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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6123654" data-attributes="member: 42582">It gives them information about what they have to do to avoid losing PC abilities. But it doesn't provide them with any reason to accept that moral judgement over their own. Speaking frankly, when I play a paladin I trust my own judgement as to what virtue requires to that of any GM. And when I am GMing, I am not interested in telling my players what I think virtue requires. They're intelligent adults - they can make those judgements themselves.There seems to be some assumption here that players whose paladins aren't policed won't remain virtuous - but it's only in a certain sort of rather gamist play (like that which [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] has described upthread) where it is a disadvantage to act virtuously, and hence where a player has a conflict of interest that would get in the way of self-guiding paladin play.But in a non-gamist game - be it simulationist, or more narrativist - there is no particular advantage to be gained by acting non-virtuously, so why would we expect an unpoliced paladin to break the code?But those consequences are, ostensibly, consequences of failing to uphold virtue. So the yardstick replaces the player's own judgement as to what upholding virtue requires.The point is, if the player thinks that X is virtuous, and the other person (ie the GM) disagrees, the GM's judgement prevails. But why should I take the GM's view of what virtue requires more seriously than my own? Or, when I'm GMing, why would I want to prioritise my view of what virtue requires over that of my players?No. My players are working out for themselves what virtue requires, rather than asking me as GM. That is, they are exercising their own moral and aesthetic judgement.The paladin is also committed to justice. Which in the story I described has not been realised - a wrongdoer has not received the punishment she deserved.There is a huge difference - not necessarily in outcome, but in play experience. Rather than the player guessing (or asking) me as GM what virtue requires, and then acting expediently to preserve his PC's powers, the player agonised and argued with the other players before reaching a conclusion that truthfuness had to be upheld, even if that meant compromising justice.The player's decision for his PC was motivated not by an instrumental concern - of keeping his PC's powers - but by a conception, worked out in the course of play, of what his PC should do in the situation, given his PC's commitment to virtue.If one of my players played a vow-breaking paladin, I'm fairly confident that that player could play out consequences (eg as I described upthread, with the player who took his PC out into the wilderness to be beaten to a pulp by a demon).</blockquote>

Verification