Alignments and Calls Requirements/Restrictions

[Greenfield]

We have a player in our game who brought in a character with a PRC from a third party book. The PRC is called "Golden One", and according to the Web Book of Prestige Classes, there's an Alignment requirement similar to a Paladin's.

I'd like to sort of think out loud about what that means to me:

1) Obviously, no Evil acts.
2) Chaotic acts are allowable, so long as the over all alignment stays Lawful.
3) No lies, gratuitous killing, theft. ect.

My player (yes, I'm the DM now) has his character referring to himself in the third person. "He'll have to answer to the Golden One for that" kind of thing.

To me that's fine. As far as I know, humility isn't on the list of requirements.

One trend I've seen with him, though, has been the game of playing along with the group on something, accepting the benefits of whatever we were doing, but later declaring, "Well I didn't actually agree with anything." as a way of avoiding moral or social consequences or responsibility.

Another has been with regards to deals made and things said: "Does he have that in writing? If not...".

I can't say that that last part isn't Lawful. To me though, it's more like Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. It's "lawful" like a lawyer, not like a Paladin.

It's not exactly a lie, and it's hard to say that it's "Evil", in a rules-of-the-game sense, but it sure doesn't sound like the kind of thing a Paladin should/would do.

I've mentioned these issues to him before, when we were both players and someone else was DM. But now I'm the DM.

I could arrange an opportunity for him to do that, then slap him down, but that's kinda cold. In the same line as a DM targeting a PC for death. Really bad form.

So I think I'll kind of set it aside in my mind, run the campaign and see where things go. Hopefully we'll be able to avoid that kind of conflict.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Complicity can carry responsibility. The player needs to understand this, and play the character honestly if he's going to play it at all. I think the do would be to explain to the player if a circumstance pops up that if a particular course of action contradicts his code, he needs to do more than shrug, and then let the game go on an adjudicate as needed.

Me, I'm not a fan of this sort of code.

 

[Greenfield]

The simple reality is that D&D generally rewards players who learn to argue the gray areas and rationalize their way past rules barriers.

Hard Alignment codes are the one place where the actual spirit of the rules is what has to count. The fact that someone can rationalize a prima fascia evil act as being acceptable doesn't change the fact that they had to find a rationalization. To me, if it feels wrong then the rationalizations be damned, it's wrong.

Maybe I'm too old fashioned.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The simple reality is that D&D generally rewards players who learn to argue the gray areas and rationalize their way past rules barriers.

I don't know about that. I think it rewards players who have a good relationship with their DM.

Also, total tangent, but the term is "prima facie"; "fascia" sounds similar but is something totally different.

 

[Greenfield]

I don't know about that. I think it rewards players who have a good relationship with their DM.

Also, total tangent, but the term is "prima facie"; "fascia" sounds similar but is something totally different.

Thanks for the correction.

As for the "navigate the gray areas" part: We've seen more than a little of it argued here. "Well, it never says the item *doesn't* do this, so it does." kind of stuff. And I'm as guilty as anyone else I suppose.

The lines between being rules-knowledgable, being a rules lawyer and being a munchkin are remarkably fine.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

All hail the Golden One! He shall have a tribe of miniature intelligent bears to worship at his feet ...

Beware any rules mechanic that is "balanced" by such a squishy concept as alignment; it's just asking for clever interpretation and abuse. This may not be as bad as a Vow of Poverty Druid, but it could head that way ...

 

[Greenfield]

We had a roll-on-the-floor-laughing moment in the game because of his style.

City facing destruction from a volcano, people flocking to the temples seeking salvation. We're strangers in town, and according to the DM we can't make out the symbols on the various buildings in Temple Square.

So his character walks in to a place that's packed wall to wall with struggling, desperate people and declares, "Make way! The Golden one is here!".

The people were praying for divine intervention, some form of salvation, and right in the room there appears this man glowing with holy light, making his way from the back up towards the the altar. Naturally they make way.

As the PC approaches the altar he can finally see the symbol above it.

"Whoops, sorry, wrong temple. Excuse me.", he says as he makes an about-face and exits the way he came in.

BTW: The city was doomed, it was pre-ordained, and in fact we got in trouble for even trying to save some of the people, but that moment will live on in game infamy, at least at our table.

 

[Vegepygmy]

It's not exactly a lie, and it's hard to say that it's "Evil", in a rules-of-the-game sense, but it sure doesn't sound like the kind of thing a Paladin should/would do.

I agree with you, and I've never really understood players who say they want to play a paladin-like character and then circumvent their code of conduct at every opportunity. When I play a paladin-like character, I follow the code and go out of my way to be "paladin-y" not because the rules say I have to, but because I want to play a paladin-like character!

Olgar has the right idea, IMO: codes of conduct and expected behaviors are a terrible way of "balancing" a class. If the "Golden One" class is balanced regardless of such alignment flavoring, I say let your player define and/or violate his "code" however he likes; Bob's idea of what it means to be a paladin may differ radically from yours or mine, but it shouldn't ruin the game for anyone.

If, on the other hand, the class is only balanced because of the expected restrictions on behavior, it isn't really balanced and should probably be re-balanced properly. Then it won't matter that Bob circumvents the code of conduct at every opportunity.

 

[delericho]

We have a player in our game who brought in a character with a PRC from a third party book. The PRC is called "Golden One", and according to the Web Book of Prestige Classes, there's an Alignment requirement similar to a Paladin's.

I'd like to sort of think out loud about what that means to me:

The code is actually rather more general than that:

- Never willingly commit an evil act
- Protect the innocent, the defenceless and the weak
- Be merciful to all
- Lay the undead to rest

Note also that the requirements of the PrC state that the character must be "any Good", must be able to turn undead and cast divine spells, and must worship a deity that grants the Good domain (but does not himself have to have access to that domain - for instance, if he's a Paladin).

so...

One trend I've seen with him, though, has been the game of playing along with the group on something, accepting the benefits of whatever we were doing, but later declaring, "Well I didn't actually agree with anything." as a way of avoiding moral or social consequences or responsibility.

Another has been with regards to deals made and things said: "Does he have that in writing? If not...".

I can't say that that last part isn't Lawful.

Neither of those is lawful. The D&D term 'lawful' doesn't refer to "obeys the law", but rather the whole concept of order. And one of the cornerstones of that order is people doing that they have said they will do. A lawful man's word is his bond. (But if you do want to go with the "obeys the law" interpretation, it fails there too - modern societies have the notion of a verbal contract - something doesn't need to be written down to be binding. And pre-modern societies considered such things much more important, not less so.)

Having said that, being Lawful isn't a requirement of the GO PrC, as noted above. So, if he was a Paladin before he became a GO he may lose his Paladin status when (if) he changes alignment, but not his GO status. And likewise if he was a Cleric and his deity doesn't allow NG followers.

I've mentioned these issues to him before, when we were both players and someone else was DM. But now I'm the DM.

I could arrange an opportunity for him to do that, then slap him down, but that's kinda cold. In the same line as a DM targeting a PC for death. Really bad form.

I suggest pointing out the offending behaviours to him, tell him they won't fly, and then playing on. If he persists, then change his alignment - he has chosen not to be Lawful.

But speak to him about it before the situation next comes up. That way, he gets to make his choice in the knowledge of the consequences. Then, if he still makes that choice, he has chosen to take the consequences.

 

[delericho]

On a slightly different tack, my preference when dealing what characters with "a code" is to agree with the player a half-dozen or so specific things he is sworn to. My go-to example is the Knight of the Old Code from "Dragonheart":

A knight is sworn to valour
His heart knows only virtue
His blade defends the helpless
His might upholds the weak
His word speaks only truth
His wrath undoes the wicked.

Obviously, if the character egregiously violates the code, then he falls as per normal, and may or may not be able to gain atonement. But that would be obvious when it happens - if said Knight instead turned and attacked the helpless, there's little doubt over what's happening.

However, for the more common case of minor infractions, questioned interpretations, and all the other "grey area" stuff, what I do is as follows:

If the character makes any infraction against one of these points, regardless of his reasons, regardless of circumstance, regardless of rationalisations or justifications... for any infraction, place a mark against that point in the code. And then carry on as before. As long as at least one clause remains un-marked, he doesn't fall.

However, once the character has a mark against every clause in the code, at that point he is judged to have broken the code. He falls from grace, but can recover his status by seeking atonement. At which point all the marks are erased, and he starts again with a clean slate.

(I recommend not allowing the character to benefit from atonement unless and until he falls - otherwise, the whole exercise becomes just that bit too easy.)

The benefit of this approach is that it both reduces arguments over interpretation (since any violation counts), but also reduces the importance of a single minor infraction (because the character has "six strikes"). It also means, of course, that you can have a Paladin who suffers from a besetting weakness and simply cannot stick rigorously to one of the points of the code - provided it's a question of slipping, rather than of violation, he wouldn't fall.