Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7818560" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think everyone agrees that &quot;rocks fall, everybody dies&quot; is poor GMing. BUt I don't think anyone thinks that that therefore changes what counts as a life-ending event for a PC. Or to put it another way, I think everyone agrees that the proper response to that sort of GMing is to discuss how the GM is handling the game, not to argue that the fiction should come out the way the players want while also containing the fiction of rocks falling.Yet in this dragon case, people seem to be arguing that because the GM has put the paladin (and, at the table, the player) in a hard if not impossible situation, that means that the paladin is entitled to disregard his/her duty and do the expeident thing so that the player can keep playing the game with his/her PC.Everybody can see the category error that would ve involved in the &quot;rocks fall&quot; version of the scenario. I'm saying that the you have no way out scenario has exactly the same structure.This is being put from the player's point of view not the paladin's. The paladin isn't trying to solve a puzzle. The player may be, if that's the sort of RPG that is being played. But that doesn't tell us about the paladin's duty.I'm not saying the player is evil. I've got no reason to think the player's not a top bloke. I'm saying that the paladin violated his/her duty.It's not a rabbit hole. It's simply not doing something that you're sworn not to do, because it would be dishonourable and evil.There's no doubt that some people think it's permissible, even obligatory, to do such things in pursuit of a greater good (in this case, the &quot;world saving quest&quot;). But such moral views would normally be contrasted with a morality of duty and ethic of honour - not presented as instances of such!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7818560, member: 42582"] I think everyone agrees that "rocks fall, everybody dies" is poor GMing. BUt I don't think anyone thinks that that therefore changes what counts as a life-ending event for a PC. Or to put it another way, I think everyone agrees that the proper response to that sort of GMing is to discuss how the GM is handling the game, not to argue that the fiction should come out the way the players want [I]while also containing the fiction of rocks falling[/I]. Yet in this dragon case, people seem to be arguing that [I]because the GM has put the paladin (and, at the table, the player) in a hard if not impossible situation[/I], that means that [I]the paladin is entitled to disregard his/her duty and do the expeident thing so that the player can keep playing the game with his/her PC[/I]. Everybody can see the category error that would ve involved in the "rocks fall" version of the scenario. I'm saying that the [I]you have no way out scenario[/I] has exactly the same structure. This is being put from [I]the player's point of view[/I] not the paladin's. The paladin isn't trying to solve a puzzle. The player may be, if that's the sort of RPG that is being played. But that doesn't tell us about [I]the paladin's[/I] duty. I'm not saying the player is evil. I've got no reason to think the player's not a top bloke. I'm saying that the paladin violated his/her duty. It's not a rabbit hole. It's simply [I]not doing something that you're sworn not to do, because it would be dishonourable and evil.[/I] There's no doubt that some people think it's permissible, even obligatory, to do such things in pursuit of a greater good (in this case, the "world saving quest"). But such moral views would normally be [I]contrasted[/I] with a morality of duty and ethic of honour - not presented as instances of such! [/QUOTE]

Verification