I thought you were talking about the OP.
Considering my earlier post, yes I agree that @Celebrim 's approach would not be ideal.
D&D 5E (2014) Paladin just committed murder - what should happen next?
- Thread starter firstkyne
- Start date
I thought you were talking about the OP.
Considering my earlier post, yes I agree that @Celebrim 's approach would not be ideal.
Celebrim
Legend
Yes it is. The facts of what happened in the game don't seem to be in dispute.
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with what happened in the game universe. This is completely focused on issues of scenario design and whether the GM should have allowed this scenario to transpire or set it up, or given more clues. And unlike the facts of what happened in the game universe, the facts of that are entirely subjective and for the most part unknown. We can only speculate. Moreover, whether this is a poor showing depends entirely on what you think the game is about. Moreover, you are wrong. The player in the OP's game knew quite well he had another choice. He could have chosen (for his character) to die. He chose not to.
Would I set this situation up on purpose? Probably not. Could a situation like this actually occur in a game quite outside of my control? Absolutely. If it couldn't happen and I'm fully in control of the game, then yeah I really am 100% of the law and determining in some fashion everything that happens in the game and the player's inputs don't matter.
What mistake? What freaking mistake? That the game is not following your aesthetics of play? Which aesthetics of play are prioritized in a game are entirely subjective. There is nothing - absofreakinglutely nothing - that is a mistake in challenging the beliefs of a character. While D&D doesn't really call that out as central to play, there is nothing that prevents it being central to play in a game like D&D.
More to the point, I'm not suggesting anything that punishes the player. All the things that I'm suggesting happen in the game.
Well, that's one possibility. The other is that you aren't learning from this story.
But yes, the GM is the law. The GM has as a neutral referee an obligation (juggled with his other duties) to fairly resolve what would likely or certainly happen in the in game universe without regard to what the GM wants to see happen. If some several outcomes are equally likely or plausible, then pick the more interesting one. In this case, you are advising doing neither.
And takebacks suck. If a GM tried to do take backs with me in a critical story junction like that, it would be the last game of his I played in. My aesthetics of play don't revolve around me getting treated with kid gloves just because bad things happened. My aesthetics of play revolve around exciting, impactful, and thought provoking stories. They involve stepping up to the challenge. Take backs suck. This isn't a situation like the GM forgot a setting element, forgot to apply a die roll modifier, or badly misremembered a rule. That sort of take back if you can do it quickly is sometimes a necessary evil. This is a take back that negates player agency! This is a take back equivalent to another player telling you in a game of chess, "You really don't want to do that move, as it will lead to me to winning." Oh? Then I forfeit. Let's start another game.
Congratulations, it appears you are not allowed to fail! GM does that to me I'm going to find excuses to quit.
What part of "I always try to be the GM that I would want to have as a player" do you not get? I mean I can totally get if this doesn't appeal to you, everyone has different tastes, but it's not a 'mistake' for this to happen or for what I suggest as a resolution. I think I've made very clear what I think would be terrible for the game.
Last edited:
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Out of curiousity, do you play Paladins ever? Do you like to play Paladins ever?
Celebrim
Legend
I get such a rare opportunity to play rather than GM that I can't say I've ever played a Paladin. I have been a PC in a party with a Paladin. I have a 'Paladin' PC in the game I'm currently running (it's actually a homebrew class called 'Champion', but it fulfills the same role as a 5e Paladin and for the purposes of this discussion the two are interchangeable) that is at this point the only character that has managed to survive from the start of the campaign (some 10 years ago now).
Honestly, I'm playing a PC in a D&D game (well 1e Pathfinder) for the first time in like 15 years, and it's Ranger. But Paladin or not, all my characters regardless of alignment tend to be some sort of idealist with some sort of code they are trying to adhere to. Even my CN rogue (well, a thief/M-U back in 1e) had his own twisted internal code of logic that made sense only to himself.
I think Paladin's are great characters. I would love to have a shot at running a Paladin at some point and stepping up to the challenge of being an inhumanly perfect paragon. Or even a humanly perfect paragon. Or just a paragon.
Out of curiousity, what is your angle in asking?
PsyzhranV2
Hero
Originally an edit, but repost and amended:
You don't try to solve OOC disputes through IC means. The question of the Paladin's moral character does not matter, and in fact is a distraction. Because at the end of the day, it's a game, where everything's made up and the points don't matter. If somebody at the table isn't having fun, nothing else matters until that issue solved.
Moreover, I argue that the DM has a greater responsibility to facilitate this than the players due to the power imbalance that is inherent to this style of play. The DM has the power to shape the world as they wish, but also has the responsibility of ensuring that world is an enjoyable experience for their table. The players likewise have the responsibility of engaging in the DM's world in good faith, but their burden is lighter as their influence over the world is lesser -- therefore, the individual player's capacity to ensure that the game is enjoyable is lesser than the DM's.
Many people in this thread have tried to argue that the issue of scenario design has nothing to do with the Paladin's ethical core. My counter is that the latter is purely a product of the former, and that it DOES NOT MATTER IN THE SLIGHTEST. It is but a symptom of the fact that somewhere along the line there was a communication breakdown or a mismatch in expectations between the DM and one of the players. If it ends up that the player is genuinely upset by how thingsturned out and feel they were unduly dealt a bad hand, that isn't solved by continuing to pile crap on the player IC. Blindly and tyranically enforcing IC punishments like that is a quick way to get them to walk. Conversely, if OP is really unhappy with how things have gone at their table, that's also solved by talking with the player and figuring out a way forward that everybody is happy with before laying down the hand of god. But I argue that due to their greater control over the game, the DM has more responsibility inntrying to bridge the gap than the player does.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Thought it might explain some of your decisions regarding them.
More importantly, you said you like your characters to have codes they follow. That's a far bit different than a Paladins code where your DMing style has you as DM solely determine if their Oath's are kept and hand out punishments to them if they fail them, while also being able to provide "impossible" challenges like the one presented in this thread.
Does having to put up with those 3 things particularly appeal to you and your internal character code style characters?
Sword of Spirit
Legend
I may be the only one, but this post has seriously inspired me to play a traditional paladin.
No, what happened was a scenario that required a mind reader to properly navigate and a poor result because the player prioritized his overall mission vs. The situation at hand.
And what further happened was a divide in expectations that could have been avoided with proper conversation and a meeting of the minds.
One only has to look at this thread to see how very differently people expect paladins to behave.
It has a lot to do with what happened in the game universe, the design of the scenario led to what happened.
No, the mistake was the DM setting up a scenario that required a mind reader to navigate. Any set scenario that, especially unintentionally, has the conditions of fall or die is a terrible scenario and is a mistake.
You are suggesting that the DM not allow any scenario where the player gets to continue playing the paladin, even after having set up a gotcha scenario. Could the player have handled it better? Absolutely. But since this was a failing on both sides, discussion is warranted.
Maybe cut the Ad hominem?
No I'm advising taking a step back before severely punishing the player, that's it.
The question here is did the player realize he was violating his oath? As the thread has shown, it's far from obvious.
That's not even remotely what I said. I said there needs to be clear communication and there wasn't in this case. How you got " inability to fail" from that is beyond me.
The mistake was in the DMs presentation of the initial scenario and his failure to see that it wasn't properly laid out for the player. The DM did not intend a fall or die scenario, but that's what the player took it as. Failure to address such a blatant miscommunication can only cause bigger problems down the line.
"Do I really need to specify a freaking timeline for you. "
No. All you have to do is not selectively parse the timeline - ignoring the full part of it to portray it and redefine it as if nothing was done.
For me, there was an effort to save this person that failed, so the character did try to save them, as opposed to doing nothing to save them. Nomparding needed, the whole effort recognized.
The problem with your parsing approach and judgement is it is, by not taking into account the prior bits, the same thing as succeed or violate.
Because, if he tries to coerce the dragon by staring it down using his best puss-n-boots glare power... and fails ... and the dragon repeats his demand, we can just again put the "after trying this other stuff..." and judge solely on whether his next efforts succeed.
If he then pulls Harvey's the invisible rabbit of distraction and makes a run for it and still gets cornered again and offered... again we ignore all those prior efforts and now foes he fight or turn him over?
As long as the judgement can ignore and dismiss all the prior efforts, all the tries and failures and boil it down recursively to "yeah but now..." it's a win or oath issue.
"But the player was entirely unjustified in seeing the encounter in those terms (at least based on the information provided to us). "
Wow. See, even tho I wont presume to judge the playerveho was there in the momdnt and getting a much bigger picture than we are, the fact is that you seem to be saying here - maybe i am wrong- the player was wrong in how they saw the scene.
So, this is not a choice to break an oath by the character, its failure to see other options.
Thry (player and character) failed to "solve" the puzzle of how to get this guy safe.
Again, I do not treat trying and failing as breaking one's oath.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
You know, as flattering as it is for you to repeatedly quote back to me a phrase that I invented and popularized decades ago (though, for all I know it was independently discovered without me as it's just common sense), this sort of repetition is a bit redundant, and I suggest perhaps you don't understand the phrase.
Sorry you feel that way. That is far as I'm concerned one of the most central aspects of play, and it is essential to my fun if no one else's.
I'm under no obligation to give any player the result that they expect. I have suggested talking with the player about where they want to take the character from here, and would happily facilitate that. But if you think you are going to come to my table and tell me that you need a take back or do over for whatever the heck reason other than an actual rules error or oversight, and you throw a temper tantrum about it, you will be that first player I have to send packing.
What's next? Retconning that they set off the trap because their player died, despite the fact everyone else in the party was screaming at them not to push the big red button? (Famous last words: "I had no idea that would be that bad." My reply, "It did say that you shouldn't mess with it unless you had magical protections on the scale that would protect against a potentially continent destroying event." Sorry, off on a tangent.)
Learn to live with your choices. If you can't have fun with your failures, you probably should find a different game. Monty Haul is running a different table.
You would think from your discussion that I've had players take a walk all the time, and the problem I have isn't the reverse that I have to turn down players.
It's almost like you've been reading me for years at EnWorld! I'm flattered. And while I obviously agree, in my judgment a uniform standard with strong expectations is more conducive to player happiness in the long run than doing take backs on what is actually a very strong story telling moment, and that in the long run the player is going to have a much better story to tell if as a result of a pivotal character building scene like this is that something real and meaningful happens - even if it isn't entirely and immediately positive and even if it wasn't what the player expected when they scoped out a level 1 to 20 'career' for their character that consisted only of mechanical elements and a vague notion of self-validation. If the player can't maturely accept that decisions have real consequences, then we are so polls apart in our aesthetics of play that I don't know what to tell them. I'd probably try to find out what actual aesthetic of play they wanted me to support, and then try to give them some suggestions on how to obtain that aesthetic through functional rather than dysfunctional play. Though, for the sake of diplomacy, I probably wouldn't actually use the word 'dysfunctional' to describe the temper tantrum you seem to be advocating that they throw.
One thing I can say about communication and expectations in my game is I can't imagine anyone player who offered to play a Paladin at my table not knowing that I expected high standards and thoughtful behavior and that their patron would hold them accountable. In my gameworld, 'Paladins' are considered to be living embodiments of the deity - the very chosen representative of the deity on the world. For the 'Paladin' to behave in a less than ideal manner is to directly insult the deity, bring the deity to shame, demonstrate to the public that the deity exercised poor judgment in selecting his chosen representative, and essentially make the deity a laughing stock. Death before dishonor (whatever the deity defines as dishonor which of course varies widely) is the obvious standard. I mean, what is death anyway in a universe with a knowable afterlife? There certainly would be no mismatch of expectations in my game world. This would be Session 0 stuff.
Similar Threads
