D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[doctorbadwolf]

If I sound defensive, maybe it's because you keep asking my why I'm defensive? Because you just ... won't ... let ... it ... go. You keep insisting that I don't answer something that has no answer because I'm not being defensive in the first place. Kind of like asking "are we there yet" repeatedly. Even after we're there.

We disagree on some things. I think a big D&D tent means that different people will have different approaches. Not the end of the world.

Bud, I am not calling you defensive in reference to this interaction, so it’s impossible that you have been getting defensive because of me calling you defensive.

I am asking why your entry into every discussion about orcs, or racism in D&D, or related topics, is a rant about how you use orcs in your home game, and then getting defensive when people reply in the context of the official materials of the game.

 

[Oofta]

Bud, I am not calling you defensive in reference to this interaction, so it’s impossible that you have been getting defensive because of me calling you defensive.

I am asking why your entry into every discussion about orcs, or racism in D&D, or related topics, is a rant about how you use orcs in your home game, and then getting defensive when people reply in the context of the official materials of the game.

I do respond in context of the printed material. I run orcs as described in the MM. The majority of posts include "varies by campaign". But this is back to "Are you defensive yet? Are you defensive yet? Are you defensive yet? ...."

Anyway, this is going to get red lettered soon. Have a good one.

P.S. so attempting to explain a different point of view by trying to have a discussion on game philosophy, preferences and why I think a big tent approach works is ranting? Good to know you can just dismiss anyone you don't agree with by putting on a derogatory label.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I do respond in context of the printed material. I run orcs as described in the MM. The majority of posts include "varies by campaign". But this is back to "Are you defensive yet? Are you defensive yet? Are you defensive yet? ...."

Anyway, this is going to get red lettered soon. Have a good one.

P.S. so attempting to explain a different point of view by trying to have a discussion on game philosophy, preferences and why I think a big tent approach works is ranting? Good to know you can just dismiss anyone you don't agree with by putting on a derogatory label.

Jeeeeebus.

Way to misrepresent every statement you respond to.

I’m gonna go ahead and make sure I don’t see your posts for a few days. I’m tired as hell of this nonsense.

 

[dmgorgon]

Having a paladin in the party can be the source of much conflict. So much so that some players often chose to keep him in the dark about their side quests and nefarious / unlawful activities. If played with a good group of players who don't tend to take things personally it can be a lot of fun.

Personally, I'm very fond of Paladins in 2e. The Paladins handbook has an entire chapter dedicated to Ethos, Strictures, Edicts. Virtues, Code of Ennoblement and Violations and Penalties. Playing a paladin in older editions is certainly not for everyone though.

 

[wizard71]

It isn't.

Neither is that of the Paladin's player, which is my point. Ideally we both have equal agency to play what we want, and if those things conflict we have further agency with which to sort it out in-character to whatever ends may arise, be they peaceful or otherwise.

That’s a good rationale, however that was not the point of your thread. At least by what I gather, you don’t seem to want any alignment so there can be no restrictions whatsoever. That is a recipe for disaster as it leads to problems. All games need to have agree upon rules in order to function. Alignment is not the problem, your party composition is. I believe the person playing the paladin would have qualms about his fellow part members executing prisoners after he gave them his word. It would not matter whether you had alignment or not. The player’s actions have caused the conflict. It’s extreme agency not the lack of it that is your problem

 

[Lanefan]

That’s a good rationale, however that was not the point of your thread. At least by what I gather, you don’t seem to want any alignment so there can be no restrictions whatsoever.

Not quite. I still want alignment; but I don't want any restrictions on what alignment(s) get played.

That is a recipe for disaster as it leads to problems. All games need to have agree upon rules in order to function. Alignment is not the problem, your party composition is. I believe the person playing the paladin would have qualms about his fellow part members executing prisoners after he gave them his word. It would not matter whether you had alignment or not. The player’s actions have caused the conflict. It’s extreme agency not the lack of it that is your problem

How can extreme agency (over one's own character) ever be a problem?

If' I've got agency to cause a problem you've got agency to solve it - if you can. The same is true in reverse.

 

[Mort]

Not quite. I still want alignment; but I don't want any restrictions on what alignment(s) get played.

I always make my players, during a session 0, come up with a reason they're adventuring together. This, usually, leads to a unity of purpose and also tends to have people picking similar alignments. Unless the group all pick evil alignments, and can come up with a reason to actually be together, I tend to frown on mixing good and evil alignments because I've seen way too much unwanted drama come from it - someone's feelings always seem get hurt IRL.

Funnily enough, I'd trust my current group with evil alignments - but none of them would want to play one.

How can extreme agency (over one's own character) ever be a problem?

If' I've got agency to cause a problem you've got agency to solve it - if you can. The same is true in reverse.

That's only true in theory. In reality:

1. It's generally easier to be the rabble rousing problem causer then to be the one that solves the problem;
2. If one player (be it the problem causer or the solver) "wins' the losing party (the player, which is the problem) tends to take it very poorly and the game suffers as a result. You can say all you like that "It's just a game" and that "people need to mature/grow up," But in IME, it doesn't matter how mature the group says they are, hurt feelings happen when player's characters get into serious conflict.
3. Also, IME, the players who say they want a "mature" game with hidden agendas, PvP etc. often take it the worst and react badly when things don't go their way.

 

[Maxperson]

If you want to look at a quasi-medieval fantasy society through a modern 20th C lens of then that is fine.

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

As a result many DMs and players don’t want to run something they feel is so anachronistic.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

I always make my players, during a session 0, come up with a reason they're adventuring together. This, usually, leads to a unity of purpose and also tends to have people picking similar alignments. Unless the group all pick evil alignments, and can come up with a reason to actually be together, I tend to frown on mixing good and evil alignments because I've seen way too much unwanted drama come from it - someone's feelings always seem get hurt IRL.

Funnily enough, I'd trust my current group with evil alignments - but none of them would want to play one.

The last time I started a campaign two players came up with an idea for how-why their characters would be together, and then they just recruited anyone dumb enough to join them. What this meant is that the players could bring in whatever they wanted (with one restriction: I forced all-Humans to start, due to the location).

What resulted was several months of often-hilarious mayhem as this disparate and completely disfunctional band of hell-raisers tried to deal with Keep on the Borderlands, mostly in a painful battle of attrition. One of the worst examples of adventuring you'll see anywhere; yet among the best and most memorable times we've ever had, as anyone involved would attest.

That's only true in theory. In reality:

1. It's generally easier to be the rabble rousing problem causer then to be the one that solves the problem;
2. If one player (be it the problem causer or the solver) "wins' the losing party (the player, which is the problem) tends to take it very poorly and the game suffers as a result. You can say all you like that "It's just a game" and that "people need to mature/grow up," But in IME, it doesn't matter how mature the group says they are, hurt feelings happen when player's characters get into serious conflict.
3. Also, IME, the players who say they want a "mature" game with hidden agendas, PvP etc. often take it the worst and react badly when things don't go their way.

I've been in both positions - hell-raiser and problem-solver - at various times over the years, and I've lost far more of these battles than I've won. That said, most of the time, all other things being equal, I generally give back what I get from the table; but if I'm playing a character who would in consistency do something offbeat or unexpected or problem-solve-y I'm probably going to do it.

It's perhaps more fun to be the hell-raiser, but I wouldn't say it's any easier.

 

[Mort]

The last time I started a campaign two players came up with an idea for how-why their characters would be together, and then they just recruited anyone dumb enough to join them. What this meant is that the players could bring in whatever they wanted (with one restriction: I forced all-Humans to start, due to the location).

What resulted was several months of often-hilarious mayhem as this disparate and completely disfunctional band of hell-raisers tried to deal with Keep on the Borderlands, mostly in a painful battle of attrition. One of the worst examples of adventuring you'll see anywhere; yet among the best and most memorable times we've ever had, as anyone involved would attest.

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.

I've been in both positions - hell-raiser and problem-solver - at various times over the years, and I've lost far more of these battles than I've won. That said, most of the time, all other things being equal, I generally give back what I get from the table; but if I'm playing a character who would in consistency do something offbeat or unexpected or problem-solve-y I'm probably going to do it.

It's perhaps more fun to be the hell-raiser, but I wouldn't say it's any easier.

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