Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 3669194" data-attributes="member: 51942">Clearly, there are many different interpretations of what it means to be a paladin - and there's nothing weird or wrong about that.&nbsp; I'd ask the player whether his actions fit in his code of conduct (and since he'll say yes)... then ask him to rationalize his actions.&nbsp; I think it's perfectly possible to play a &quot;viscous&quot;, gritty paladin that makes agreements only to respect no more than their letter, but on the other hand to help the downtrodden, and it's also possible to imagine a paladin that makes agreements in good faith and then respects their spirit even if doing so has evil consequences.&nbsp; And as long as there's some code of conduct, some deity to whom that code of conduct seems reasonable, it's no more than decent role-playing flexibility.You can enmesh the player into your campaign by for example letting him flesh out the deity in question, complete with a typical church or shrine and a typical symbol (if that's the kind of thing the player would enjoy).&nbsp; Apparently the DM hasn't considered what his campaign's paladin's should be like - and since he hasn't considered it, it certainly wasn't told to the player, and given the vagueness and &quot;deity-specificness&quot; of a code of conduct in the first place, I wouldn't penalize the player, unless the code of conduct as they imagine it is violated.The issue of weaseling out of an agreement by considering it not &quot;his&quot; agreement is quite serious though.&nbsp; What was the level of the paladin's involvement - was he unaware that an agreement had been made at all?&nbsp; Was he aware that his party members had agreed something with someone invisible but didn't know the details?&nbsp; Was he out of ear-shot while the agreement was made but afterwards well-informed?&nbsp; Was he within earshot, but distracted and in that sense unaware?&nbsp; Was he aware but passive?I'd say, let the player make his own noose now by defining his code of conduct now, and use it to hang him later should he behave inconsistently, rather than potentially irritating the player by interpreting the code of conduct very onerously.&nbsp; It can't harm to have him clarify his code of conduct anyhow...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 3669194, member: 51942"] Clearly, there are many different interpretations of what it means to be a paladin - and there's nothing weird or wrong about that. I'd ask the player whether his actions fit in his code of conduct (and since he'll say yes)... then ask him to rationalize his actions. I think it's perfectly possible to play a "viscous", gritty paladin that makes agreements only to respect no more than their letter, but on the other hand to help the downtrodden, and it's also possible to imagine a paladin that makes agreements in good faith and then respects their spirit even if doing so has evil consequences. And as long as there's some code of conduct, some deity to whom that code of conduct seems reasonable, it's no more than decent role-playing flexibility. You can enmesh the player into your campaign by for example letting him flesh out the deity in question, complete with a typical church or shrine and a typical symbol (if that's the kind of thing the player would enjoy). Apparently the DM hasn't considered what his campaign's paladin's should be like - and since he hasn't considered it, it certainly wasn't told to the player, and given the vagueness and "deity-specificness" of a code of conduct in the first place, I wouldn't penalize the player, unless the code of conduct as they imagine it is violated. The issue of weaseling out of an agreement by considering it not "his" agreement is quite serious though. What was the level of the paladin's involvement - was he unaware that an agreement had been made at all? Was he aware that his party members had agreed something with someone invisible but didn't know the details? Was he out of ear-shot while the agreement was made but afterwards well-informed? Was he within earshot, but distracted and in that sense unaware? Was he aware but passive? I'd say, let the player make his own noose now by defining his code of conduct now, and use it to hang him later should he behave inconsistently, rather than potentially irritating the player by interpreting the code of conduct very onerously. It can't harm to have him clarify his code of conduct anyhow... [/QUOTE]

Verification