Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5583038" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sure.But a Paladin is a pretty specific sort of character.  No one is forced to play a Paladin, and in 3e its hard to argue that there is an inherent advantage to be gained in agreeing to play a Paladin.At some level, playing a Paladin is fundamentally no different than taking the 'Curious' disadvantage in GURPS.  (And obviously, it's fundamentally no different than taking a particular 'Code of Honor' disadvantage in GURPS.)  You are choosing to engage in an open social contract where by you agree to RP under certain restrictions.  If you have 'Curious', then the DM gets to say, "You can't resist pulling the lever."  If you have "Paladin of Tyr", then the DM gets to say, "You can't resist protecting the innocent."I'm not saying that either situation might not be bad GMing in that particular situation, but bad GMing is not something a system can protect against.So, in my game world I the GM have to decide if the characters actions constitute obeying their stated alignment, and in your game world I the GM have to decide whether the characters actions constitute the player is a douchebag?Call me crazy, but my game world seems to demand less judgementalism of me.I absolutely and completely disagree.  If a game based around the theme of morality cannot tolerate the presence and problem presented by an amoral sociopathic character, then it's not a very serious game about morality.And again, if you high court intrigue game can't tolerate a character whose primary motivation is killing the other nobles then its not a very serious or well thought out high court intrigue game.No, I think he gets the game very well.  Because if the system doesn't have anything to say about one of God's Watchdogs that isn't well serving the interests of the King of Life, then it doesn't have much to say at all.  I mean, just as an example of plotting, if a Dog can get his mouth washed out with soap by one of the Elders, then a Dog can certainly be put down as rabid by one of the Elders, right?  Or should they?So here's the plotting: One of the Dogs has gone rabid.  There is a disagreement among the Elders.  Some want the Dog put down.  Others believe that putting down the Dog would undermine the authority of the entire Watchdog institution.  Also, the Dog was considered by some in the institution a valued friend.  They want some other solution.  The Dog is one of the PC's. Are you saying that's outside the scope of the game?This is in my opinion the central conflict of DitV as the game world has been described to me: are the Dogs really servants of the King of Life or not?  How would they know?  Do they really have the right to judge, or just the authority?  And play tests reports I've heard about the system suggest that its so brittle that its easy to break it even if you aren't trying to do so, which suggests that there could easily be disagreements about whether a person 'got the game or not'.   Moreover, if the game is to be a really interesting discussion of morality, then there has to be some internal conflict over that either ideally between the PC's as they weigh and defend particular courses of action and ways to restore justice after it has been lost, and if not then between the PC's and the GM as he presents different viewpoints that they might not have considered.   Telling someone that they 'don't get the game' under these circumstances is exactly like judging their moral stance and indicates to me that maybe you are only interested in the game if it doesn't challenge your perceptions beyond a certain point.  One of these points beyond which you are comfortable talking is challenging the inherent morality of the God's Watchdogs themselves, which to me seems like THE one and overriding question of morality in the game which if it isn't addressed means the game is pretty dang unserious.</blockquote>

Verification