D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[Helldritch]

It might be worth mentioning that in some computer games, such as Baldur's Gate, if you include good and evil characters in the same party they are likely to end up fighting and killing each other.

The solution in the computer game is to build your party out of compatible characters. And the same goes for the PnP game. It doesn't matter if the party are all self-serving scoundrels or all Dudley-Do-Rights, but you have to make sure they are all on the same page from the start.

Exactly my thoughts. Group cohesion is really important. It also prevent real life arguments and verbal fights. It also prevents end of friendships and it helps groups to go on.

 

[Lanefan]

Fun game you have there.

Has been for many years now...

And again, how is that not affecting player agency? Literally at least one player loses their entire character because of your decision to insert your CE PC into a good aligned party!

First off, you're making a very big and not-always-correct assumption that the rest of the party is Good-aligned.

Most of our parties tend to average out at Ng or Cg, so maybe small-c small-g overall. I can't think of a party - and I've seen a crapton of 'em both as player and DM - where every member in it was some form of Good. There's always at least one Neutral (of some type) and sometimes an Evil or two.

That said, it's probably worth noting that two playable classes in my game - Necromancer and Assassin - cannot be Good and will in general at least trend Evil; and a third class - Thieves - are rarely Good. Given that, and given that Thief and Assassin are pretty much the only available options for sneakery and locksmithery, it's hardly surprising that an all-Good party is a rare sight.

Right now the party I'm running with my wife as the sole player is probably as Goodly as I've ever seen - mostly due to the adventuring NPCs in it. Yet they're not all Good - her two are N and Ng; the N sometimes has a tinge of e to it, and one of the NPCs is also N.

You're not just stripping agency, you're negating it entirely.

Same could be said when a PC perma-dies due to an Ogre or Giant or 1000-foot fall; or loses its mind and can't function any more; but this is never brought up (and nor should it be!).

The only difference is the source: the DM and-or game world, instead of one or more other PCs. The character's still hooped either way.

A DM that allows such a thing is failing in his duties as a DM.

As far as I'm concerned a DM who disallows such things is failing in her duties as DM, which are to present the game world impartially and neutrally and then referee whatever the players/PCs decide to do with it or to it.

What strips away agency is when a DM tells me what I'm allowed to play and-or how I'm allowed to play it, when other options exist in the setting. By this I mean if the setting has no Elves I've no right to expect to be able to play an Elf, but if Elves are a playable creature and Evil Elves exist in the setting my agency is impacted if by fiat I'm not allowed to play one.

Not that it's any guarantee I would play an Evil Elf in this case. It's the principle of the denial of options I'm fighting against.

If you want to play some kind of Dark Side Sith Necromancer Murder Rapist, wait till we play an evil campaign thanks (and we have the consent of all players for such a campaign and character).

Hyperbole aside - Dark Side Sith Necromancer Murder Rapist...really? - I as a player should have no say whatsoever over what you-as-player decide to play, and vice-versa. In fact, ideally I shouldn't know what you're playing until I meet it in the game.

And if we end up playing incompatible characters, so be it - we can sort it out in character in the game, probably involving the other PCs in some way*, and we'll either find a way to work together or we won't. If we don't, them's the breaks - one (or both) of us will soon enough be pulling out the roll-up dice.

* - even if their involvement consists only of placing bets on who stays/lives and who goes/dies.

DnD is a co-operative game, and a group game. No-ones fun or enjoyment should trump anyone elses right to the same.

It's a group game, in that it usually takes a group to play it; but nothing says it has to (always) be co-operative, particularly in the fiction. Sometimes co-operative is fun; other times it's boring. Sometimes individualism is fun; other times it's boring. And each player's tastes on/for such things will inevitably wax and wane over time - the co-operative goody-good PC that has you brimming with excitement today might bore you to death in two years, but in two years the campaign's still got many years yet to go......

 

[Lanefan]

Exactly my thoughts. Group cohesion is really important. It also prevent real life arguments and verbal fights. It also prevents end of friendships ...

Lesson I learned the hard way many years ago: if real-life friendships end due to in-character arguments then one or more people are taking the game far more seriously than it deserves.

 

[Helldritch]

Lesson I learned the hard way many years ago: if real-life friendships end due to in-character arguments then one or more people are taking the game far more seriously than it deserves.

I saw that too in a friend's game. We were at the table and two of our friends got into a fight because the thief had sold the fighters' +3 sword to get something. They never spoke to each other again. And the thief never spoke to us either...

 

[wizard71]

Please let's take a moment to examine the Tenets of the Oath of Devotion

• Honesty: Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
• Courage: Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
• Compassion: Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
• Honor: Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
• Duty: Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

Emphasis added.

So the real, actual problem here is the rest of the party PROMISING TO LET THEM GO and then reneging.

Questioning an evil person who attacked you, even under the effects of a truth spell, doesn't violate his oath.
Killing a prisoner, who could reasonably be expected to bring harm to innocents after that, or to attack the party again, doesn't violate the oath.

No, the only part of all of this that ACTUALLY violates his oath is the rest of the party LYING and promising to let the prisoner go when they plan to kill them.


So, it seems like a pretty easy problem to solve.
1> Remind the players (All of them) to read the tenets of the paladin's oath and point out that doing things that actively put the Paladin in conflict between them and their oath is a jerk move.
2> Remind the Paladin in specific that his oath is just freaking riddled with loopholes. HIS word is his bond. The OTHER players can lie, and as long as he doesn't support or affirm that lie, he's in the clear.
3> Remind the Paladin and possibly yourself that 5e actually removed alignment requirements from Paladins. They could be Chaotic Evil and, as long as they marshal themselves enough to NOT BREAK THE SPECIFIC TENETS OF THE OATH, remain a Paladin in 'Good Standing'.

You are wrong. Paladins are required to be good. Only the lawful aspect was removed from the class

 

[wizard71]

Those two things aren't really related, and the first isn't even true.

A Paladin with an oath does restrict player agency (or tries very hard to) the moment said Paladin expects the rest of the party to live up to said oath and-or starts inflicting consequences if-when they don't.

My agency to play a murderhobo in that party, for example, largely goes out the window; along with my agency to play various other fairly-common character types: the anti-hero, the neutral-greedy, in some cases the prankster, and so on. All of these are characters I've played in the past and would again in a heartbeat.

By your logic you are restricting the paladin player’s agency. Why is your agency more important than anyone else’s at the table?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You are wrong. Paladins are required to be good. Only the lawful aspect was removed from the class

Nope. Paladins aren’t required to care about alignment at all. Oathbreakers aside, the Conquest Paladin is probably more often Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil than any sort of Good, and Vengeance is pretty ambiguous.

 

[Lanefan]

By your logic you are restricting the paladin player’s agency. Why is your agency more important than anyone else’s at the table?

It isn't.

Neither is that of the Paladin's player, which is my point. Ideally we both have equal agency to play what we want, and if those things conflict we have further agency with which to sort it out in-character to whatever ends may arise, be they peaceful or otherwise.

 

[billd91]

I saw that too in a friend's game. We were at the table and two of our friends got into a fight because the thief had sold the fighters' +3 sword to get something. They never spoke to each other again. And the thief never spoke to us either...

There can be a fine line between in-character conflict and players griefing each other. I can accept the former, but if it crosses the line, I have to step on it as GM.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I saw that too in a friend's game. We were at the table and two of our friends got into a fight because the thief had sold the fighters' +3 sword to get something. They never spoke to each other again. And the thief never spoke to us either...

I nearly lost a friend over a game of Diplomacy. He still brings it up, 20 years later.