D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[Helldritch]

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

Double post... sorry.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

Good! I stand corrected on that account. Thank you! I must agree that for the bolded part, you are right. But the game need not be changed. Only the basic assumptions.

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.

In mine too. But with all his years of experience, I doubt that it is something that is done on a daily basis. It is more like on a case by case basis. If the character is an established "do gooder" then having said character going on a rampage in a small town murdering left and right would not be accepted in his games either. And he did state that session zero is important for group cohesion. I think you are taking only a part of what he said. Take the whole posts into account. It is sometimes easy to lose sight of the whole thread, especially long ones.

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.

I've had players taking notes on other players. The acts of betrayals were exquisite and we still talk about years later. For one character, we had to invent a new ranking:"Infrabrown!" the lowest of the lowest... But boy did we laugh!

 

[Bagpuss]

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

Social constructs still exist, they just aren't the same thing as a biological definition.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't even know what you are talking about any more. That has nothing to do with what I said or did. I made no comparisons.

 

[TheSword]

I don't even know what you are talking about any more. That has nothing to do with what I said or did. I made no comparisons.

The suggestion that it was unfair to kill prisoners period. But I’m not interested in flogging a dead horse.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

So now we all have to be psychics that can accurately predict whether YOUR character has been created in a way that will cause him to clash with something in my background 15 sessions into the game? That's bupkis.

 

[Maxperson]

The suggestion that it was unfair to kill prisoners period.

Has nothing to do with modern times. And I didn't say period. There are always exceptions.

But I’m not interested in flogging a dead horse.

Cool.

 

[Mort]

So now we all have to be psychics that can accurately predict whether YOUR character has been created in a way that will cause him to clash with something in my background 15 sessions into the game? That's bupkis.

Oh please.

I'm not talking about obscure background clashing, I'm talking about bringing in an obviously disruptive character. If, for example, the party has several elves and you bring in a character that hates elves - you're being deliberately disruptive.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

What needs to be changed?

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.

This sounds like a personal issue. I play in 2 games where clashing PCs are possible. It's rare and there is no sting of horrible(or any other kind) of betrayal. I do agree that everyone needs to be made aware that PvP is a possibility.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not talking about obscure background clashing, I'm talking about bringing in an obviously disruptive character. If, for example, the party has several elves and you bring in a character that hates elves - you're being deliberately disruptive.

Did anyone suggest something that extreme?