Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Hassassin]

See, to me, MarkCMG and you Hassasin are the reason that players almost never take prisoners. I've played with more than a few DM's who will do exactly this sort of crap. "Oh it's justified because I can pull examples out of the air to justify it". Gimme a break.

The only reason the prisoner ran away is because the DM was being a dick. He changed the rules because he didn't want the players to get any sort of "unfair" advantage over his carefully crafted adventure and hadn't planned on giving the players information.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, though MarkCMG seems to make the same points I would. It's my opinion that diplomacy and intimidate should affect NPCs, but not make them puppets. Anything that the rules don't prevent an NPC from doing is ok. Also, people do irrational things, so should NPCs (and PCs!).

Regarding the DM, I wasn't there so I obviously can't say whether it would have felt like the DM was being a dick. I know I don't expect things to always go my way as a player, and even when I succeed it might not go as I thought. Failures, especially unexpected ones, have often lead to memorable events in our games.

This is probably about more deep-seated differences in approach to roleplaying and drama. I like facing unpredictable things, and I don't need to always be in control even of my own character. I don't see it as a game to win the scenario or the DM as a "referee" who should only follow the rules like a computer.

 

[Imaro]

This post addresses an earlier topic in this thread. I was looking over Players Options: Heroes of Shadow... and while looking over the Blackguard my interest was piqued by the following introduction...

The world knows paladins to be shinning paragons who champion lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor. Such virtuous figures are symbols to the common people, icons from which they draw the strength and courage to stand fast against the encroaching darkness. Yet in every light a shadow lurks- the brightness of these noble warriors is equaled by the shadow spreading from their sinister counterparts.

Emphasis mine: Now I'm curious, because IMO, the first sentence of this introduction to the Blackguard seems to imply strongly, if not outright call out, that a "paladin" is a known thing in the world and that people can determine who in their world is a paladin and who isn't.

So my question is for those who claim a class, by default, is just a set of abilities not attached to a particular archetype... how do you reconcile this type of fiction with that idea? I mean yes I understand you can change the fiction to suit your patrticular game... but the default seems to be that a class represents something specific in the gameworld... not just a set of abilities someone has trained in.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So my question is for those who claim a class, by default, is just a set of abilities not attached to a particular archetype... how do you reconcile this type of fiction with that idea?

I would apply the fiction to the majority of paladins in my game world but not hold every paladin to that default.

 

[Imaro]

I would apply the fiction to the majority of paladins in my game world but not hold every paladin to that default.

I think you missed my point... or maybe I didn't quite express it well. Like I said in my previous post, anyone can change anything they want for their personal game... but what I"m asking is how can people claim the default is that classes aren't real things in the gameworld, but instead just packages of abilities to be fluffed however they want... when the game's default fiction treats them as real and recognizable archetypes?

 

[LostSoul]

So my question is for those who claim a class, by default, is just a set of abilities not attached to a particular archetype... how do you reconcile this type of fiction with that idea?

Simple: "paladin" in that line doesn't refer to the Class.

How do you reconcile the fact that NPCs don't have Classes with the idea that paladin refers to the PC Class in the game world? No NPC is a member of the Paladin Class, but NPCs may be called paladins by someone in the game world.

 

[Imaro]

Simple: "paladin" in that line doesn't refer to the Class.

How do you reconcile the fact that NPCs don't have Classes with the idea that paladin refers to the PC Class in the game world? No NPC is a member of the Paladin Class, but NPCs may be called paladins by someone in the game world.

But it attributes the abilities of the paladin class to the in-game paladin, so I'm a little confused by what you mean. the description also makes it clear that the blackguard is recognized as a type of paladin... which in turn means certain things like a wizard are recognized as "not paladins". In other words these classes are very much ore than a package of abilities that can be called anything... from this passage it seems that a paldin in the world has recognizable qualities, powers and beliefs.

EDIT: Oh, and on another note... NPC's can have classes if the DM builds them that way. There is a "paladin" NPC class in DMG 1

 

[D'karr]

This boils down to "Thinking Too Hard About Fantasy".

In the game world there are no game classes, only labels (titles). I could be playing a Knight (class) and call myself a Paladin of Justice (title). I could be playing a Rogue (class) and call myself a Scout (Title).

The fact that there are game mechanics defining a Paladin and a Scout have no relevance to the "fictional" title that I'm using.

The fantasy genre, and D&D in particular, have never been internally consistent to a high degree. The exception occurs in the degree that they promote suspension of disbelief.

Neither of the examples above "break" the suspension of disbelief in the "fictional" space of the game.

 

[LostSoul]

But it attributes the abilities of the paladin class to the in-game paladin, so I'm a little confused by what you mean. the description also makes it clear that the blackguard is recognized as a type of paladin... which in turn means certain things like a wizard are recognized as "not paladins". In other words these classes are very much ore than a package of abilities that can be called anything... from this passage it seems that a paldin in the world has recognizable qualities, powers and beliefs.

EDIT: Oh, and on another note... NPC's can have classes if the DM builds them that way. There is a "paladin" NPC class in DMG 1

Really? Yeah, there are NPC Classes in the DMG. Huh. I guess I'm wrong there!

The fluff they wrote is lame because I don't think a Paladin of Torog is going to be a champion of "lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor." He'll probably champion ideas such as imprisonment and torture! A Wizard who is into Ioun might champion those lofty ideas - and might be considered a paladin by townspeople as well as the clergy of Ioun.

In other words, I think that, if you consider "paladin" in the text you quoted to mean the Class, it doesn't make any sense. If you consider it to mean something else - a Rogue who fights for those "lofty ideas" - then it makes sense.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think you missed my point... or maybe I didn't quite express it well. Like I said in my previous post, anyone can change anything they want for their personal game... but what I"m asking is how can people claim the default is that classes aren't real things in the gameworld, but instead just packages of abilities to be fluffed however they want... when the game's default fiction treats them as real and recognizable archetypes?

I think I've not been clear if this is how you've viewed my previous points in this discussion (as I am a strong advocate of refluffing classes). I do not claim the default is that classes aren't real things in the game world, they certainly are real. I just refuse to hold every member of that class to the default, especially player characters. Being the stars of the story I am more than willing to break convention for any concept a player wishes to emulate.

 

[Imaro]

I think I've not been clear if this is how you've viewed my previous points in this discussion (as I am a strong advocate of refluffing classes). I do not claim the default is that classes aren't real things in the game world, they certainly are real. I just refuse to hold every member of that class to the default, especially player characters. Being the stars of the story I am more than willing to break convention for any concept a player wishes to emulate.

This clears up alot, and I have no problem with people playing the game the way they want. But yes, I thought you were claiming, as others are in this thread, that the default was that something like a paladin wasn't a specific thing in the gameworld but a nebulous package of abilities that the default fiction gave no meaning to.