Should this be fixed

[Elf Witch]

I've never penalized a character for moral/religious violations, like this, because I think there are different views -- if I thought it was really off from the rules of their god for a paladin or cleric, I'd ask why they thought it was OK. But honestly, that's never come up in 25 years of DMing.

However, I do have NPCs and the world in general REACT to actions of the PC's. For example, in your example, siding with one church would change its cleric leader's reaction to you, and the other church's leader if they found out. Plus the reactions of other NPC's who know, in different ways depending on the NPC -- family and friends of the poisoned husband might now be an enemy for the PC, but perhaps an Amazon leader might see him as a friend of women, etc. -- whatever makes sense in the campaign.

When I DM I expect clerics and paladins to follow their god's teachings. The paladin choose to follow a god who puts strong emphasis on protecting the weak and never turning your back on wrong doing. So if he just walked way washing his hands of what the party had discovered there would have been some kind of consequence.

One of my house rules for clerics is that they must be the same alignment as their god.

 

[Hussar]

When I DM I expect clerics and paladins to follow their god's teachings. The paladin choose to follow a god who puts strong emphasis on protecting the weak and never turning your back on wrong doing. So if he just walked way washing his hands of what the party had discovered there would have been some kind of consequence.

One of my house rules for clerics is that they must be the same alignment as their god.

And I think, thus is born Pemerton's concerns over railroading. If the player doesn't do what the DM wants him to do, the DM punishes the PC. That's pretty much by definition railroading.

Now, most player will totally accept it as a condition of playing a class with a strong alignment component - they've probably got a concept built in that will hopefully follow along with the strictures outlined by the class. Or, to put it another way, if you play a 2e Paladin, don't bitch that you can't slaughter peasants.

I think, though, Pemerton is simply pointing to a different style of game where the goal of play has nothing to do with the standard rewards of play - accrual of power/wealth in the fictional setting, or even exploring the setting - but rather a thematic approach to the game that is completely separate from those rewards.

If my goal during play is to undertake an examination of the moral implications of slavery (for example), and the DM flat out rules that slavery is evil, then, well, my play just went out the window. We know the answer and all of our actions will flow from that answer that has been handed down by the DM. My "good" character won't do things that are flat out evil, because, well, I'm playing a good character.

I'm not convinced railroading is the right term. But, I can see where Pemerton is going with this. If the players (and you really have to have the whole group on board with this sort of thing) want to explore a thematic (rather than setting or game) concept, having the DM flat out state that X=Y means that the exploration is finished. We know that slavery is evil because the DM told us so. There are no more moral implications that can be explored in this particular game.

Going back to the angels vs elementals example. If the DM has flat out stated that elementals are evil, and we're playing in Elf Witch's game, any good aligned cleric or paladin would pretty much have to help the angels, otherwise, they get whacked with the alignment punishment stick.

Now, that all being said, if the players are on board with a more traditional style game, then obviously there's no problem. The players can decide whatever they want based on their own priorities. But, if the goal of play is to examine whether or not elementals really are evil, then, if the DM flat out states "Elementals are Evil" then play pretty much loses a lot of meaning.

 

[S'mon]

And I think, thus is born Pemerton's concerns over railroading. If the player doesn't do what the DM wants him to do, the DM punishes the PC. That's pretty much by definition railroading.

No, railroading is PREVENTING a choice not imposing NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for a choice.

By the 'railroad' standard some people are giving here, having monsters kill the PCs because the PCs made poor tactical choices in combat is railroading. Having the PCs be wanted outlaws because they rob and murder is railroading. Apparently even shifting PC Alignment from G to E because they rob and murder would be railroading; if the player declares that murder and robbery is Good, then for the DM to declare otherwise is hashing his bliss.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure I follow this. Perhaps there's a different meaning of metagaming then I'm used to here -- I think of it as being a powergamer thing about trying to "win".

By "metagaming" I'm meaning thinking about the game as a game at the level of the table, among the real people playing the game.

So it includes what you're describing as metagaming in a pejorative sense, but includes other stuff as well. (Also, I don't generally object to what you are calling metagaming. I expect my players to approach the game as a game - for example, the fact that their PCs keep finding themselves in adventures isn't meant to make them puzzled about why their PCs are so (un)lucky - I expect my players to appreciate that this is the premise of playing a fantasy adventure RPG.)

 

[pemerton]

Hussar, can't XP you again yet but what you say is exactly what I'm talking about.

All I'd want to add is that it's not an approach to play that is that weird or avant-garde (at least in my view - and in this I think I agree with Ron Edwards, who clearly sees some game systems as avant-garde, but not thematically-driven play per se).

I agree with you that it can be a hard approach to play to pull off if not everyone is on board, because players who just want to explore will arc up at the metagaming/attempt to take over the GM's story. And some GM's will arc up at this as well!

But I'm wary of therefore assuming that exploration is a default way of playing an RPG in some a priori sense. I just think it's the way the dominant games have tended to evolve. But the fact that we get things like Dragonlane or White Wolf railroads shows that a lot of people are interested in themes in their play. The problem with those games (and here I'm just spouting Forge orthodoxy) is that they haven't got rid of those elements of classic games and approaches to play that obstruct thematic play.

But I know that it's surprisingly easy to drift even AD&D or Rolemaster to thematic play - just drop alignment rules and change some of your GMing practices and world/scenario-creation techniques. (Of course, if you're using one of those systems for your thematic play combat is going to be a pretty central way of expressing and resolving conflict. Which probably limits the range of themes that can be explored, although perhaps not as much as one might think - after all, classic Hulk comics show you can do Freudian psycho-drama via 4-colour punch-ups!)

 

[LostSoul]

No, railroading is PREVENTING a choice not imposing NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for a choice.

The choice that is prevented here is that the PCs cannot be good/evil based on their actions; it has been predetermined by the DM.

edit: Can someone rep pemerton for me for at least one of those posts? I would appreciate it!
edit2: And Hussar as well.

 

[Nightson]

Yeah, I think we need to stop using the term railroading because it absolutely fails at describing what is being talked about.

Basically, when the DM assigns objective alignment to acts, you're generally unable to have in character ambiguity about the alignment of those acts.

Removing the in character ambiguity results in decreased opportunity to explore or roleplay the ambiguity and/or moral dilemma.

But this is really just a general problem caused by objective alignments in games, part of why I don't use alignment myself, but I imagine that those who do use alignment feel it brings other benefits to the table to outweigh this.

 

[Kerranin]

No, railroading is PREVENTING a choice not imposing NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for a choice.

I'd state it slightly differently - "Railroading is arriving at the same destination regardless of the choices you make." (I know it is only nitpicking )

 

[S'mon]

The choice that is prevented here is that the PCs cannot be good/evil based on their actions; it has been predetermined by the DM.

In games like 1e-2e AD&D You can't eat babies, rape cabin boys, sacrifice puppies to Satan and still be classed as Good. That may be Railroading by Ron Edwards & Vince Baker's Forgeist definition, which seems some kind of Nietszchean "I am my own value-creator" idea, but not by mine or I think any reasonable definition.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Can't XP, but I agree with S'mon here. The assertion that if the DM says something is Evil in D&D is a railroad is odd to me. I don't use alignment in my game (since it's not D&D), but in D&D alignments are defined things that are not near as ambiguous as people make them seem. Alignments are usually much more straightforward than they are usually presented, though of course there are disagreements and muddied areas.

I think the type of game Pemerton is discussing is actually pretty uncommon (that being moral exploration themes in D&D). In those types of games you might want to let go of the hard and fast rules on alignment. In most games, defining alignments (and actions that reflect those alignments) are part of the setting, not a railroading tool.

It's a feature, not a bug.

As always, play what you like