The difference N'raac is that there is no way that two DM's, seeing a PC devoted to the Raven Queen will give diametrically opposed rulings while following the rules of the game.
No? Let’s chat more about Her Highness below, in conjunction with her tenets.
Your argument against alignment is that two DMs will roleplay it differently in a campaign? A cleric of the Raven Queen who animates undead will be treated the same in both campaigns? Perhaps one DM will punish the cleric by refusing him access to Divine Powers altogether and permanently, one DM might decided that the cleric will have to pay penance, another might send someone/thing to punish him (lose a hand, an eye), another would have him flogged by his spiritual equals..etc
The fact that each GM will run a game differently is no different than the fact that each player will run characters differently. This is a key difference, at least to me, between a board game and a tabletop RPG.
For completeness, here is the corresponding text from the AD&D 2nd ed PHB (as published on the WotC website as part of their promotion of the reprint - its p 35 of that printing):
The paladin is a warrior bold and pure, the exemplar of everything good and true. Like the fighter, the paladin is a man of combat. However, the paladin lives for the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry. He strives to be a living example of these virtues so that others might learn from him as well as gain by his actions.
I imagine a person who had no familiarity with those Arthurian (or similar) tropes - eg a person raised in a very strict and sheltered pacifist community - would have trouble identifying what the archetype of a paladin is. (For instance, such a person might reflexively see righteousness and devotion as at odds with being a warrior.) But I also imagine that comparatively few such people are playing D&D. In practice I've never had this problem. (Note that you don't need to endorse the trope in order to play a paladin: you just have to recognise it. It's a fantasy game, after all.)
Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are also tropes, as the Star Wars discussion notes. I find it hard to believe every GM will concur as to how one best reflects “a living example of ” the ideals of righteousness, justice, honesty, piety, and chivalry”. Your answer, as I read it, is that the players may interpret this as they will, and you will let any disagreement slide. Yet you have indicated you reject one of my possible character interpretations for the Raven Queen. As well, your willingness to let any disagreement slide seems to be conditional on the players not deviating too far from your own view, in that you have noted this has never been an issue for you because your players “are reasonable”, ie do not play characters in a manner you see as deviating excessively from the values set out.
This seems a lot more practical than [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s expectation every GM’s ruling on every issue would be identical. I don’t see any less room for debate over the virtues outlined above for the Paladin, nor how hard he must strive to exemplify them, nor how successful he must be, than to shorthand this to exemplifying the ideals of the LG alignment.
What we don't need, in order for someone to play this class, is a definition in the stricter sense of what counts as "devotion", "taking the high road", "refusing to allow the illusions of temptation to dissuade you from your obligations" or "fervently crusading [in the service of] a specific faith". Or, in other words, what we don't need in order for this class to work in the game is anything approaching the application of mechanical alignment.
I agree with your first sentence. We need not analyze each and every action in depth, classifying it to the Nth degree. I disagree with your second sentence’s implication that implies such classification is needed to even approach the application of mechanical alignment.
The way you present this, it's as if the choice of anger, fear, aggression and hatred as triggers for corruption was arbitrary: as if, in some alternative "Star Wars universe", Yoda might warn Luke not to help too many old ladies across the road, because generosity, compassion, loving kindness and equanimity are the ways of the dark side!
The idea that those sorts of emotions lead to corruption is not invented by Lucas - it's an idea with broad resonance, although worked out in perhaps the greatest detail within Buddhism. They are not simply "external" triggers for the dark side - as if the god of the Jedi doesn't like them to do these things, and after three strikes will boot them out of the team. They are "internal" triggers for the dark side, corrupters of personality which eventually - and drawing on another fantasy trope that predates Lucas - manifests itself in external transformation.
You keep telling me the character should define his own morality, as there is no way that the GM and player can be expected to agree on what is “moral/good” and what is not. Yet you say above, and I agree, that we have a pretty good idea what exemplifies Good and what exemplifies Evil. So how is it hard to envision a judgement in game that a character’s actions taken as a whole (or an extreme action) indicates a trend to the Dark Side?
The analogue of alignment debates in a Star Wars RPG would be the GM trying to tell the Jedi player whether or not a particular action manifested an excessive degree of aggression. I would not be interested in that for the same reason I'm not interested in mechanical alignment. If the player is being sincere in playing a Jedi, s/he will avoid excessive aggression. If s/he wants to play out a fall to the dark side, then that can be played out. (Obligatory Darths & Droids reference here.)
And, again, I don’t see the need to analyze each and every action, but actions in general. A player sincere in playing a Jedi or a Paladin will certainly not undertake an extreme action which, in and of itself, would indicate he has “gone to the Dark Side” (or fallen as a Paladin).
By "morality" here you seem to mean what she thinks is right and wrong. Yes, that is defined as part of the gameworld. As I posted upthread, when I tell my players that I want to run a game using the default 4e world, then I am including the Raven Queen as written up for that world. Here are the relevant passages (PHB p 22):
The name of the god of death is long forgotten, but she is called the Raven Queen. She is the spinner of fate and the patron of winter. She marks the end of each mortal life, and mourners call upon her during funeral rites, in the hope that she will guard the departed from the curse of undeath.
She expects her followers to abide by these commandments:
* Hold no pity for those who suffer and die, for death is the natural end of life.
* Bring down the proud who try to cast off the chains of fate. As the instrument of the Raven Queen, you must punish hubris where you find it.
* Watch for the cults of Orcus and stamp them out whenever they arise. The Demon Prince of the Undead seeks to claim the Raven Queen’s throne.
I never said that they could (though in fact the players have worked out details - eg the paladin decided himself that he sleeps standing up). That is a view you've imputed to me, perhaps in part because - in this as in other conversations - you don't distinguish between backstory and action resolution as components of the fiction.
You first told me the players define their own codes and the GM has no right to evaluate them. But it seems this only holds true if the players define their codes within your parameters – that is, consistent with the tenets of the Raven Queen.
So why was my example character dismissed as inappropriate to the Raven Queen? His efforts to bring death to the masses do not seem, from where I sit, to violate any of the commandments above. I also note that all references to date have indicated the RQ is opposed to Undead in general, but I only see Orcus referenced above. It seems my character could reasonably decide it is OK to utilize undeath in the services of the Raven Queen, rather than in the service of the Demon Queen.
I also find that first could cast moral judgement. I don’t really envision a classic Paladin looking at the starving, suffering villagers and telling them “Silence, wretched ones – your suffering is the natural order of things, and soon you shall die, as is right and proper”, yet that seems a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the first commandment. In fact, seeking to ease their suffering seems to violate that commandment.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I suspect not every GM would agree with my interpretations above. Does that mean these commandments should also be stricken from the rules?
For me, the answer to that question is "I wouldn't". It's up to them to decide what is involved in honouring the Raven Queen's commandments.
it's up to them to play their characters, and it's not my role to judge whether or not they're doing it properly.
So why did you dismiss my character who murders in the name of the Raven Queen? In what way was he clearly not honoring those commandments? You judged that character before it was even created.
No. The problem is one DM will penalize the PC in some fashion while the next one pats him on the back. And according to the rules they are both right.
And yet the thrust of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s comments has been that two players could take entirely different interpretations of, say, service to the Raven Queen and both be right.
Turning a paladin into a fighter is, in my view, quite a different matter. It deprives the PC of his/her resources. And (putting to one side @
N'raac's view that a person who is forsaken by the gods of good might form the view that they are not really good, which I still don't understand) it tells the player that his/her PC did the wrong thing.
To the mechanics issue, I agree the character should be able to regain equivalent mechanics, not be forced to play a character who lags far behind his peers. But then, doesn’t Raise Dead cost a character a level? Doesn’t that mechanic cause a lag for a period of time, at least? Why can falling as a paladin or cleric not impose a disadvantage, albeit one I agree should not be indefinite or permanent?
You continue to assert that any assessment of alignment means the character “did wrong”. If the player consistently eases the suffering of the hurt and dying, expressing remorse for the tragedy of their pain and death, that directly violates the first RQ commandment above. To her, it is wrong. The PC is not acting in her service. Does that mean the character objectively “did wrong”? No. Is the PC doing wrong in the eyes of the Raven Queen? I suggest breaking her commandments is “doing wrong” in her eyes. It would be appropriate for her to take action against a follower “doing wrong” just as it would be appropriate for the Prince to take action against a Cleric breaking his edicts.
Every alignment has its own outlook. To “do right” under one will certainly “do wrong” under another. It does not establish an objective “right” or “wrong” unless we have defined one alignment to be morally superior. I think we do consider “good” to be morally superior to “evil” under the tropes of fantasy literature, but I don’t believe we assess that a Druid (or RQ follower) who views death as the natural order, and opposes efforts to unnaturally prolong life (say, in our world, life support machinery) is “wrong”.
I don't recall Star Wars's Dark or Light side capturing that level of detail either, I do not understand why you need that level of detail of alignment within D&D.
It appears you have a misconception that everything the Paladin does is questioned, deliberated, analysed when this is not the case. The DM is not a pro-active policeman.
100% agree
So the question/s I pose is: Can the player ever do the wrong thing in your mind? Or is the answer only yes, if the DM does not deprive him/her of his/her resources?
Answers I’ve been looking for as well, but my questions have been far less succinct. Although it seems my murdering follower of the RQ was perceived as “wrong”…funny, it seems more “right” now than it did when I first posited it. It seems like the RQ is perceived more positively in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s game than her precepts above would suggest.
