James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I mean it's hard to discuss one without the other.
D&D General Deleted
- Thread starter Levistus's_Leviathan
- Start date
Chaosmancer
Legend
I disagree about the mechanics, because that is just asking for a mess. but I agree with how you propose forming a code.
It very much should be less "these actions should not be taken" and more "this is what I believe in". But you also need to temper that with a consideration towards the rest of the party. If you are a paladin who is an anarchist, being in a party with people in positions of authority is a challenge. It could be fun, but if you start using your oath as an excuse to make every one of their scenes about you.... then you've gone too far and made issues where none needed to exist.
Yeah, I saw that upthread. It mentions "the letter of the bargain" but also lies, trickery and deceit. What I see there is less we keep our word and more we trick you into giving your word.
Yep, this is where we see the change from truth being a value (and hence good) to truth being part of lawfulness. As I've already posted, I don't find this coherent.
4e I'm familiar with - I see it as a variant on the old Lawful vs Chaotic alignment. 5e I haven't really engaged with much. The bit about Asmodeus and diabolic contracts is new (or at least is new to me - I don't recall it in from AD&D or from 4e).
Redwizard007
Adventurer
It used to be.
One of my favorite things about 5e was the disconnecting of Paladins from LG. You could ask 100 people to define each alignment, and you'd get 100 different answers. It made one table's perfect paladin another table's tale of how a paladin had fallen. As much as I enjoyed arguing alignment online, it's nice to just play without having to worry about how your DM will react to any given decision.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I agree with you, but there's a lot of people who feel otherwise. The Paladin has, sadly, been defined more by their limitations over the decades than their actual powers. I mean, one of their "iconic" abilities (Smite) didn't even exist before 3e, and another was actually swiped from the Cavalier (Aura of Courage)!
Chaosmancer
Legend
I completely agree.
And I think one of the aspects that is driving me in this conversation is a particular player at a table I am at, who is very much trying to play a Crusader-styled warrior (he is an author who wrote a fantasy series based on the idea of the Crusades) and how some of his behavior is far more about "the nobles" than it is about "Good, Truth and Justice"
It also doesn't help that a few weeks ago I learned that the origin of the word "villain" is "villager" which deeply highlights for me the issues in the idea that "nobility" is good and how those narratives interact with each other.
Edit: I should clarify. It isn't that this guy is a bad player. He isn't exactly (bit of a spotlight hog, but nothing serious). But he has gotten borderline a few times and when comparing him to other paladin PCs I have had over the years, the comparison had me picking out the differences between those excellent PCs and his PC that comparison troubles me.
This is why I've said that the issue is not the paladin's alignment and code - rather, it's an approach to play in which the GM gets to tell the player whether or not they are playing their character correctly.
This is not true.
In the fiction, something can be pre-ordained, but at the table determined by rolling.
For instance, there is nothing absurd about a RPG including a random destiny table, where a player can roll to see what their PC's pre-ordained fate or nature is.
More boringly, from the fact that I use dice when playing Traveller doesn't settle the question of whether, in the universe of Traveller, mechanistic determinism is true.
An addendum to my post just upthread:
Suppose a GM is writing some setting backstory, and that includes some stuff about a great hero, destiny, fate, a fall, etc - think something JRRT-ish or DL-ish. The GM isn't sure whether they should call their hero Joran or Linnan. So they toss a coin.
Or the GM isn't sure where the hero met their end, and so makes a list of the exciting places on their world map, and rolls a die to choose one of them.
None of this randomness would change the fact that, in the fiction, this is all fate/destiny etc.
The same is true if the randomness happens in the moment of play, as part of the action resolution process.
Suppose a GM is writing some setting backstory, and that includes some stuff about a great hero, destiny, fate, a fall, etc - think something JRRT-ish or DL-ish. The GM isn't sure whether they should call their hero Joran or Linnan. So they toss a coin.
Or the GM isn't sure where the hero met their end, and so makes a list of the exciting places on their world map, and rolls a die to choose one of them.
None of this randomness would change the fact that, in the fiction, this is all fate/destiny etc.
The same is true if the randomness happens in the moment of play, as part of the action resolution process.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Did you also see that episode of Tasting History? Because I just learned this too.
