D&D General Deleted

[pemerton]

The idea of being in a situation where I have to decide "do I do the the right and good thing, or do I follow my oath" with a paladin is ludicrous

But in this particular conversation it is you who has posited that this dilemma arises, not me or @TwoSix.

it isn't THAT hard to find solutions to these issues. "Do I lie and save these orphan children from death, or do I tell the truth and sentence them to death...." Neither! Why are these your only options?!

No one but you suggested that they were the only options.

 

[Yaarel]

If they take up arms over it, something has gone wrong!

If LG takes up arms against CG, or viceversa, something has gone wrong!

 

[TwoSix]

To me, the point of playing a paladin is to be the big blue boyscout. To be the person who always does the right thing, who refuses to bend the knee to forces of harm or destruction. The idea of being in a situation where I have to decide "do I do the the right and good thing, or do I follow my oath" with a paladin is ludicrous, because if the oath is getting in the way of doing the right thing, it isn't a good oath.

But the oath IS the right and good thing. Who's deciding the "right and good" thing here if not the paladin's deity, the one who prescribed the oaths?

If the paladin is deciding what's right and good, and placing their own judgment AHEAD of the judgment that their deity has rendered already (by creating the oath), that's the chaotic act of pride that requires the paladin to atone.

Look man, I'm not saying it's RIGHT, or even the better way to play a paladin. I'm just saying that it's the thinking behind the AD&D paladin mechanics that you can use to make their limitations coherent. If you want the AD&D paladin to just be WRONG, that's fine with me.

 

[Cadence]

If they take up arms over it, something has gone wrong!

If LG takes up arms against CG, or viceversa, something has gone wrong!

Just for the Gygaxian record from the 1e DMG

 

[pemerton]

But the oath IS the right and good thing. Who's deciding the "right and good" thing here if not the paladin's deity, the one who prescribed the oaths?

If the paladin is deciding what's right and good, and placing their own judgment AHEAD of the judgment that their deity has rendered already (by creating the oath), that's the chaotic act of pride that requires the paladin to atone.

Look man, I'm not saying it's RIGHT, or even the better way to play a paladin. I'm just saying that it's the thinking behind the AD&D paladin mechanics that you can use to make their limitations coherent. If you want the AD&D paladin to just be WRONG, that's fine with me.

In my view, thinking through this shows some of the ways that "paladin problems" and the structure of typical D&D play are related.

For instance - suppose that the paladin refuses to lie, and then the children are taken away. Is there a subsequent chain of events whereby the children, being where they have been taken to, are able to play a part in some unanticipated way that brings about some previously unrealised, and better, good? (Bilbo doesn't kill Gollum; Gollum destroys the ring. Denethor sends Faramir needlessly against the Nazgul; Faramir, in his recovery, meets Eowyn and thus provides her with the possibility of realising herself and escaping her projective infatuation with Aragorn. Etc.)

In typical D&D play, this sort of thing will depend very heavily on how the GM has structured things in their prep, and on the decisions about consequences that the GM makes during the process of action resolution. And so, I think, is less likely and even unlikely to come to pass. The very structure of play tends to push players to rely on what is internal than what is external to their PCs, and that is at odds with the providential orientation of the paladin.

Different ways of establishing fiction, and the connections between action declarations and consequences, reduce this problem.

 

[Cadence]

But the oath IS the right and good thing. Who's deciding the "right and good" thing here if not the paladin's deity, the one who prescribed the oaths?

If the paladin is deciding what's right and good, and placing their own judgment AHEAD of the judgment that their deity has rendered already (by creating the oath), that's the chaotic act of pride that requires the paladin to atone.

Look man, I'm not saying it's RIGHT, or even the better way to play a paladin. I'm just saying that it's the thinking behind the AD&D paladin mechanics that you can use to make their limitations coherent. If you want the AD&D paladin to just be WRONG, that's fine with me.

I had a character in a campaign once that wanted to become a Paladin*. Then he found out how a few cosmological things worked and had some pointed questions for the deity about why it would be set up that way and how it seemed unjust. I'm not sure who was more put-off, the DM who might have partially modelled it on his real world religious leanings or the fictional deity... (I don't recall how it all turned out in the end).

* 2e? Might have required some special multi or dual class shenanigans? It was heading toward the end of the campaign.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I didn't read this whole thread, but I agree partly. I meant it more in a way of "if anything makes you uncomfortable about D&D, there is a much more modern atrocy engrained into the cultural undertones of D&D than crusades".

Why do I agree only partly? Awful people doing awful things is part of D&D, thats true. But it is possible to remove or at least reduce all that colonialistic sentiments. I think its mostly in the setting and lore and not so much in the system itself. The Eberron setting shows a direction where its not so much the "adventurers exploring the savage lands and ripping the cultural artifacts out of the hands of some uncivilized folk".

I agree. I don't see a lot of these narratives as intrinsic to DnD. IT seems more like something you either seek out, or stumble on by not paying attention.

 

[MGibster]

I mean, it makes about as much sense as Ravenloft being basically made out of horror tropes and old monster movies.

But not enough Ingrid Pitt!

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't really follow the last clause. You seem to be arguing against the idea that 4-colour superheroes are absurd outside of their own genre tropes: I disagree.

I'm arguing it isn't a binary choice. Sure, 4-Coulour Superheroes who do nothing except fight the villains are a little absurd. But the choice isn't "I must either stop the villain who plans to explode every child on earth, or I can build railways across the Tundra that would increase the reach of medicine to isolated communities" You could... do both?

Just like for the Paladin, it shouldn't be "I either reveal the entire scope of our plans to the bad guys, or I must lie and break my oath!" or "I must either force us into a frontal charge regardless of the cost, or I must break my oath!"

None of what you say here is true. You are making assumptions about the relationship between action resolution, and how the fictions is established, that are not obligatory.

Am I? You are the one who said that Paladins only function in world's where doing the Noble Knight charge the front gates schtick is the only way to truly win. IF that is the case, then using magic and trickery must be routes to failure. Because if they are routes to success, then the Noble Knight schtick isn't the only way to win.

I don't really follow how refusing to answer is lying by omission. In what way does it cause someone to believe what is false? Where is the element of deception? It seems, in most cases - like your interrogation example - to cause the interrogator to believe a truth (ie that this person knows but won't tell) and to not deceive at all.

I agree with you, and yet I have seen people over and over again state that, because their oath says they cannot lie, they must answer any question fully and completely. Why do they do this? Because to do otherwise would be lies of omission is a common answer I have heard.

This is what I've been getting at. Many people play paladins... stupidly. Lawful Stupid isn't just charging the dragon, or studying rustic architecture while the party is engaging in torture. It is responding to the Villainous Guards when they ask "who are you?" with "I am the Hero Tom Lawrenceville, of the House of Lawrenceville, sworn sword of Light here to slay the evil Baron!" because just telling them "Tom, a traveler" would "be a lie". It is the performance of "HONOR" and "NOBILITY" with no regard to the effect it has, just that it is dramatic and obvious to everyone that you acted with "HONOR!" and "NOBILITY!" so you can be acknowledged for it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But not enough Ingrid Pitt!

There is a lot of Ingrid Pitt in that art lol