D&D General Deleted

[Chaosmancer]

True - but having actual CROSSES on shields is kind of a giveaway.

True, I'm not sure anyone has denied that they were originally based on those tropes.

I think most of the people who disagreed were far more pointing out the ways that the DnD paladin has moved past those explicit tropes. I won't say they aren't still on murky ground, but I would absolutely consider the ideal of the paladin to be a different type of thing. Even if it does get uncomfortably close still.

 

[pemerton]

@Chaosmancer

You are largely repeating yourself. You assert that if a game rules says that a certain magical effect ends at a certain specified point in the turn sequence (eg at the end of the victim's next turn), then in the fiction the reason that it ends cannot be something external to both caster and victim. Similarly, you have asserted that if a game rule establishes that the fiction is to be determined, or shaped, by a randomisation process then in the fiction, the event that is determined in that fashion must itself be a random event. You've provided no argument for these assertions, and I know from experience that they are false.

Furthermore, you claim to have played a RPG - Fate - that can only work if these assertions you are making is false - Fate depends upon divorcing the means at the table whereby the fiction is established and the process in the fiction whereby events are caused to occur. This therefore means either (i) you must have had an unsatisfactory experience when playing Fate, or (ii) you are capable of departing from your assertions in some contexts. I am pointing out that one can depart from them in D&D, and that the idea of doing so goes back 45 years to Gygax's account of saving throws and hit points in his DMG.

You also assert that if an event is providential in the fiction, then it must be pre-scripted at the table. This assertion is false too. I know it to be false both at a theoretical/conceptual level (because the best accounts of how RPGs work contradict your assertion), and empirically (because RPGs have had mechanical elements that contradict it going back to random encounters and random reaction rolls in the earliest games; and because I personally have had play experiences that contradict it).

You further assert that it must be the GM who decides the will of the gods, what morality requires, etc. Again, on argument is provided. My RPGing experience contradicts that. I've even given an example: when Thurgon prayed, and the Faith test was successful, and the Lord of Battle answered his prayer, the GM was not the one who decided the will of the gods. I suggested what it might be (expressing my character's hope and pious conviction), and the dice rolls confirmed my suggestion. And this also goes back to your other assertions: perhaps it was fore-ordained, from the beginning of time, that the Lord of Battles would restore Xanthippe's resolve and vigour at just that time in response to Thurgon's prayer. This might even be the reason why the Lord of Battles permitted the Iron Tower to come into the strife that it has - perhaps that was leading to this moment!

Now I don't know one way or the other, because the fiction has not yet been written. And you don't know either, and - given that you are not at my table - you cannot know until it is decided at my table, and I then let you know.

You can continue to assert that we are lying, deluded etc. But you are are wrong.

Perhaps you should try playing Fate again, and actually pay attention to how the shared fiction is established in the play of that game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, I did give an example of a Paladin subclass that doesn’t rub me the wrong way, Oath of Heroism. But it is the outlier, coming from the Ancient Greek setting.

I’m not sure what would fix the Paladin for me. That’s why I asked for ideas in the OP. Maybe if their scope was broadened a lot so things like Oath of Heroism was the norm, not the exception. I’m curious what the 2024 PHB Paladins will look like. If they look similar to the 2014 version, I don’t think that would be an improvement. Paladins are proficient with all weapons and armor. They could have as much visual diversity as Fighters do. But they’re still mostly knights in shining armor, sometimes with just different styles (spikes for Conquest, antlers for Ancients, etc).

Or D&D could lean more into the troublesome roots and make morally gray/outright evil knights. Like the Templars from Dragon Age, Space Marines from 40k, or Brotherhood of Steel from Fallout.

I think either of those would be improvements. I do think 5e’s move to remove the alignment restriction and add in some thematic diversity was a great step. I’m just not sure that it’s enough.

Well, to be fair, most Fighters are heavily armored as well. I actually can't think of much fighter art that has taken the route of the archer, or even one that usually uses polearms if they aren't supposed to be a low-level guard.

DnD visuals get a bit stale on that end, but I think that is also because, out of all the classes... Fighters, Paladins and clerics are the only ones that WEAR heavier armors AT ALL. So, if they want someone in that equipment, it will be one of those three classes.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Um... that is absolutely not a problem? This is in fact the only possible way Paladins can exist and move forward? Like, okay, you could include punishments for the player who doesn't follow whatever they say their oath is... but you immediately run into the problem of the Paladin PLayer and the DM disagree with an interpretation. Which is fine if it is not mechanical, because unless it is REALLY egregious then a disagreement won't really go anywhere. But once it is mechanical, the paladin and the DM have an end point beyond debating morality. Penalties for the player, enforced by the GM. And that was where the old paladins broke down.

IF you want a paladin who does those things, make them. But I don't want a paladin that is going to tell me that I must be against "lust" and that they poorly define to make all sexuality bad. Or falling into the trap of "pride" and how THAT is such a mess. Or why in the absolute HECK would I want a paladin even touching the idea of forbidden love or worldliness?

And the more you make these into mechanics that cannot be altered, the more you will inevitably start enforcing morality and cultural standards. Which is the WORST possible way to go forward.

I see what you're saying and there is definitely some merit but I think you may be misunderstanding my idea of the implementation of some of these...

This isn't meant to be a morality fight between DM/player, instead this is meant to be an internal struggle of the character and how it affects them (conditions if any) and what mechanised resources are used to overcome urges or not overcome them to build on story.

For instance at the very basic, you get players that declare their characters do x during downtime, without even a chance that they may not be industrious/energetic. From sunrise to sunset they perform x perfectly, no personal distractions/desires that get in the way.

Another example, a woman is sent to lure a paladin from his duty or to discredit him with the court in some way, how is that role-played out? In combat there is always a challenge and risk? But in social exchanges, its left to the DM to outsmart/out-trick the player. There is nothing within the game that can test the character's interaction with the seducer. It always has to come down to magic and a will save.

We have no true currency for these kinds of exchanges and how certain interactions may make characters more susceptible to x or y in the future - build on flaws, amend ideals, weaken bonds...etc

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Plus thread or not it needed to be said.

D&D Paladins are NOT Christian Cruasaders, for one think Paladin's are Polythiests.

I don’t see the relevance. The issue is with the trope, not the fact that they are not literally Christian. Dragon Age’s Templars and 40k’s Space Marines aren’t Christian either, but still are obviously based on the image of a Crusader.

And having regilous symbols on shields predates Christianity by a lot.

True. But the type of Paladin art work I was referring to is clearly modeled after Christian Knights. Not Roman legionaries, ancient Egyptians, or any other example of people with symbols of their gods on their shields.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've been arguing (ii) on these boards for 15-ish years - that play is best when players decide what their PCs convictions and commitments demand of them (this is why I strongly disagree with @Chaosmancer that the attitudes of the gods are the sole province of the GM).

This is a tangent of a tangent, but I feel like you have continually gotten the wrong impression of what I believe. Especially if you think I disagree with the idea that the players get to decide what their convictions are and what those commitments demand of them. I fully support that. I disagree that the player gets to dictate what the Gods think of their actions. And I think an anecdote will help express why I believe this. Bear with me for a bit of context

It was during 4e, around 2012/2013 because it was the last game I ran before DnD 5e came out and I switched full time to that system. One of my dear friends was playing a Dwarf Fighter in a sea-faring campaign. I do not remember the precise order of the two events I am about to recount, but I am choosing their order for how easily the second leads into the climax of the campaign.

One thing I will never forget that this player did was, one night when they were at THE major port city, he declared he was sneaking off and looking for a mob boss. We were wrapping downtime, this was completely random, so I had him roll, he succeeded well enough that I was like "sure, okay, you can get a meeting with this guy." Mob Boss proceeds to act... like a mob boss. The character was like level 7, this was 4e and an island ruled by a dragon, so this guy wasn't too impressed with the Dwarf. The Dwarf took offense to not being bowed to, and attacked the mob boss, shocking me, who had to hurriedly figure out this sudden fight. A fight the player was obviously losing, because he was in the center of this guy's sanctum. He wanted his allies to come help him, but I had to remind him... he had snuck off in the middle of the night, and was across town. No one knew this was happening. However, I have a soft spot for my players, and this guy was a good friend, who I figured had just had a bad day, so I improvised a way to keep his character alive.

I decided that this mob boss had made a sacred oath to Pelor not to kill anyone (or order their death) to save his son from a terrible disease. So, he had his guys drag the dwarf across town, strip him of his gear, and hang a sign around his neck saying "I have bad manners". Humiliating, but could have slit his throat. This player then marches back, grabs his allies and spare gear, and attacks the mob boss AGAIN for disrespecting him. And, when finding the Boss with his family,begins making threats. Threats to kill his wife and child in front of him for his disrespect to the dwarf. Threats to the point that, I as the DM, imagined how Pelor would react to this. An oath given and kept in good faith, was about to lead to the slaughter of innocents, because the Mob Boss knew if he broke his oath, Pelor had declared his son would die of that disease. And I realized it was so completely unfair to the Mob Boss who had done nothing wrong... that Pelor sent a sign declaring that the oath was considered fulfilled. Because this player went that far.

Another time, same player, they had come to a dark and creepy castle. There was a tiefling noble there, and a Duergar woman. The Duergar was sent to challenge the player on the perception of his clans, by offering the Duergar's side of the narrative that caused their ancient split. Good stuff. He was convinced that he wanted to woo and recruit her. Absolutely determined. Another player snuck around the castle, set off an alarm, freed a trapped demon, and the Baron and his guest thinking they had been betrayed, attacked the party. They put both him and the Duergar woman in the torture chamber to get information from later.

The Duergar, thinking "well, not much point in not agreeing to join him now" expected another plea for her to join the Dwarf. Instead, he proceeds to brutalize this NPC in a way that was borderline me calling quits. Throat punching her to shut her up, dragging her by the hair to a bottomless pit, and tossing her to her death. It was and still is to this day, one of the most shocking acts a player has ever done at my table. To the point where I was unable to be comfortable with his character getting away with this action without any consequences. So, she came back as a twisted warlock, whose sole goal was to kill him, stuff his soul in a bottle, and throw it overboard into the deepest ocean trench she could find.

In the climax of the campaign, the party was faced with the enemies that they had made along the way (assassin from the Mob Boss, the Duergar Warlock, the Demon, and a Pirate) and the party ended up splitting, with their own warlock betraying them. It was a technical TPK, and the Duergar procceeded to do exactly what she had set out to do. Putting the dwarf's soul in a bottle, and tossing him into the cold and darkness for all time, as he did to her.

Now, what does all of this have to do with the gods? Because the entire time through the epilogue, and for almost a week after the game ended, that player insisted that Moradin would save his character's soul. That he was a good, honorable, powerful dwarven warrior and Moradin would never let him suffer that fate. That it would be only a matter of moments before he would have been freed and let into Dwarf Heaven for all the good work he did.

...

I love working with my players to make better stories. I love working with my players to find obscure gods, or create good-aligned cults that they can believe in and follow. If a player wants their character to believe something, I am more than happy to help them as best as I can. But I cannot give players the power to determine how their morality is seen by the universe. I cannot give them the ability to say "I may have done all these horrific things, but I'm sure my Lawful Good Patron just loves me, personally, so much, that they will reward me in spite of those things"

You may say that player was playing or arguing in bad faith. That may be so. I had another character in 4e who wanted to play the girlfriend of a God, I thought it was a fun idea... until she started insisting that the god would save her from any and all threats the party ever faced so she never needed to act or do anything.

Gods have too much power, too much authority, too much control. I cannot allow their actions to be dictated by a player, who could very well turn them to justifying their own actions. If a player wants to suggest "oh, this is the perfect thematic moment for a sign from my god" and I look at it and go "Dang, you're right. That would be awesome, let me think" then I'm fine with them offering suggestions. But Gods are NPCs with too much ability to give authority to players to act in bad ways. So just like I would never let a player tell me "The King will pardon my crimes" without a dang good reason, I will never let a player tell me "My God approves of my actions" without an equally good reason. You can believe they approve all you like, but their actual approval and actions are my purview.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer

You are largely repeating yourself. You assert that if a game rules says that a certain magical effect ends at a certain specified point in the turn sequence (eg at the end of the victim's next turn), then in the fiction the reason that it ends cannot be something external to both caster and victim. Similarly, you have asserted that if a game rule establishes that the fiction is to be determined, or shaped, by a randomisation process then in the fiction, the event that is determined in that fashion must itself be a random event. You've provided no argument for these assertions, and I know from experience that they are false.

Furthermore, you claim to have played a RPG - Fate - that can only work if these assertions you are making is false - Fate depends upon divorcing the means at the table whereby the fiction is established and the process in the fiction whereby events are caused to occur. This therefore means either (i) you must have had an unsatisfactory experience when playing Fate, or (ii) you are capable of departing from your assertions in some contexts. I am pointing out that one can depart from them in D&D, and that the idea of doing so goes back 45 years to Gygax's account of saving throws and hit points in his DMG.

You also assert that if an event is providential in the fiction, then it must be pre-scripted at the table. This assertion is false too. I know it to be false both at a theoretical/conceptual level (because the best accounts of how RPGs work contradict your assertion), and empirically (because RPGs have had mechanical elements that contradict it going back to random encounters and random reaction rolls in the earliest games; and because I personally have had play experiences that contradict it).

You further assert that it must be the GM who decides the will of the gods, what morality requires, etc. Again, on argument is provided. My RPGing experience contradicts that. I've even given an example: when Thurgon prayed, and the Faith test was successful, and the Lord of Battle answered his prayer, the GM was not the one who decided the will of the gods. I suggested what it might be (expressing my character's hope and pious conviction), and the dice rolls confirmed my suggestion. And this also goes back to your other assertions: perhaps it was fore-ordained, from the beginning of time, that the Lord of Battles would restore Xanthippe's resolve and vigour at just that time in response to Thurgon's prayer. This might even be the reason why the Lord of Battles permitted the Iron Tower to come into the strife that it has - perhaps that was leading to this moment!

Now I don't know one way or the other, because the fiction has not yet been written. And you don't know either, and - given that you are not at my table - you cannot know until it is decided at my table, and I then let you know.

You can continue to assert that we are lying, deluded etc. But you are are wrong.

Perhaps you should try playing Fate again, and actually pay attention to how the shared fiction is established in the play of that game.

I keep repeating myself, because you keep repeating yourself. As well as condescending at me that I must not know what I am talking about.

You claim that Fate breaks with what I am talking about, but Fate ALSO uses dice. Maybe you think I don't understand meta-mechanics that allow the shaping of the narrative? But that has never been what I am talking about. I understand and accept those. I also would say that those ARE NOT examples of Providence, as I have defined it repeatedly. Instead of addressing my point, you just keep insisting "but if I say it is Providence then it is Providence" and this is where the fundamental disconnect comes from.

You keep saying that just because you insist on a viewpoint, it is true. But that is not how a narrative structure works. Not even in RPGs. I am aware of the Quantum Ogre, and the ability for a DM to alter the structure of the story on the fly, to make it appear as though it was all planned... but this is not Providence. This is not an immutable, divine plan of action. And you keep making a hard barrier in the most key spot. The person consuming the medium.

Providence stories function by declaring that the actions that happen were always going to happen. That there was never any chance of a different result. Again, though you keep ignoring it, Lancelot's full name carved into his tomb while he did not even know his own last name is an example of Providence. There was never any chance, at all, for any other possible result. And yes, you can declare that to be the fiction in the game. The problem is.. we saw you roll the dice. We saw that there WAS another possibility. We saw that there WAS a chance of something else happening. If I am sitting at the table with you, and you insist that the only possible result is the one that just happened... I'd ask if you were okay, because clearly there is another possible result.

The game of Fate doesn't countermand this. Dice are still rolled, the results are still random. You keep insisting that just because they are random in game does not mean they are "random" in-fiction. Which might be true, but that is subtly different than it being Providence or the Will of the Gods. Sure, I can roll that an NPC has a love of dancing, and then I can back-fill why that is, so that their love of dancing isn't "random" but a feature of their continuing narrative. But I cannot say that I planned from the beginning for the party to meet this Dancer. I didn't. It wasn't planned, it was not inevitable. Even your example of Thurgon fails this, because when you first mentioned that event, you indicated that the roll could have failed. So you cannot tell me that it was never possible in the fiction for any other result to happen, because you ALSO told me that another result was possible. And, as a reader/player/watcher the moment I know that there was more than one possible path, then I know there was no Providence at play.

/////////

The worst part of this entire tangent though, is how pointless it is. Because at the end of the day, even if I believed DnD could accurately portray a story of Providence.... those are actually the ABSOLUTE WORST stories for Paladins.

Again, the entire conception of Providence is that there is a Divine, Immutable, Unchanging, perfect plan. That everything that will happen is written down and will happen exactly as foretold. Meaning the Paladin's faith... is rather pointless. The Paladin's faith itself was planned. Their reaction in their darkest hour where they renewed their faith was planned. Their great victory was planned. It was all planned aeons before the Paladin was born, and was always going to happen in that exact same manner, regardless of anything else. They are a puppet on the stage.

The Paladin who knows that their task will succeed, because it was destined to succeed, needs nothing.

The Paladin who does not know their task will succeed, who looks at Evil, and knows even their god cannot be sure they will conquer it... needs so much more conviction and character. True faith, not that there is a plan that will make sure everything is all right, but that doing the right thing is worth doing. That even in the face of unrelenting odds, it is worthy to stand forth and for your convictions. Uncertainty makes these tales more impactful, because it means you took a risk, rather than were constantly held safe and forever unable to alter or change anything.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I see what you're saying and there is definitely some merit but I think you may be misunderstanding my idea of the implementation of some of these...

This isn't meant to be a morality fight between DM/player, instead this is meant to be an internal struggle of the character and how it affects them (conditions if any) and what mechanised resources are used to overcome urges or not overcome them to build on story.

For instance at the very basic, you get players that declare their characters do x during downtime, without even a chance that they may not be industrious/energetic. From sunrise to sunset they perform x perfectly, no personal distractions/desires that get in the way.

Another example, a woman is sent to lure a paladin from his duty or to discredit him with the court in some way, how is that role-played out? In combat there is always a challenge and risk? But in social exchanges, its left to the DM to outsmart/out-trick the player. There is nothing within the game that can test the character's interaction with the seducer. It always has to come down to magic and a will save.

We have no true currency for these kinds of exchanges and how certain interactions may make characters more susceptible to x or y in the future - build on flaws, amend ideals, weaken bonds...etc

Well, there is a reason for that, beyond the paladin. We shouldn't make it easy to force a character into a specific action.

I brought up the example before that I have played married characters before. Both times I told the DM, I had zero interest in the story taking the turn to show that my wife was cheating on me. By that same token, I would have had zero interest, and been frankly kind of offended, if my Half-Elf paladin who was happily married, was forced to make rolls, and have his loyalty to his wife determined by a die roll. My character would not cheat on his wife. It not only goes against his morality, it goes against MY morality. Short of magic and mind-control, there is no "but I couldn't resist". Yes, you could resist. That is always a choice.

By the same token, I remember one of my first games building a character, who then another player wanted to intimidate. He rolled, rolled higher than me, then declared my character was utterly terrified of him, unable to speak he was so terrified of him... but nothing he had done was scary except stare at him. It was immediately disruptive to my enjoyment of the game, because I was just being ordered around with no control over my own actions.

However, I don't want to say that your idea is without merit. Because it DOES have merit. The trick though, is buy-in. If a player is interested in playing a Paladin who is tempted by sexual partners, then one of two things is likely to happen. 1) They will bite when you dangle the bait in front of them. They were begging you to give them an opportunity to make a "mistake" like this, and are going to immediately play into your temptation. 2) You can work out a simple die roll. I've had characters with "rage issues" who rolled a wisdom save versus a DC 12 to keep their cool. I've had characters with issues of substance abuse ask to roll wisdom saves versus falling off the wagon. You could also make it opposed rolls. Or take the sanity score idea from the DMG and rework it into something so that it acts sort of like a health bar.

I would even be willing to help you brainstorm more ideas, or a more robust system. What I would not want, is for this to be a non-optional system that was forced upon a character. I wouldn't even want this to be anywhere NEAR the paladin class. Because if the player's autonomy over their character is going to be challenged like this, then they need to agree to it first, and trying to tie it in with Oaths and such is just a recipe for bad times. I essentially always wait for the player to propose the idea, or ask for advice, in situations like this. I never suggest it. Because, even if the player wants to play a character who is tempted, they might ALSO want to play a character who never gives in to that temptation. Who always rises above it. And I don't want to deny them that option, just because of random dice.

 

[Clint_L]

Well, I did give an example of a Paladin subclass that doesn’t rub me the wrong way, Oath of Heroism. But it is the outlier, coming from the Ancient Greek setting.

Serious question: what, in your opinion, makes an Ancient Greek cultural antecedent less objectionable than a Medieval Christian cultural antecedent?

If unsavoury cultural antecedents are off the table, then...well, then, we'd better just not use any cultural antecedents. Because the Crusades? Not particularly exceptional in the history of humanity's atrocities against itself. More par for the course. Consider some of the genocidal wars that Ancient Greek cultures took part in. Or the fact that they were, almost universally, built upon a foundation of slavery.

I think we have to be pragmatic here. A knightly, chivalric figure is an archetype with a lot of connotations, and reducing it to "crusader" is overly reductionist. It's certainly not what first comes to mind for me, so I think you are kind of projecting your own biases. Perhaps because, as you state, "In the past year or so, I have learned a lot about medieval history that I didn't know before."

My first teaching gig was Medieval literature at Queens University, as part of my fellowship in grad school. The chivalric tradition was not rooted in the Crusades, and knights were a thing long before and long after them. I'm glad that you've recently learned more about one particular aspect of Medieval history. Further, I agree that calling the class "crusader," for example, would be problematic because that word has a lot of implications in the current cultural context. However, calling it "paladin" does not have the same connotations for most folks. IMO. My thoughts first go to a character like Sir Gawain and other questing knights.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Serious question: what, in your opinion, makes an Ancient Greek cultural antecedent less objectionable than a Medieval Christian cultural antecedent?
If unsavoury cultural antecedents are off the table, then...well, then, we'd better just not use any cultural antecedents. Because the Crusades? Not particularly exceptional in the history of humanity's atrocities against itself. More par for the course. Consider some of the genocidal wars that Ancient Greek cultures took part in. Or the fact that they were, almost universally, built upon a foundation of slavery.

Heracles and other Greek heroes were not real and don’t have any real connection to modern culture. Plus they’re still “divine warriors,” being demigods and all, but Heracles didn’t go around killing heathens in the name of Zeus or anything like that. It’s so far removed from our modern culture that it feels very different from the European Christian knight/crusader parallel. White supremacy groups still pretend to be medieval knights. From what I’ve seen, that doesn’t happen with Greek heroes.

I think we have to be pragmatic here. A knightly, chivalric figure is an archetype with a lot of connotations, and reducing it to "crusader" is overly reductionist. It's certainly not what first comes to mind for me, so I think you are kind of projecting your own biases. Perhaps because, as you state, "In the past year or so, I have learned a lot about medieval history that I didn't know before."

My first teaching gig was Medieval literature at Queens University, as part of my fellowship in grad school. The chivalric tradition was not rooted in the Crusades, and knights were a thing long before and long after them. I'm glad that you've recently learned more about one particular aspect of Medieval history. Further, I agree that calling the class "crusader," for example, would be problematic because that word has a lot of implications in the current cultural context. However, calling it "paladin" does not have the same connotations for most folks. IMO. My thoughts first go to a character like Sir Gawain and other questing knights.

I’m aware that knights and the concept of chivalry predate the crusades. But the concept of a knight-errant doesn’t, from my understanding. Gawain and the Green Knight came well after the Crusades. As did the quest for the Holy Grail and Lancelot’s courtly love with Guinevere. Unless what I heard was wrong, the idea of knights going on adventures to recover holy relics and the introduction of the medieval idea of “love for love’s sake” came from the Crusades. Given that you have more experience in this field than me, please correct me if this isn’t correct.