Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[Sadras]

DO ALIGNMENTS IMPROVE THE GAMING EXPERIENCE

Alignments can improve the gaming experience, not necessarily do as it depends much on the players and the DM, but so does an adventure. So I don't see the problem with it.

Think of alignments as character crutches/hindrances/merits/flaws/descriptors/paths - a great deal of RPGs (Grimm, Summerland, Vampire...etc) have such things within their systems, and most usually affect mechanics in some way or another but others affect narrative or character choices, which is great.
We should actually have more descriptors in D&D - short/tall (this is denoted with height), fat/thin (denoted to some degree with weight), proud/humble, selfish/generous, jealous, empathic...etc
I'd love for D&D to have a module which asks that a character have x descriptors and not just physical but psychological too. For me it encourages great role-play.
My favourite moments in D&D funnily enough have usually not been about the numbers - its been about the role-play.

We do not criticise other RPGS which have such systems, and I do not see why the use of alignments or the value of alignments is such a heated debate for D&Ders. Do we need them - not necessarily, but that is not the question. The question is "Do alignments improve the gaming experience?"

And the simple answer is yes they can, for they can assist in instilling or reminding the players (through everyone/anyone at the table) how we intended to play our characters. How is that a bad thing?

A character's alignment might change over the course of a campaign, which is absolutely fine - as one might change due to their experiences, the choices they might have had to make.

Will a player play a paladin better is he uses alignment over another player who doesn't? Not necessarily. But a descriptor on a character's page allows the DM to explore the narrative behind it, whereas a player without that descriptor is playing it without a true boundary.

Alignment can enhance stories, give a greater sense of direction or purpose to a character, it defines a character better and may lead to opportunities where it can be used creatively with the mechanics.

In my experience, those against a moral/psychological descriptor don't like it as it doesn't affect the roll-play and might supposedly limit their characters on the role-play which to me is an indication that they prefer the roll-play.

 

[Imaro]

Correct.

Ok, cool. that said...

To me this seems to be quite different.

Any obstacle is an obstacle only relevant to a motivation. In technical terms, a "scene" expresses a hypothetical imperative: if you want to achieve X, then you are going to have to overcome Y. My concern about players framing scenes is that they will squib when it comes to specifying what Y is. Hence I prefer GM authority with respect to Y. But when I frame a scene, I am taking for granted a particular value of X.

Yep I got this... so far so good.

For instance, in my most recent session the PCs were trudging through the icy tunnels of the Shadowdark, on the far side of the Soul Slough, heading for Torog's Soul Abattoir where they hope to destroy the Abattoir and defeat Torog. En route they were attacked by a beholder death emperor and the Worm of Ages. Thus, the hypothetical syllogism was framed: if you want to get to the Soul Abattoir, you must overcome the death emperor and the Worm. (This is the basic structure for all romatnic quest stories, I think.)

But the scene I've framed is only a challenge if the value of X is held constant. If the PCs decide to give up on Torog and the Soul Abattoir, then they don't have to overome the death emperor and the Worm: they can just run away back to their waiting planar dromond, and on their phantom steeds they have a better movement speed than either of those monsters. Part of the skill of GMing in a non-railroad but non-sandbox style is having a sound intuition on what "X" is for the players (this is "the GM being hooked by the players"), and this is why games in this style use devices - formal or informal - so that the players can tell GMs what "X" is for them.

Again so far so good The value of X is a desire of the PC... Y is what they must overcome to attain X... X is only serving it's purpose when it is held valuable to the PC's...

The paladin's code is one value of, or one component of, "X" for the paladin player. Given that value of X, I as GM can fairly easily frame a moral challenge.

Hmm, I would go a little further and say, for the paladin as presented in every edition except 4e, that following the paladin's code is the epitome of X for said class... and I agree the DM can use said code to set up a moral challenge (i.e. Y)...

If the player changes, or has changed, that value of X - ie what s/he takes his/her PC's obligations to be - then a scene that would have been a challlenge may not be. But that is no more an issue for GMing a paladin then for GMing any other PC. If the player of the fighter decides s/he no longer cares what the king thinks of his/her PC, then the delicate negotiation scene that I framed may turn out not to be a big challenge after all!

And I think this may be where we don't see eye to eye on a class like the paladin. The paladin's restrictions throughout the previous editions have primarily served to make sure this doesn't happen as far as the paladin's code goes. IMO, the paladin's code is the thing that gives him his power and strength, and is what his entire archetype is centered around... without it he isn't a paladin (thus the "falling") he is a slightly pious fighter, a divine mercenary or something else but not a paladin... but you seem to regard the code as something the paladin can disregard and still be a paladin, I don't think I do.

Handling these changes of X - which naturally occur from time to time as the game is played and PCs evolve - and reading those changes, whether expressed formally or informally, and responding to them in a flexible way, is another GMing skill. Sometimes it turns out that X has changed faster than the GM anticipated, and what was intended as a challenging Y turns out not to be. Or perhaps the nature of the challenge changes - here is an example from actual play:

The PCs in my 4e game were raiding a goblin stronghold (the Chamber of Eyes from H2) and while the goblins fell back and regrouped, the PCs ducked into a small room to take a breather. They found themselves in the room of a couple of duergar slave traders, who had been keeping their heads down during the fighting.

The module author certainly assumed that if/when the PCs encountered these duergar, a fight would ensue. And that had been my default assumption also. But on this particular occasion the players were fairly low on resources (hence they had decided their PCs would take a short rest) and they also didn't feel any special animosity towards the duergar. So the scene went in a different direction: the PCs negotiated with the duergar to redeem the slaves for an agreed price on an agreed date in a nearby town. (Resolved as a skill challenge.)​

That's an example of X changing, or at least turning out to be something different from what I as GM anticipated, and the nature of the Y therefore also changing in a flexible way. I haven't found GMing paladins to raise any special problems in this regard.

Yes but I would contend that the values of X you have presented here are not intrinsic to what a particular player has chosen to play. I also believe the fall and subsequent (if the player desires it) atonement (or even conversion to another deity) for paladins is a way for the DM to handle a change in X... and honestly if maintaining the paladin code has become so irrelevant to a player that they don't wish to atone... well then at that point I think it's time to roll up another character or convert your existing character to another class such as fighter.

Burning Wheel, which has a formal technique for the signalling of X by players - namely, Beliefs - also has a rule that a player may change a Belief at any time, but that the GM may delay the implimenation of a change of Belief if s/he thinks it is being done simply to wriggle out of a difficult situation that the GM has framed for that player and his/her PC. Because, in D&D, there is no comparably formal system, there is no corresponding formal power in the GM to stop the player squibbing. In my own play, if I feel that the player is not really feeling the force of the moral challenge of the Y in the way s/he is playing his/her PC in response to it, I (verbally) poke and prod the player, perhaps making comments like "What would Moradin think?" or reminding them of some grievance they've been nursing from some earlier episode of play - in other words, informal techniques for the GM corresponding to informal signalling of "X" by the players. (Those informal techniques may seem obvious - I personally didn't work them out myself, though, but learned them from an excellent GM running a Cthulhu freeform at a convention in Melbourne in 1992.)

But this Burning Wheel rule seems to fly in the face of a player knowing the morality of his character better than the GM. This is also an example of DM fiat (though on a more limited scale than D&D's), and a mechanical penalty for a narrative change. IMO, this only differs in the way D&D handles paladins by having a less severe effect... a smaller amount of power is taken away by the DM because he feels you haven't roleplayed your beliefs convincingly. Why is this ok in your ming but the handling of paladins in early editions isn't?

As to the way you poke and prod, I believe (though if I am wrong someone please correct me) that 3.5 makes it clear that you as the DM should warn the player when they are about to do something that is against their code, so it's very similar to what you have described above, only instead of beating around the bush... the DM just comes out and says it.

 

[Sadras]

(snip) ...the paladin's code is the thing that gives him his power and strength, and is what his entire archetype is centered around... without it he isn't a paladin (thus the "falling") he is a slightly pious fighter, a divine mercenary or something else but not a paladin... but you seem to regard the code as something the paladin can disregard and still be a paladin, I don't think I do.

As to the way you poke and prod, I believe (though if I am wrong someone please correct me) that 3.5 makes it clear that you as the DM should warn the player when they are about to do something that is against their code, so it's very similar to what you have described above, only instead of beating around the bush... the DM just comes out and says it.

You are not wrong and here is another example - If one chooses as an archetype, Archer, and he picks the necessary feats and abilities which would enhance his skill as an Archer. If that Archer drops his bow for a sword, the system punishes him through the mechanics for not sticking to his archetype.

It is the same with the Paladin, his code is his strength but also his crutch, if he drops/breaks that code, he will get punished as that is not what he ascribed to be originally. Mechanics wise he might start losing his Paladin's abilities.
Unfortunately the way back for the Paladin is usually a lot tougher than the Archer. All the Archer has to do is pick up his bow again - for the Paladin it might require a quest or something more...but that is the luxury and burden of ROLE-playing a Paladin.

 

[N'raac]

I'm afraid "Not-Fallen" and "Fallen" seem like rather Brute force approaches. Either everything works at full efficiency, or nothing does. What @sheadunne suggests is rather closer to what I'd like to see. Some of the things that were said in the "Religion in D&D" thread are also relevant.

So is the issue that the Paladin may lose his divine-granted powers at all, or that the rules make this all or nothing? A more robust system might incorporate loss of some, but not all, powers for a restricted timeframe, with the severity of the violation, and the circumstances, taken into account.

Are we discussing whether alignment itself benefits or detracts from the game? I think we left that question behind many pages back.

Are we discussing whether there ought to be mechanics linked to alignment? Or are we discussing whether the existing mechanics should be modified, enhanced, reduced and/or replaced?

The only issue here is that I have no problem separating myself from my character and judging my character based on the actions taken. (it is the player judging the characters actions, not the character judging his own actions).

I think this opens up another question, which [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has discussed in some detail. As the player judging what the character’s morality dictates, I believe that you are 100% in the right – no GM should be able to say “No, your character does not truly believe that” barring some external magical force which is overriding the character’s free will such as a Charm spell).

However, the Paladin and Cleric’s abilities are not, as I read them, intrinsic. They are granted by an external force, be that a deity, a cosmological Law and Goodness philosophy or some other force. As such, demanding that the player assess whether the Paladin has fallen, or the Cleric’s actions have been in our out of keeping with the tenets of his deity demands that the player also play the Deity or Force which grants the character his powers.

I don’t get to decide that, despite having cast all his L5 spell slots today, my 9th level sorcerer is able to reach within and find that shred of power to cast just one more in this very crucial situation. Why would I get to decide that my character’s Deity agrees with my intrepretation of Law, Good and the character’s religious obligations?

You refer to internal reflection of the character, but Clerics and Paladins have powers granted by an external source. By rejecting the notion that those powers can be denied, I feel you reject the notion that the GM controls those external sources. I question what other external sources should be under the player’s control, then. Should the player of the proselytizing cleric referred to elsewhere in the thread be able to dictate that his words and deeds have impressed the Prince, who withdraws his edict rather than enforcing it?

I guess the problem seems to be that I'm not judging myself in any way. I'm judging a fictional character as part of a story. I am not my character. There is no "mirror." There is no "self-evaluation."

Any constraints should be built into the rules of the game and not DM fiat. I suggested several ways up thread on how to handle that. Neither of which is in conflict with the way I prefer things to be handled in a RPG. If "duty" is a game rule than to resolve that rule there needs to be mechanics for arbitration (such as a religion check to determine if the action caused a lapse of duty). If it is purely narrative in function than there needs to be ownership of the narrative (which for me is the player) and consequences (which for me is the DM), neither of which are mechanic in nature (the character don't lose character abilities).

I have no issue with the GM calling for a sanity check. Nor would I have any issue with the DM calling for an alignment check. Resolution mechanics are deployed. All is well. I do have a problem with the DM changing a characters sanity or alignment without employing resolution mechanics (which there aren't any alignment mechanics to employ, which is where my issue is and why I brought up sanity in CoC since it does have resolution mechanics that impact a non-health (HP) aspect of the character.

So it would be OK if loss of character abilities were contingent on a die roll? I can see this, to some extent. The character’s knowledge and understanding of his own religion could be set by a skill. But however high that skill, are there lines that simply cannot be crossed? Is there a point at which either the best your skill can do is tell you “that means excommunication and branding as a heretic and enemy of the religion forevermore”, or where the DC is so high that no roll can possibly succeed, becomes legitimate?

It's funny, but I was going to bring up sanity points as well as an example of something that it seemed like didn't involve DM fiat, but actually did.

While sanity points are really crunchy, it's pretty much entirely up to the GM whether or not an event requires a SAN check and how much sanity is staked on the outcome. The GM is given some broad guidelines and the players some broad expectations, there is no way that those guidelines can ever be comprehensive and even those are subject to some interpretation.

Agreed. In addition, the GM could set consequences even where the roll succeeded (the highest I recall was 1-10 points for a Great Old One, where a failed check was loss of 1-100 SAN). It’s been a long time since I played CoC – it requires a group with a familiarity and fondness for Lovecraft, as well as a certain playstyle – but I recall the SAN loss in many Chaosium scenarios seeming quite arbitrary, and varying substantially across adventure writers.

But I notice we are getting side tracked into the particular mechanical implementation of how alignment interacts with the rules which is a rather different thing than whether it should exist at all. Are we saying alignment can exist it's just the particular rules you don't like, or that it shouldnt' exist at all?

I think this is a very good question – we started with a discussion of “Alignment”, but only Paladins have received substantial discussion, and a bit for clerics. Is the issue “Alignment” or “Mechanics of Alignment”?

Well, RAW (in games with an alignment system), the only sense in which its optional is whether one chooses to play a class with alignment-based restrictions with attendant consequences.

An issue which has been very much conflated, and the discussion focused almost entirely on whether those attendant consequences are appropriate, not whether alignment itself is relevant.

As I set out in my reply to @sheadunne about involving deities in the game, I don't actually share this conception of the GM's authority.

But I also have a second, distinct, reason for not sharing your view that the scenarios differ only in details.

In the case of the proselytising priest, the player has formed a view about what is proper for his/her PC to do. The GM has posed an obstacle to that (namely, the prince's objections). The player has pushed against that obstacle, and lost. The player's conception of his/her PC has not been invalidated, although from what you're saying the GM in question was not using "fail forward" methods, and so the player is not able to keep using that PC in the game.

I have never received an answer on how far “fail forward” can go. It is impossible, apparently, for the character to be removed from the game by banishment. Can the character die, which also removes the character from the game? Or does Fail Forward means that each failure must ultimately be resolved in a manner where the character is able to try, try again?

You have similarly not responded to my earlier question of where “PC conception” ends. His deity/church/philosophy must always accept his actions, unless he decides they must not (the Paladin who accidentally took a life). The player gets a stake in the deities, his home town, his parents, etc. Can the character veto, say, the death of a loved one, the razing or conquest of his home town or the loss of his heirloom/enchanted bow on the basis these are “central to his conception”? Is it only possible to lose stakes that are not all that important to the PC?

In the case of the paladin, the player has formed a view about what is proper for his/her PC to do. The GM, playing the role of the divine, has decided that the player is wrong about that. Furthermore, within the fiction, it is almost unthinkable that the divine entity is making a moral error - s/he is an immortal being of LG with 25+ INT and WIS living in the Seven Heavens. Thus, the player's conception of his/her PC has been radically invalidated.

In the typical game milieu, how many immortal beings with staggering INT and WIS live in all of the Outer Planes? I suggest the player and the PC may have discovered that LG is not what the PC considers proper to do.

Whether or not one thinks the game should permit a player's conception of his/her PC to be radically invalidated is a different thing.

What is the player’s conception of his PC? That he is “Lawful Good” or that he considers the protection of the innocent more important (or less important) than the rights of the guilty? If the Greater Cosmic Beings of LG differ in opinion, that means, to me, that the character’s views of “what is right” do not accord with the philosophies of LG, and perhaps the character is LN, believing that respect for life most certainly DOES NOT take priority over the protection of the innocent by executing the guilty for their crimes.

Whether one or the other is “Good” is a question for philosophers. What the Greater Cosmological Forces in a fictional world determine “Good” to be is not.

As best I can tell, @N'raac and @Imaro think that it should, because in this way the experience of the player reflects the experience of the character, who has been condemned by his/her god for misjudging what is proper. I hope I've made it clear that I prefer a game in which the player's conception of his/her PC is not invalidated, and as @sheadunne has explained that therefore involves a player/character split.

But whatever one's view about the matters discussed in the previous paragraph, I think it is plausible to see that there is a difference in nature between the two episodes. Because only one involves the player being told that his/her conception of his/her PC was mistaken.

I do not disagree with the philosophy that the player’s conception of the character is critical. I disagree with the notion that this conception, of necessity, requires the world conform with the rightness of that conception.

The Paladin character’s views deviate from his deity? This is a HUGE challenge to the beliefs of your character. I thought the game was all about challenges. Reflecting on my conception of the character, what is important to him? Is it acceptance by the Church/Deity/Whatever and his position as a Paladin, with all the powers, mechanical or not, that his position carries (and he will therefore compromise his own beliefs to accord with those of the entity granting his powers, perhaps persuading himself that, clearly, that 25+ INT and WIS outer planar epitome of LG cannot be mistaken, so it is his own beliefs which are flawed), or does the power of his own convictions require he walk away from his Paladinhood, because retaining it would require him to deviate from what he knows to be right?

Now, I would not disagree that we could use a mechanic which enables the Fallen Paladin to replace his lost mechanical abilities with new abilities, just as we would likely allow a cleric to change deities and retain his abilities with any relevant changes such as domain spells, granted powers and favoured weapons. Perhaps the Paladin gets to replace his Paladin levels with Fighter levels over a similar timeframe, becoming a character with the mechanical abilities befitting his level. But he does not get to dictate what “LG” or Paladinhood, mean.

Could you please define what exactly PC "conception" encompasses?? Because I'm a little unclear from your post... I mean can part of PC conception be that you can't be wrong about something (i.e. the paladin cannot be wrong about how he interprets the code of another being or cosmological force)??

Ditto. What can the player, through his “conception”, dictate, and what is beyond “conception’s” authority?

 

[N'raac]

So it does not get lost in the verbiage, there seems to be a lot of stress placed on who gets to decide what is "LG" and therefore maintains Paladinhood. Why do we place such great stock in whether the character is "LG", rather than "NG" or "LN"? Is it because we project our own views of what is moral and ethical on the D&D labels, and we want to believe that we ourselves are "LG"? Is "LG" somehow more "good" than NG? Don't the corner alignments involve compromise - in the case of LG, absolute Lawfulness being compromised in the interests of Good and absolute Goodness being compromised in the interests of Law?

I think the player gets to define what his character's conception of what is right and wrong, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, is. I don't think that extends to defining the label placed on his conception within the game world. I doubt anyone we would consider "Evil" considered himself or herself as such. Philosophers debate what is truly "good" to no consensus. We need to accept those nine alignments for what they are - a convenient shorthand for a bundle of beliefs in the game, not judgement over real world morality and ethics. In the real world, what label would we place on a fellow who takes up arms to oppose all he thinks is wrong?

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat : Well I'm not going to re-hash what has already been brought up regarding DitV... I used to own the game but only remember it vaguely, however something that stood out to me is that my impressions of the Dogs (from what I can remember, and I could be totally wrong)... or Roland Deschain for that matter... don't strike me as anything near a traditional (D&D) paladin. I'd be interested in why you think they match up as such??

I'll start by recognizing that my take on him as a paladin (lower-case) stems from an array, not specifically the Paladin of D&D; its etymological roots and its general usage in popular culture. I'll try to keep this short and just tick things off.

- King's tale and protagonist (Roland) was inspired by the Robert Browning poem "Childe (untested knight) Roland to the Dark Tower Came". My view (which is not absolute consensus, but majority I think) is that the poem's protagonist is the paladin from "The Song of Roland" (11th century French poem/song) which was in turn about the death of the original (etymologically) paladin, Roland, Charlemagne's military leader.

- Assuming it is the same (and King has basically said as much), it would appear that the Tower is the symbol of a knightly quest. What is the purpose of this knightly quest? That seems to be left up to the readership in the end. It seems likely that one of three scenarios are at work:

1) Knight Roland, being the last of the line of Gunslingers, is the only person who can undo the fact that "the world has moved on." Perhaps once he finally completes his quest, that will fix the multi-dimensional ails of existence. Having to ritualistically perform this task over, and over, and over in order to attain a new tool for the task (The Horn of Eld; the slughorn in the original work that inspired The Dark Tower) in each reincarnation...as it tries to break him...are his his test.

or

2) Knight Roland has already fallen and the tower is the realization of his futility and damnation. The ka is a wheel and he is forevermore stuck in playing out this futile scenario...

or

3) Knight Roland has already fallen and the tower is a realization of futility and damnation meant to test his will and the sincerity of his attempt at atonement. The ka is a wheel and he is forevermore stuck in playing out this futile scenario...His atonement ritual is to perform this task over, and over, and over in order to attain a new tool (The Horn of Eld; the analogue to the slughorn in the original work that inspired The Dark Tower) required for the ultimate atonement quest (perhaps related to 1) that requires multiple, trying reincarnations...until, atonement?...or ultimate damnation?

- Arthurian legend certainly has a role to play. Roland is a descendant of Arthur. His guns are the melted slag of Excalibur. He is the last in a long line of knights (the setting's analogue).

- His will is guided by ka, a divine spark (or just a mysterious force) that binds his destiny to his quest.

- Single-minded commitment to the quest before him. Paladins are always on the razor edge due to the imposition of this zealotry.

- That single-minded commitment bears out that yes, he certainly has some harsh means (pistol abortion of a gestating demon anyone?) in a considerably harsher existence, but the world is a completely fallen one. And the actions that he must commit (specifically letting Jake fall and pass on to the next existence in order to facilitate his only chance at catching The Man in Black) in order to accomplish this quest make him priorities virtues...and that forced prioritization haunts him and he mourns it.

- High on his list of virtues is protection. However, again, this virtue is prioritized as lower on the totem pole than the success of his quest.

- Personally, I think much of being a paladin in the modern world is present in Cormac McCarthy's "The Road." The father constantly instructs his boy that they are "carrying the fire" in a lost, dead world (that has "moved on"). I think the father is a paladin. With his father's example and instruction, I think his boy will continue "carrying the fire" and will be one too. There is a lot of compatible symbolism between the two works.

There is a lot more but that is off the top of my head and I've got writer's fatigue so I'll just leave it at that. Is that enough to warrant Roland in his setting to being an analogue to a D&D Paladin? I guess I'll leave that up to you and the readership to decide. But those are my thoughts and are sufficient to cement my position. And hey, Pathfinder does have a "Holy Gun" archetype for the Paladin! So...I don't know. Something about the idea not being too far off the reservation or something.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I certainly respect your faith-driven reasons for abstaining from DitV. Its not unreasonable and its not unfair for you to invoke it. That being said, I've played the game with a committed Christian conservative (and a hell of a good man and father and an exemplar of his faith), atheists and those in between. It is certainly possible.

Beyond that (and I'm going to try to keep this short), I think its a shame that your thoughts are only born of theory and not of playing. Given that you apparently like the thematic backbone, I think you would have enjoyed playing and (knowing how intensive you are about your roleplaying given your posts) I suspect I would have enjoyed GMing for you.

Its trivially easy to remove the LDS and Utah aspects of the game if they don't work for you. The faith can be any generic form of monotheism with a normal set of moral codes (don't lie, cheat, steal, sleep around, profit from another's misfortune, et al) and the standard religious ones (eg don't turn to demons or false idols/gods for favors). Baker provides a schematic for doing so. Even if he didn't, it would be trivial (especially for someone exposed to religious studies). None of the games I've ever run had introspection on, or even exposure to, polygamy. The genre fiction that inspires the game is pretty straight forward; High Plains Drifter, Tombstone, The Quick and the Dead, The Untouchable, and other number of Samurai and Western flicks. If your game looks like that you're "doing it right."

As GM, you make a town with various NPCs, sins and conflicts. You frame the PCs into it. You drive play toward conflict. You escalate, escalate, escalate. The PCs save the town, the town comes apart, or something in between. Each conflict has some fallout and travel in between towns yields reflection. Then you do it again.

Its a great game. I think if you changed The Faith to your own faith (trivially easy) and just pushed the game toward the genre fiction its meant to look like (and does in spades), you would have a great time.

 

[Manbearcat]

And finally, I'll throw something out there about "who gets to judge", specifically about the grey areas in a specified moral code or set of oaths. Unsurprisingly, I come down on the same side of the affair as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION].

It seems that most times this dance is done, there is a notion of the GM being uniquely capable of being uniquely informed and an impartial arbiter of play. Unfortunately (and this being solely a GM) I don't agree with that and there is no one on this board (or anyone I've crossed paths with in real life) who is more confident (I didn't competent) in their abilities than I. So it is not for wont of it.

I like to (in my less humble moments) attribute ny position to a hyper-perception (including self-awareness) and ruthless objectivity (specifically pertaining to self). It can be extraordinarily difficult, even if the player telegraphs it with keen transparency, to discern player intent and then marry it to the outcome of mechanical resolution, while observing a conflict's stakes, with 100 % efficacy. With a tiered system of oaths/values that must be prioritized when they are challenged (the point of playing and GMing a Paladin by my estimation), it gets even more difficult. Whats more, its made more difficult still because (i) the player may not be privy to all things either by accident or sheer circumstance and (ii) you may not be privy to a player's 2nd, 3rd and 4th order considerations. That, of course, assumes you are clear on their 1st order intent and its relation to their Knightly Quest (and I'm assuming that the Knightly Quest is specific and of mutual clarity).

There are so, so, so many vectors that can go wrong in standard human communication on a singular issue. Hell, we can't even get past the acceptance of general premise (or definitions) to converse on an issue a considerable portion of the time.

So yes, suffice to say, I think the player is uniquely informed to understand their prioritization of their virtues, the 2nd/3rd/4th order components of the reasoning that bears out an action, and how all of these interface with the multi-faceted conflicts we (as GMs) place before them. I can certainly reflect on it in excruciating detail after the game and come up with a psych profile. I can certainly interview them at great length between sessions and then apply it to my "fall or flourish" equation. But, of course, this equation is prone to user-error and fraught with the subjectivity of my GMing principles to (i) fill my players' lives with adventure and conflict and (ii) escalate * 3.

And finally, no, I don't think the player's patron or deity is "mine" and I don't think I should feel uniquely informed of that deity's will or machinations. I guess my position (perhaps out of orthodox but I hold it without flinching) is that if a player's sword arm and intestinal fortitude is their own to command, then the guiding will (especially the details of their Knightly Quest) and divine offerings of a patron or deity should be likewise vested to the player.

Only one caveat. In a game where (i) the Paladin (or any character with a patron that infuses them with power) has a clear and present (written clearly into the rules) benefit over other players due to their divine boons AND (ii) Gamist step on up is a reasonably large animating agenda to play, then Paladin's should be expected to functionally observe their binding code (and their should be clear and transparent mechanics for fidelity to code and disloyalty to code) in the same way that Wizards need to observe spellbook mechanics and FIghters need to observe HP recovery mechanics.

---------------------------------

As to the self-interested player (lets call him Johnny) who prioritizes out of character interests over in-character thematics, I think that comes clear over time (likely not too long a time). Obviously they aren't playing in good faith and are not in lock-step with the rest of the table, assuming the rest of the table priorities in-character thematics. Play will become increasingly dysfunctional as a result. The answer is simple. Confirm the rest of the table is in agreement (that there is this dysfunction and the reason for it). Have a conversation with Johnny about his lack of compatibility with the rest of the table's agenda. If Johnny protests, give him the evidence. If Johnny protests still, stand firm and offer him to play a character that is ethically malleable such that his Pawn Stance play (not inhabiting the character...disposable PC only meant to defeat challenges...disinterested in the coherency of thematics within the shared imaginary space) will not stand out as a sore thumb and sow such dysfunction. If Johnny stands firm still, this is where you have to put your big boy pants on and do the uglier parts of your GMing duties. Unfortunately, I cannot allow the rest of the table to subordinate their interests to a single player who brings a dissonant playstyle when compared to the unified whole. If you will not move on this, I'm sorry, but good day Johnny. I hope you find a group to your liking that fits your gaming interests.

 

[Imaro]

I'll start by recognizing that my take on him as a paladin (lower-case) stems from an array, not specifically the Paladin of D&D; its etymological roots and its general usage in popular culture. I'll try to keep this short and just tick things off.

- King's tale and protagonist (Roland) was inspired by the Robert Browning poem "Childe (untested knight) Roland to the Dark Tower Came". My view (which is not absolute consensus, but majority I think) is that the poem's protagonist is the paladin from "The Song of Roland" (11th century French poem/song) which was in turn about the death of the original (etymologically) paladin, Roland, Charlemagne's military leader.

- Assuming it is the same (and King has basically said as much), it would appear that the Tower is the symbol of a knightly quest. What is the purpose of this knightly quest? That seems to be left up to the readership in the end. It seems likely that one of three scenarios are at work:

1) Knight Roland, being the last of the line of Gunslingers, is the only person who can undo the fact that "the world has moved on." Perhaps once he finally completes his quest, that will fix the multi-dimensional ails of existence. Having to ritualistically perform this task over, and over, and over in order to attain a new tool for the task (The Horn of Eld; the slughorn in the original work that inspired The Dark Tower) in each reincarnation...as it tries to break him...are his his test.

or

2) Knight Roland has already fallen and the tower is the realization of his futility and damnation. The ka is a wheel and he is forevermore stuck in playing out this futile scenario...

or

3) Knight Roland has already fallen and the tower is a realization of futility and damnation meant to test his will and the sincerity of his attempt at atonement. The ka is a wheel and he is forevermore stuck in playing out this futile scenario...His atonement ritual is to perform this task over, and over, and over in order to attain a new tool (The Horn of Eld; the analogue to the slughorn in the original work that inspired The Dark Tower) required for the ultimate atonement quest (perhaps related to 1) that requires multiple, trying reincarnations...until, atonement?...or ultimate damnation?

- Arthurian legend certainly has a role to play. Roland is a descendant of Arthur. His guns are the melted slag of Excalibur. He is the last in a long line of knights (the setting's analogue).

- His will is guided by ka, a divine spark (or just a mysterious force) that binds his destiny to his quest.

- Single-minded commitment to the quest before him. Paladins are always on the razor edge due to the imposition of this zealotry.

- That single-minded commitment bears out that yes, he certainly has some harsh means (pistol abortion of a gestating demon anyone?) in a considerably harsher existence, but the world is a completely fallen one. And the actions that he must commit (specifically letting Jake fall and pass on to the next existence in order to facilitate his only chance at catching The Man in Black) in order to accomplish this quest make him priorities virtues...and that forced prioritization haunts him and he mourns it.

- High on his list of virtues is protection. However, again, this virtue is prioritized as lower on the totem pole than the success of his quest.

- Personally, I think much of being a paladin in the modern world is present in Cormac McCarthy's "The Road." The father constantly instructs his boy that they are "carrying the fire" in a lost, dead world (that has "moved on"). I think the father is a paladin. With his father's example and instruction, I think his boy will continue "carrying the fire" and will be one too. There is a lot of compatible symbolism between the two works.

There is a lot more but that is off the top of my head and I've got writer's fatigue so I'll just leave it at that. Is that enough to warrant Roland in his setting to being an analogue to a D&D Paladin? I guess I'll leave that up to you and the readership to decide. But those are my thoughts and are sufficient to cement my position. And hey, Pathfinder does have a "Holy Gun" archetype for the Paladin! So...I don't know. Something about the idea not being too far off the reservation or something.

I think you've made a strong case for Roland Deschain being a knight or knightly when using D&D as basis, which is what we are discussing... but not for him being a paladin in the D&D sense... I don't think there's any question that Roland throughout the stories doesn't hold himself to a higher and purer state of law and good than those around him. He has a code (though IMO it's not really well defined)... which is what a knight has but he does not possess the attributes of a paladin. Let me ask you a question, IYO what is the difference between a knight and a paladin? Because when I have these discussions with you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] I find that I often feel in your minds there is no difference, but in most editions of D&D there most certainly is.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And finally, I'll throw something out there about "who gets to judge", specifically about the grey areas in a specified moral code or set of oaths. Unsurprisingly, I come down on the same side of the affair as @pemerton and @sheadunne.

It seems that most times this dance is done, there is a notion of the GM being uniquely capable of being uniquely informed and an impartial arbiter of play. Unfortunately (and this being solely a GM) I don't agree with that and there is no one on this board (or anyone I've crossed paths with in real life) who is more confident (I didn't competent) in their abilities than I. So it is not for wont of it.

find a group to your liking that fits your gaming interests.

If you like another approach that is cool, but for those of us who prefer the GM to handle this stuff, it isnt about the gm being more capable. It is mainly we just want a non-player making these kinds of calls and eant that person to be a single individual over the course of a campaign. I dont want to make decisions about stuff outside my character like how the gods feel about my actions. It is just prefence, but i feel sometimes like the other side paints us as worshipping GM authority, when it isnt really about that.