D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[TheSword]

I'm not doing that, though. You seem to be falsely equating acceptable with fair.


Just because it was acceptable back in that quasi-medieval society to do unfair things, does not make those things fair. A lot of unfairness happened and was just accepted as the norm.

What you seem to be missing is that this is fiction. The fairness of due process is to protect people who are innocent or who have mitigating circumstances.

In fiction the truth is objectively decided by the DM. We aren’t comparing medieval times to now. We’ve Obviously progressed. I’m saying don’t compare quasi-medieval fantasy to now.

 

[Lanefan]

Disfunction and incompetence isn't the same as deliberate evil though.

My players have fun memories of an early campaign where the players were just learning 3e and did some amazingly stupid stuff - where characters kept getting injured. But there was no malice in it, just incompetence and stupidity. Once there is a deliberate angle to the disruption, that's when I generally see problems.

Oh, some of this was malicious, some was stupidity, some was just plain gonzo.

But even as their characters charmed and robbed and killed each other - and once in a while, killed the occasional foe too - the players all laughed themselves silly. Win or lose.

I can't stand the excuse of "that's what my character would do..." if it's used to justify some kind of action against the party or another character that's clearly done just to hurt/ mess with them.

I knew someone would say this.

My response is that if you don't have the character do what it most likely would in a given situation then you're not roleplaying that character in good faith.

If you brought a character in fully knowing/not caring it would disrupt party dynamic/ mess with other characters that's not OK IMO.

In cases where the party dynamic is a) established, b) stable, and c) known then I largely agree.

But if the party dynamic isn't established (e.g. it's a brand new group just starting out), or isn't stable (e.g. half the party are being replaced with new characters), or isn't known (new player might not realize how an established group rolls) then IMO anything goes; and we'll sort it out in the wash.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you want to look at a quasi-medieval fantasy society through a modern 20th C lens of then that is fine. Just be aware that the film, TV, and literature that currently inspires D&D doesn’t necessarily do that.

And yet when I read the actual DnD works of literature (Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance novels), the 'Good' aligned guys arent enslaving, murdering, engaging in torture and genocide, routinely killing babies, or anything of that nature, and it's always the Evil aligned guys (including Evil protagonists like Kitarara, Raistlin, Artemis, Soth and so forth) that are.

The Good aligned guys (Drizzt, Tanis, Caramon, Bruenor, Crysania, Sturm etc) are generally engaged in acts of self sacrifice, charity, mercy, compassion, altruism, love and kindness, only resorting to violence in self defence or the defence of others.

It seems in DnD, morality is what we understand it to be in a contemporary sense (which makes sense seeing as the terms are used in a contemporary way, and for a contemporary audience) and not some barbaric 'genocide, torture, murder, killing of prisoners and slavery is Lawful Good because everyone is doing it!' form of 'Good' that many try to impose on DnD.

 

[Flamestrike]

1) How can you dehumanize something that does not exist? How can you dehumanize something that is not human and is a pure product of your imagination? The only answer is: "You can't!". On this, I am fully on your side.

Biological race itself doesn't exist (Race is a social construct) so by your logic we cant dehumanise people based on race either.

 

[Flamestrike]

If the party dynamic isn't established (e.g. it's a brand new group just starting out), or isn't stable (e.g. half the party are being replaced with new characters), or isn't known (new player might not realize how an established group rolls) then IMO anything goes; and we'll sort it out in the wash.

And what about the people (probably your friends) that signed up to play a fun, collaborative experience with other friends, and had some other jerk at the table ruin it for them because: 'Lulz evil'.

Screw those guys hey?

 

[TheSword]

And yet when I read the actual DnD works of literature (Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance novels), the 'Good' aligned guys arent enslaving, murdering, engaging in torture and genocide, routinely killing babies, or anything of that nature, and it's always the Evil aligned guys (including Evil protagonists like Kitarara, Raistlin, Artemis, Soth and so forth) that are.

The Good aligned guys (Drizzt, Tanis, Caramon, Bruenor, Crysania, Sturm etc) are generally engaged in acts of self sacrifice, charity, mercy, compassion, altruism, love and kindness, only resorting to violence in self defence or the defence of others.

It seems in DnD, morality is what we understand it to be in a contemporary sense (which makes sense seeing as the terms are used in a contemporary way, and for a contemporary audience) and not some barbaric 'genocide, torture, murder, killing of prisoners and slavery is Lawful Good because everyone is doing it!' form of 'Good' that many try to impose on DnD.

It all depends on how you want to run your table. The flexibility of alignment allows it to fit around a lot of different social and cultural structures.

I get your point about d&d fiction. However there is still an objective truth about guilt. If a person is innocent it’s because the writer/dm is interesting in exploring a moral question.

The reality is that most of us aren’t interested in exploring that ad nauseum. It slows the game down, and has us concentrating on angst and handwringing rather than advancing the story.

 

[Helldritch]

Biological race itself doesn't exist (Race is a social construct) so by your logic we cant dehumanise people based on race either.

Unfortunately, some misguideds twits are doing it anyways in the real world... Again, do not confuse fantasy and the real world.

 

[Mort]

Oh, some of this was malicious, some was stupidity, some was just plain gonzo.

But even as their characters charmed and robbed and killed each other - and once in a while, killed the occasional foe too - the players all laughed themselves silly. Win or lose.

If you're group has fun, that's what counts and good on them.

But I've been in that kind of group, it was not fun for me and several involved. It WAS fun for some of the people who seemed to relish the conflict and I'm sure had good memories. I wouldn't and didn't play with those people again.

I knew someone would say this.

My response is that if you don't have the character do what it most likely would in a given situation then you're not roleplaying that character in good faith.

My response would be that you didn't make the character/bring the character on in good faith so trying to argue "not playing the character in good faith..." is nothing less than disingenuous hogwash!

If you're new, maybe you get a pass the first time or two (though, frankly, that's being generous). but once you've played a bit - you KNOW what kind of Character you're making and how it will affect the game. You don't get to hide behind the character.

In cases where the party dynamic is a) established, b) stable, and c) known then I largely agree.

But if the party dynamic isn't established (e.g. it's a brand new group just starting out), or isn't stable (e.g. half the party are being replaced with new characters), or isn't known (new player might not realize how an established group rolls) then IMO anything goes; and we'll sort it out in the wash.

Sorry but torpedoing a group for the lulz or intentionally wrecking a burgioning great party dynamic because you think it would be fun/funny? Let's just say I heavily disagree that anything goes - that way lies hurt feelings and broken groups.

ESPECIALLY if it's a group of new players. If you're an experienced player in a group of new players and intentionally mess with them (start fights, derail the plot, be constantly contrary, etc.) for your own amusement? That's the worst kind of behavior IMO.

 

[Helldritch]

@Mort
You obviously never played the game Paranoia. In this game you are expected to work with your team for the Mighty Computer. You are in search of the commies, mutants and traitors that belongs to a secret society. Unfortunately for the players. They are all, mutants and they are all belonging to a different secret society. Players are so much expected to die that they have 5 other clones waiting to take their place. These clones do not know what the character knew right before its death but inherit its ranking...
You increase your ranking by:
Denoucing a mutant, commie or a member of a secret society. So the easiest way is to denounce your team mates...
Finish a mission for the Mighty Computer (a rare thing indeed).

Unfortunately, the Mighty Computer is totally crazy and does not know what the left processor is doing or the right for that matter. If you are proven a traitor, you must go to the closest recycling center to be recycled. Failure to do so only mark you and your next clone to death... The fact that being recycled means your death seems to be lost on the computer. So many players starts by shooting their teammates when asked for being recycled...
You must die if you are a traitor.
You are a traitor if you are mutant.
You are a traitor if you are a member of a secret society.
You wrongly accuse someone of being a traitor, mutant, commie or a member of a secret society...
You are a possible traitor if you ask for restricted information. Such as: "How do I pilot this flybot while the auto nav is down?" the answer will be: "Sorry, this is a Yellow security label and you are only infrared. This is way beyond your classification. If you survive the crash, please go the nearest extermination center..."

So yes, the type of game that Lanefan can be fun if all players involved know and accept it from the start.

 

[Mort]

@Mort
You obviously never played the game Paranoia. In this game you are expected to work with your team for the Mighty Computer. You are in search of the commies, mutants and traitors that belongs to a secret society. Unfortunately for the players. They are all, mutants and they are all belonging to a different secret society. Players are so much expected to die that they have 5 other clones waiting to take their place. These clones do not know what the character knew right before its death but inherit its ranking...
You increase your ranking by:
Denoucing a mutant, commie or a member of a secret society. So the easiest way is to denounce your team mates...
Finish a mission for the Mighty Computer (a rare thing indeed).

Unfortunately, the Mighty Computer is totally crazy and does not know what the left processor is doing or the right for that matter. If you are proven a traitor, you must go to the closest recycling center to be recycled. Failure to do so only mark you and your next clone to death... The fact that being recycled means your death seems to be lost on the computer. So many players starts by shooting their teammates when asked for being recycled...
You must die if you are a traitor.
You are a traitor if you are mutant.
You are a traitor if you are a member of a secret society.
You wrongly accuse someone of being a traitor, mutant, commie or a member of a secret society...
You are a possible traitor if you ask for restricted information. Such as: "How do I pilot this flybot while the auto nav is down?" the answer will be: "Sorry, this is a Yellow security label and you are only infrared. This is way beyond your classification. If you survive the crash, please go the nearest extermination center..."

I have played paranoia and it can be great fun - the key is that all the players know exactly what they're in for. Plus the clone mechanic is expressly designed to lighten things up and make it fun that your character is so expendible, as is the computer, to really ramp up the absurdity. D&D isn't designed like that - at least not unless you change things a bit.

@Mort
So yes, the type of game that Lanefan can be fun if all players involved know and accept it from the start.

That's the key (player buy in and acceptance), but reading many of his comments, that's not what he's advocating. He's basically saying, as long as "it's what the character would do..." anything goes, other player buy in not required. In IMO and in my experience that's a recipe for disaster.

Now he did say, that's not OK in an established group, but I don't think it's good in a new group either - only in a group where EVERYONE chooses to play that type of game. And if you do want to play that kind of game, Paranoia is a great fit - it's absurd nature and mechanics for lessening/eliminating the sting of horrible betrayal and death are designed for it.