D&D 5E Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?

[Savage Wombat]

Yes, I would. The number of players that I see who create "Man with No Name" characters because they are completely not interested in letting the DM have any hooks over their character speaks to this being a pretty common thing. "My character is an orphan, my hometown is destroyed/I'm from far away, I'm Neutral (or Chaotic Neutral) and have just recently arrived in the town and have met no one yet." Hardly a rare occurrence IMO.

Which tends to be the big problem with Paladins. The player has one vision of his paladin, the DM has another and the DM has the authority over the paladin character to a degree that isn't seen in any other class. So, I've certainly seen DM's telling players, "Sorry, you're playing your character wrong, do it right, or I'll take it away."

This is part of my issue. You are OK with another player in conflict with you over how your character should act, but not OK for a DM to do so. If I wanted to play a PC whose view of the Raven Queen was in conflict with yours, you'd settle it through role-play. But if I as DM have a view of the Raven Queen in conflict with yours, you think your view should automatically prevail.

Why is my character a pretender? Maybe I'm right. Why wouldn't I, as the DM, stand back and let you players work things out for yourselves?

Because in this case the word "pretender" was from my characters point of view. Since in this case my character would think yours has no claim to the title.

If you couldn't tell, I'm far, far more willing to let players take the reins than perhaps other DM's. You can certainly play a character whose concept is that "Only the epitome of LG can be a paladin". That's a fantastic character. What you cannot do is proclaim that you are absolutely 100% right and no one can ever have any other interpretations.

So willing, in fact, that you seem to dispute and resent other DMs right to take the reins themselves.

The people who think paladins should be LG are not talking about an individual character concept, they are talking about a definition in the game world, a rule of physics if you will. Attempting to make the debate about "you don't want to let me play what I want" is avoiding the central issue.

So... what you're saying is you don't want to have to negotiate with your fellow players?

I know that's Hussar's hardline (which I disagree with so strongly I have no words), but is it also yours?

No, that's what I'm accusing Hussar of saying, with his "you play yours and I'll play mine" reference. I think all forms of play are effectively negotiations with your fellow players. But I count DMs as one of those players, which some people don't seem to.

 

[Greg K]

Yes, I would. The number of players that I see who create "Man with No Name" characters because they are completely not interested in letting the DM have any hooks over their character speaks to this being a pretty common thing. "My character is an orphan, my hometown is destroyed/I'm from far away, I'm Neutral (or Chaotic Neutral) and have just recently arrived in the town and have met no one yet." Hardly a rare occurrence IMO.

If that flies in your circle, that is on the DMs that allow it. In my circles, it means one of three things
a. the player gets no campaign screen time whereas other players will have sessions focused on their characters.
b. the DM will throw stuff at the character related to that background- essentially, creating the circumstances around it and filling in blanks (if the player has an issue, they will be "asked" to leave).*
c. The player is told to come up with a real background or leave.

* If the background does fly, the character still has to come from an appropriate region and culture in the world where such a thing would take place (and this in itself could place restrictions on character choices).

 

[Nagol]

If that flies in your circle, that is on the DMs that allow it. In my circles, it means one of three things
a. the player gets no campaign screen time whereas other players will have sessions focused on their characters.
b. the DM will throw stuff at the character related to that background- essentially, creating the circumstances around it and filling in blanks (if the player has an issue, they will be "asked" to leave).*
c. The player is told to come up with a real background or leave.

* If the background does fly, the character still has to come from an appropriate region and culture in the world where such a thing would take place (and this in itself could place restrictions on character choices).

Geez, does the player at least get to say "I prefer to be Fifth Business* as opposed to the focus of play."

As a player, I like to keep the background in the background. What's important to me is the history I play through at the table. That's the usual reason I have for nondescript background. It's not I don't want the DM to use it because he'll screw me over it's I don't want the DM to use it because I find it unimportant.

Also quite often, I want to be supporting cast as opposed to lead actor. Focus on someone else and I'll help keep things moving. That's more easily done if the background isn't too bright.



*as invented by Robertson Davies

 

[pkt77242]

This is part of my issue. You are OK with another player in conflict with you over how your character should act, but not OK for a DM to do so. If I wanted to play a PC whose view of the Raven Queen was in conflict with yours, you'd settle it through role-play. But if I as DM have a view of the Raven Queen in conflict with yours, you think your view should automatically prevail.



Because in this case the word "pretender" was from my characters point of view. Since in this case my character would think yours has no claim to the title.



So willing, in fact, that you seem to dispute and resent other DMs right to take the reins themselves.

The people who think paladins should be LG are not talking about an individual character concept, they are talking about a definition in the game world, a rule of physics if you will. Attempting to make the debate about "you don't want to let me play what I want" is avoiding the central issue.



No, that's what I'm accusing Hussar of saying, with his "you play yours and I'll play mine" reference. I think all forms of play are effectively negotiations with your fellow players. But I count DMs as one of those players, which some people don't seem to.

I think that Hussar's point is that players more or less negotiate at the same level (one doesn't really have more power than the other) while DM's negotiate from a stronger standpoint from the players and thus can force things upon them. That it isn't truly a negotiation so much as a play it my way talk. The DM can just take the players power because he disagrees with the player (and alignment and what constitutes acting as that alignment can be disagreed upon by two very rational and intelligent people), while neither of the players can take the other players power away.

 

[Greg K]

Geez, does the player at least get to say "I prefer to be Fifth Business* as opposed to the focus of play."

Every group that I know requires that your character has a background that fits you into the setting and brings you into the group (or the first adventure which may be how the group comes together). If that is too much, you do not want to play with the various groups that I know. Beyond that, being "the fifth business" would fall into the first option. Don't get the screen time in which other character's have sessions spotlighting them. However, in general, we view the party as an ensemble cast with backstories and character goals (which can change over time) as a major focus to the campaign whereas dungeon crawls are, practically, non-existent.

Edit: As for myself, I have allowed one orphan character and that was for an ex-roommate. He had a good backstory that fit the campaign and established his character's personality. He also planned on the party becoming his surrogate family and transforming from a self centered character to one that learned to think of others and put his new "family" before himself.

 

[Hussar]

This is part of my issue. You are OK with another player in conflict with you over how your character should act, but not OK for a DM to do so. If I wanted to play a PC whose view of the Raven Queen was in conflict with yours, you'd settle it through role-play. But if I as DM have a view of the Raven Queen in conflict with yours, you think your view should automatically prevail.

/snip

Because there is no negotiation at all. The DM is right. The player cannot gainsay the DM, after all. If you, the DM, claim that the Raven Queen is X, I cannot, as a player, claim that it is Y.

As two players, OTOH, we are free to claim X and Y and there is no way for one player to tell the other player that he or she is wrong.

So, yeah, if the DM's interpretation is counter to the player's, but the DM didn't negotiate that at the outset, the DM should back off. The DM is playing bait and switch otherwise, and telling the player that he or she is playing the wrong character. I think that my character is X, you tell me, no and it's really Y. If you do so at chargen, I'll probably be fine with it, since I can choose not to play that character. But, afterwards, yeah, it's better for the DM to step back and let the player play the character that the player sees as his or her own character.

But, this is somewhat besides the point. The issue was that you wanted to play a "LG Paladin" but are somehow prevented from doing so because I'm playing a CG paladin. Bringing in the DM into the equation is simply clouding the issue. Presumably, in a DM/Player situation, the DM can simply declare that all paladins are LG at chargen. Cool, no problems. It is the DM's world after all. But, if the DM allows for any alignment paladin, you, as another player, should not ever be able to tell me that I can't play my any alignment paladin just because you want to play a traditional LG paladin.

 

[Chaltab]

This is part of my issue. You are OK with another player in conflict with you over how your character should act, but not OK for a DM to do so. If I wanted to play a PC whose view of the Raven Queen was in conflict with yours, you'd settle it through role-play. But if I as DM have a view of the Raven Queen in conflict with yours, you think your view should automatically prevail.

What? If you're the DM and you've set a clear precedent for who the Raven Queen and what she's like in your game, then fine, we'll go with your view. That's not the same question as 'should the game rules themselves define a Paladin as Lawful-Good only?' If the DM thinks that, fine, houseruling that into his or her game is easy enough. But to set that as the baseline for the system sets a precedent for everyone, and groups/DMs less comfortable with houserules will default to what RAW says--and if the RAW limits Paladins to one particular alignment then that's eight other options for character interpretation that go out the window.

The people who think paladins should be LG are not talking about an individual character concept, they are talking about a definition in the game world, a rule of physics if you will. Attempting to make the debate about "you don't want to let me play what I want" is avoiding the central issue.

Or you both have a completely different central issue, perhaps. You seem to care a lot about the 'definition in the game world'. But that doesn't matter to some people. Or at least, the part you find important about the definition is not so important to others. It's frankly less of a hassle for the default game to have no alignment restrictions. If you, in your own personal campaign, prefer those restrictions because they better fit your platonic ideal of a Paladin, then keep them. But there's no good reason to make that the baseline for all games.

 

[Nagol]

Every group that I know requires that your character has a background that fits you into the setting and brings you into the group (or the first adventure which may be how the group comes together). If that is too much, you do not want to play with the various groups that I know. Beyond that, being "the fifth business" would fall into the first option. Don't get the screen time in which other character's have sessions spotlighting them. Backstories and character goals (which can change over time) are of major focus to the campaign whereas dungeon crawls are, practically, non-existent.

Goals I'm good with. My characters almost always quickly develop goals, long-term, short-term, and the occasional wildly improbable one. Back stories for D&D, I am weaker with because I concentrate on the now-->future as opposed to the past. I've always felt the backstory of importance in D&D is what the character did once he hit the table especially if the characters are coming in at low level. In other games, like Hero, back stories have a stronger emphasis and I treat them treated differently.

 

[Campbell]

I feel like there's this fairly large excluded middle here where all players (including the DM) are people who exist in meatspace, and therefore possess the ability to hash things out and come to a reasonable compromise. Of course that doesn't make for very good message board talking points.

 

[Greg K]

Back stories for D&D, I am weaker with because I concentrate on the now-->future as opposed to the past. I've always felt the backstory of importance in D&D is what the character did once he hit the table especially if the characters are coming in at low level..

Well, you would have some help with backgrounds. Players don't create their characters in a vacuum. Prior to character creation, you would get a list of races/cultures for the setting and what they are like plus major organizations and major NPCs for the culture and a list of current events and past events (to help serve as hooks for players that need it). Prior to character creation, there is a group meeting discussing character concepts. This is a chance to get feedback and help on a background, possibly tie a background to another character (if desired), get the initial concept and background approved (or the DM's help to tweak it if the concept is appropriate with a little work). There is also communication between the DM and player throughout the character creation process for