playing a paladin in world that is not black and white

[Elf Witch]

Ok, thanks. Sounds like a not so good run on DMs.

I think the DM in this situation is afraid that the game is going to stop being fun and he is trying to prevent it. I think he is going about it the wrong way.

He had no problem with my character until the one player started getting so bent over it. It is not just in game it is the 100 of emails after the game and some of them have gotten really angry.

I don't get involved in them anymore because I don't want to argue what is good and what is evil all week.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Sounds like that particular player is a little too involved with the game.

 

[Elf Witch]

It's that kinda stuff that I RP for. Good times.



There is always one. If this was an in character position it would create for really interesting party tension and lots of beautiful role playing. As a DM I would love to have a PC say that to one of my other player's characters ICly. That would be great. But if someone said that OOC to another player and tried to play OOC politics turn the party against a particular player, I think I'd pull that player aside and ask him privately if he wanted to continue to be welcome at my table. I hate it when people can't treat the game as a game.



It probably did. And his character has every right to feel that, just as your character has every right to decide how to handle his conflicting loyalties.



And again, his character has every right to be angry about that and to ICly confront your paladin and for both of you to have a good time role playing. But he has no right as a player to get upset with you as a player for playing your character in an intersting way.



I'd like to note my objection that no Neutral Good person would ever believe that. Nuetral, sure. LN or CN, sure. Perhaps some LE's or CE's feel that good must exist in order for 'the strong' to always have something to repress and put thier boot down on (this argument is made in Orwell's 1984). But no NG's accept the idea that the universe needs evil in it.



Your druid friend sounds distinctly neutral in world outlook.



I agree. The DM does need to get control of the arguing, but I don't think thats the way to do it. He needs to make sure everyone remembers that the argument is just in the game, that ultimately what happens doesn't matter so long as everyone has fun and that caring so much about what happens that you are getting angry at other players is destroying the fun far more than anything short of a TPK could.

I would not have a problem if this was done in game and in character but it is not. The player himself is getting ticked about things and it just getting on my nerves and getting me to the point that I am about to just say fine whatever how about I hand you my character sheet and you tell me how I should play.

I know the DM won't kick this player out of the game because of friendship issues but I am sick and tired of his critism and telling other people how they should play and his need to win every argument.

Yesterday he jumped on the rogue and cleric players because of something they did. He didn't approve of their tactics. We are in dungeon filled with undead the way the two of them have been working together is the rogue unlocks and searches for traps on the door and right in the door but the cleric goes in the room first because she has lowlight vision and can turn undead she also has more hit points. This has worked in every room except for one yesterday that ended up trapping the cleric in a pit.

So Mr always has to be right went off on why is the cleric going in first that the rogue should have done it blah blah blah. He is like this in every game he does not think anyone else can play right or do the right tactic.

And as he just informed the group via email paladins cause to much stress in a game and should not be allowed.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sounds like that particular player is a little too involved with the game.

He just loves to debate things life was easier when he had access to boards where he could debate his heart out while at work. Now all he can access is email at work and he has really gone over the deep end with the emails.

 

[phindar]

That's one of the reasons my group keeps our email discussions fairly limited. Disagreements that require resolution tend to be better handled face-to-face, where a five minute conversation can deal with everything, rather than in email where it can explode into a three day long, three digit email count feud that burns with the heat of a 1000 suns. It's not worth it. If people can't handle it, the group should make a rule that the only thing about the game you can discuss in email is when and where the next session will be.

 

[hopeless]

Reg: Paladin in Breland

I hate being the one to start another paladin thread but I need some help.

I understand that a paladin is supposed to uphold and follow the law of a legitimate goverment. Here is my question what if the paladin has sworn and oath to the ruler of one Kingdom and that includes gathering information and maybe going around the legal system of another Kingdom?

In Eberron my paladin is from a Cyre she is loyal to who she views as the rightful ruler of Cyre. With Cyre gone and its people scattered to the winds she is in Breland helping as best she can the plight of the refugees.

There is a man who is behind the plot to kill as many Cyre refugees as he can. Now the Breland goverment has put a price on his head and I am part of the group going after him. The King wants the man delivered to his agents not the goverment of Breland. So my character has a method to communicate with some Cyrean Avengers to let them know we have the man and arrange for them to take him.

Now there has been some debate over this with my DM he thinks that I am close to violating my alignment.

I am confused on one hand the game is not run in a black and white way. The DM plays up the mistrust of countries that have just come out of a major war.

He is really playing up how badly the Cyreans have been screwed. Their lands destroyed, some of their people slaughtered by the elves (when fleeing the destruction they ended up in the elven lands), to losing any voice in the new threaty and basically a lost and defeated people.

He also plays up the fact that in the last war the Cyreans were the ones in the right there leader was the rightful ruler and the war started when the others decided not to follow the law of inhertience.

He wants a world that is not friendly a world full of intrigue and back stabbing but he expects a paladin to be straight from the players handbook no deviation.

I really don't see how to play that. So how does one play a paladin in a world like this?

I would arrange for a few Cyran clerics to be available, cast detect magic, several castings of Detect Alignment (Law, Evil, etc) to discern their alignment and to see if they have some handy mind shielding item, then repeatedly Zone of Truth the subject until you find out if he's the only one involved, where he got his equipment, his info, who are his contacts, his superiors should be last since that will be the most likeliest to induce his death and essentially grill him for any relevant info including the truth behind wht he has been doing as I assume he was caught in the act.

The Breland people who have been arranged to pick him up can act as witnesses to show you are acting in good stead after all they're only going to do the same UNLESS they're working with the terrorists.... and thats enough to secure your right to have this interrogation after all if this person isn't working alone it can be turned into an advantage by releasing misinformation that some third party is responsible for the outrageous attacks llowing for not only the King of Breland to keep his honour, but also ensure the cooperation of your people to deal with the true source of the problem because it is undoubtedly going to have links outside of Breland after all who would like to see the Cyrans respond to the attacks by forces garbed in Breland gear?
Don't get mixed up in petty revenge that path leads to the darkside, as long as you continue to see your duty s serving the people of Cyre the DM can't argue you're violating your oath because as a PALADIN of CYRE it is the refugees who you are most concerned with.

 

[Elf Witch]

That's one of the reasons my group keeps our email discussions fairly limited. Disagreements that require resolution tend to be better handled face-to-face, where a five minute conversation can deal with everything, rather than in email where it can explode into a three day long, three digit email count feud that burns with the heat of a 1000 suns. It's not worth it. If people can't handle it, the group should make a rule that the only thing about the game you can discuss in email is when and where the next session will be.

This is the truth I have seen it in other games and I have seen how it gets out of control. People tend to get into debate mode whe they are writing and it just goes on and on until the better writer has won. And other people are just worn out.

The only problem with this guy is that he does this face to face as well and then what happens is that other people jump in and then this guy won't shut up and let other people talk he just wears you down until everyone else is like whatever. Can we play now.

I am getting it the most in this game because he does not like paladins and he has a strong sense of what is good and evil. For example killing someone outside of battle is evil. He tends to bring his real life views into the game.

 

[Dross]

I think what is happening now is more a party a thing. He expected the party since they are all either lawful, neutral or chaotic good to be more willing to do thing fro the greater good not just for the money.

Maybe it is the other player's PC that need their alignment changed. I have no problems with a good PC being greedy, but if the ONLY thing they care about is $$, how good can they be?

You do not want a party member to break their word if you can help it at all.

Or your paly can say to the party: I thought that you people were of good heart. Your actions when we met at the refugee camp against the orcs showed you capable of good deeds. Was I wrong? were you only there to loot the bodies of those slain? This man we are to take is the architect of murdering hundreds of my people. How can I not take him to my liege for justice? I will argue for his person to be handed over to Brelan after seeing my king. I have no wish to break the word of a friend, but how can I let a murderer go unpunished? If Breland does not do justice to this fellow than I may have to. The deaths of my fellow Cryeans demands no less.

Probably will not go over so well, but at least the others will know where you stand.

 

[Dross]

I would not have a problem if this was done in game and in character but it is not. The player himself is getting ticked about things and it just getting on my nerves and getting me to the point that I am about to just say fine whatever how about I hand you my character sheet and you tell me how I should play.

Usually doesn't work that well

Yesterday he jumped on the rogue and cleric players because of something they did. He didn't approve of their tactics. We are in dungeon filled with undead the way the two of them have been working together is the rogue unlocks and searches for traps on the door and right in the door but the cleric goes in the room first because she has lowlight vision and can turn undead she also has more hit points. This has worked in every room except for one yesterday that ended up trapping the cleric in a pit.

So Mr always has to be right went off on why is the cleric going in first that the rogue should have done it blah blah blah. He is like this in every game he does not think anyone else can play right or do the right tactic.

To me the obvious Q is why he agreed with the set up until something bad happened. Otherwise he should have said something to avoid the pitfals of a plan or tactic. Maybe keep asking him for a plan/tactic and see how it goes, good or bad?

And as he just informed the group via email paladins cause to much stress in a game and should not be allowed.

Paly's are tough to play and they may not play nice with others. Again, objections should be stated before any problems arise. Other players need to adjust their thinking more with a paly in the group than without one. But a well played one can be a joy to behold.

Having said that, from what you write he is acting like a mule. . Do the other player's feel that your paly is creating too much stress for them?

And as much as I hate to say it, maybe it is the player not the PC that is the problem for him? Having just gone through similar problems I know it is a possibility.

It seems like you have a basic code that you follow well, and are trying to do the right thing, talk to the DM and try to resolve: Would a Paly do this?

 

[kigmatzomat]

I like paladins, as a DM and a player. I've tried just about everything to get players to recognize that paladins are playable. There is something about the very concept of paladins that makes people get inflexible.

I once had a council of paladins, with as many different personalities as I could come up with (humble, self-righteous, overconfident, humorous, high-handed, wise, proud, etc) and I made sure that each would have had a seat at the Round Table. (Short answer: if you're a prick and you do the right thing, you can be a paladin, you're just a prick of a paladin)

People argued with me about whether or not this NPC or that NPC could remain a paladin over their language, attitude, even practical jokes!

These days I tell people to read David Weber's Bahzell series, about a barbarian berserker paladin. He's honorable but devious, forthright and subtle, willing to forgive ignorance but willing to gut a man if they become insulting through willfull ignorance.