team mates in a couple rounds. Such a player deserves not only excommunication from his church, but a permanent banishment and blacklist from receiving aid from that church, communicated instantly to all high priests of the order.

This is the right and proper way to deal with such a player. You must judge a man by his actions, and his actions proved he was not worthy of the name "paladin", and probably never was. Or could be. Fighting to protect the weak is nothing when you are safe behind your armor and confident of your own survival and success. It only matters when you must risk your own life to protect others. That is the essence of the class, and what makes it a special sight to behold. As a DM I would have resurrected him via his god on the spot after the battle was won if he had died valiantly. Instead, he chose wisely and this example (and many others) proved exactly what our point was, that not all paladins are created equal, some barely deserve the title, some deserve it fully, but when the moment of truth comes, if you chicken out (from the safety of your doritos strewn table no less), then it's on you. It's just a character. A noble death is worth more than a coward's life, that's the code I'm talking about.

Live every day as if it's the perfect day to die, if it's in the service of others and of your god. That's truth. And why many players can't properly understand the essence of it. Some can't even accept their characters dying valiantly while fighting a terrifying undead beast. True bravery and true grit are only present in the face of near certain doom.

That's why Han Solo was totally awesome. He did what needed to be done to win, despite insane odds against him. He didn't even want to know them, he boldly did what he thought was best. And he didn't even believe in an all powerful force looking out for his soul after life, unlike paladins who are pretty sure there's a place for them. Only, the irony is, it's contingent on them earning their right place in the heavens. If I were a D&D god and my champion fled like a fearful rabbit while his robe wearing comrades did the dirty work, and he died, I would refuse his entry into my kingdom of the afterlife and let his soul roam in purgatory for a long, long time while he contemplated why he was there. Then I would give him a choice, go back into his mortal coil and redeem himself, or remain lost forever.

 

[pemerton]

I think communication is the key. I have had alignment conversations with players and they have convinced me that they really think this is what their PC would do and while I might not always agree I can f accept that this is how they view the situation.

Now that sounds very sensible to me!

(I just tried to XP you, but no luck, sorry.)

 

[Elf Witch]

Why help a cowardly paladin? Let him suffer the wrath of excommunication. He knows what he was doing, even if he wouldn't admit it. He'd have slunk off out the back door of the dungeon while the lich was chewing on his chewy squishy team mates in a couple rounds. Such a player deserves not only excommunication from his church, but a permanent banishment and blacklist from receiving aid from that church, communicated instantly to all high priests of the order.

This is the right and proper way to deal with such a player. You must judge a man by his actions, and his actions proved he was not worthy of the name "paladin", and probably never was. Or could be. Fighting to protect the weak is nothing when you are safe behind your armor and confident of your own survival and success. It only matters when you must risk your own life to protect others. That is the essence of the class, and what makes it a special sight to behold. As a DM I would have resurrected him via his god on the spot after the battle was won if he had died valiantly. Instead, he chose wisely and this example (and many others) proved exactly what our point was, that not all paladins are created equal, some barely deserve the title, some deserve it fully, but when the moment of truth comes, if you chicken out (from the safety of your doritos strewn table no less), then it's on you. It's just a character. A noble death is worth more than a coward's life, that's the code I'm talking about.

Live every day as if it's the perfect day to die, if it's in the service of others and of your god. That's truth. And why many players can't properly understand the essence of it. Some can't even accept their characters dying valiantly while fighting a terrifying undead beast. True bravery and true grit are only present in the face of near certain doom.

That's why Han Solo was totally awesome. He did what needed to be done to win, despite insane odds against him. He didn't even want to know them, he boldly did what he thought was best. And he didn't even believe in an all powerful force looking out for his soul after life, unlike paladins who are pretty sure there's a place for them. Only, the irony is, it's contingent on them earning their right place in the heavens. If I were a D&D god and my champion fled like a fearful rabbit while his robe wearing comrades did the dirty work, and he died, I would refuse his entry into my kingdom of the afterlife and let his soul roam in purgatory for a long, long time while he contemplated why he was there. Then I would give him a choice, go back into his mortal coil and redeem himself, or remain lost forever.

I think you are being a little extreme here. I don't buy the whole do one slip and fall forever. What if up until this time this paladin has been brave has never faltered? He gets scared and all that good things he has done before is wiped out and no longer counts?

I would definitely have his deity displeased over cowardice but I would allow him a chance to redeem himself.

Stepping out of the game for a moment it is important to remember this is a game there are no real gods punishing players for playing their alignment wrong. Yes I would get annoyed with a player choosing to play a righteous character then not playing it in anyway righteous. But I can also understand that it is a game and everyone has off days.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

His deity gave him insight which let him know that his Turn attempts were almost impossible to pull off against such a foe, hinting that he should (due to greater probability of success) rather engage in melee should he wish to save his comrades.
One must also take into account that in @Greg K's setting, the divine powers come from his deity, they are blessings/gifts from his deity, which includes Turn Undead.

Honestly, I can sort of see this. If he was expressly told by his god that "The Dracolich is too powerful for your turning attempts. He can resist them easily, your friends will die if you don't defeat the monster another way. Please due your duty and protect your allies." and he STILL decided to keep going, then sure. I agree with you.

Even if you stepped out of character and as the DM said "Look, your god is going to frown on your attempts to turn the monster when you know for a fact you need a 19 or higher to succeed on a d20. You are purposefully taking an action that has nearly NO chance to succeed. Which is kind of jerky to your friends since you're are essentially letting them die. I'm going to rule that your character knows he has nearly no chance to succeed as well and it is considered a form of cowardice to stand at the back doing nothing to help. Cowardice will get your powers removed. Do you still want to do that?"

Though, that's not what you were saying before, that's why it confused me. It sounded like you were saying "His god is a god of Protection and the only way to protect your allies is to stand between you and a monster. Failure to do that is willfully ignoring the tenants of your god. The player should have known that. I don't need to remind him or tell him that. He was an idiot who was doing things I didn't like in my game. He gets punished for that."

He purposefully ignored the vision sent to him by his deity. Not once, but twice, while his allies were desperately scrambling to do his work/his duty. Engaging the dragon in melee is his sworn duty, attempting to Turn is calling upon the Deity of his power. When the deity tells you the latter is not a viable option and you persist, you are directly disobeying a superior's orders. Imagine that happened in the military? You a soldier, disobeying a superior's orders - you expect to be punished. Unfortunately in the military they cant take away the skills you learnt, but they can take away your freedom. In this setting the deity can take away his powers.

If he had visions telling him that was a bad idea, alright. That's fine. However, I think visions are really heavy handed. Especially when micromanaging a player's actions.

In my games, most clerics and paladins never hear, see, or receive direct guidance from their god. They know the basic tenants of what their god stands for and they can attempt to embody these tenants in any way they choose. If that means turning an undead creature instead of running up and fighting it with their sword, it's perfectly fine with me.

However, it's my general policy to actively step out of character and inform the player directly each time they are taking an action that I think will make them lose their powers that it is about to happen and give them the choice to undo their action.

I'm not sure I'd want to play a character whose actions were constantly micro managed by his god. Generally, I play it that only severe breaches of the god's philosophy gets your powers removed. You fail to protect someone in order to protect yourself? You had a lapse of faith and you might get the sense that your god disapproves of your action. Maybe not even that if sacrificing them meant you were alive to protect a greater number of people or stop an even greater threat. If you repeatedly fail to protect people for no good reason, your powers would go away, but I dislike one action immediately removing someone's powers unless it's a majorly evil action.

This part you (the player) already agreed to when you signed up to the play the character, too late to throw that in as a problem.

The problem is that apparently your interpretation of protection is different from mine. I might have signed up to play a character who believes that protecting people is his highest concern, but what lengths I'd have to go to in order to accomplish this goal might not have been clear to me when I agreed to play the character.

I've played Paladins before and I understand playing a character who is lawful good and goes to great lengths to protect his allies. However, in this case I do not see a difference between attempting to turn and running up to the front. The actions would accomplish about the same thing. Unless, once again, the turn attempt had a nearly 0% chance of success. But that's mostly due to the tactical side of me making me feel guilty about taking sub-optimal actions than because I feel that turning isn't an attempt to save your friends.

So your basis for not playing the character anymore is based on one incident where your superior told you that your current course of action is not the best course of action? That seems harsh.

It would be my basis if this was the order of the day. To me, it's about the same as someone standing behind me while I work saying "You mistyped the customer's name in that spreadsheet wrong. You're fired!"

People make mistakes. Give them time to correct them.