"What" you are versus "who" you are.

[Voadam]

Right, but in the Pendragon example, you're playing a character you created yourself. Why is it "restrciting" to have to play the characer the way you defined him in the first place? "Yes, my knight is chaste, but I don't want to have to be forced to play him that way." I don't get it.

Because there is the matter of DM versus Player interpretation. If a player and DM disagree on what constitute's chastity or the player feels the character would change based on in game experiences then the player's interpretation and roleplay of the character should trump things on the character sheet or in the DM's vision of the character IMO.

 

[buzz]

Because there is the matter of DM versus Player interpretation. If a player and DM disagree on what constitute's chastity or the player feels the character would change based on in game experiences then the player's interpretation and roleplay of the character should trump things on the character sheet or in the DM's vision of the character IMO.

To both this and your previous post, I would say: then the DM and the player need to get on the same page before the character comes into play.

As for defining "chastity," Pendragon does that, so it should not be an issue. Similarly, the tenets of Alignment and the Paladin's code are lain out pretty clearly in the PHB, IMO. If there's game-breaking debate arising over them, there's a problem at the tbale that goes beyond the rules.

Lastly, the DM's vision of the character ought not to matter; the character is the player's domain. The DM's job is simply to apply the ruleset.

 

[buzz]

That's why we have DM's, the books are rather passive and fail at demanding anything.

In Heroquest, I am required to come up wth phrases and kewords. I can't make a PC without them.

In Burning Wheel, I am required to create three Beliefs and three Instincts. I can't make a PC without them.

In The Riddle of Steel, I am required to assign Spiritual Attributes. I can't make a PC without them.

In D&D, I have to pick an Alignment. I can't make a PC without doing so.

Etc.

 

[LostSoul]

Because it is better then:

I hit you

No you missed

No, I hit you

No you missed

No I hit you

Cool. You need some way to resolve issues.

What do you consider "who you are" things?

 

[Crothian]

Cool. You need some way to resolve issues.

What do you consider "who you are" things?

Background, personality, goals. Things that rolling dice or using table to deal with I find don't work that well with.

 

[Crothian]

In D&D, I have to pick an Alignment. I can't make a PC without doing so.

Ya, actually you can. GM's trump the book so if the GM doesn't want to use something, you don't have to. Some of those others are built into the system even more but taken them out does not destroy the game.

But this moves away from my point that one doesn't need these in a system to do these things. I don't need an alignment to play a character in a Good way. I'm not saying games with these systems and people that use them are bad or anything. I just don't feel that they are needed to do it.

 

[Voadam]

Similarly, the tenets of Alignment and the Paladin's code are lain out pretty clearly in the PHB, IMO. If there's game-breaking debate arising over them, there's a problem at the tbale that goes beyond the rules.

Lastly, the DM's vision of the character ought not to matter; the character is the player's domain. The DM's job is simply to apply the ruleset.

No room for disagreements on the paladin's code or what constitutes good and evil based on the PH definitions of the paladin and alignments. No two ways to interpret any of it differently. It is clear whether a paladin who kills evil is doing evil, whether mercy is required, how they deal with surrendered evil foes, whether they can kill something simply because it detects as evil, do they need legal authorization, can they lie, ambush, etc.

I agree the DM's vision ought not to matter. That's why I dislike alignment as more than mechanical effect interaction and the paladin power revocation part of the rules. They require DM adjudication of ambiguous moral code issues in ways that can lead to DM/PC ill will based on ethical disagreements instead of enhancing characterization and storytelling

 

[buzz]

Ya, actually you can. GM's trump the book so if the GM doesn't want to use something, you don't have to. Some of those others are built into the system even more but taken them out does not destroy the game.

Well, I'm making the basic assumption here that you're playing the game by the rules; I don't think we can have a really productive discussion otherwise. I mean, you could make the claim that the DM can alter the workings of in-game gravity at will, too, but that doesn't help us talk about falling damage.

(And, FYI, in some fo the RPGs I mentioned, the GM actually does not have the authority to trump rules the way they do in many others.)

But this moves away from my point that one doesn't need these in a system to do these things. I don't need an alignment to play a character in a Good way. I'm not saying games with these systems and people that use them are bad or anything. I just don't feel that they are needed to do it.

Remember, I'm not claiming they're needed, either. I'm just saying that if you have Goal X, it's easier to see it come to fruition if the system actively supports Goal X. If I were der_kluge, I would not expect a lot of "who" from my players in chargen when playing by-the-book D&D. At least, not until I made it explicit to them that, say, I'd be handing out bonus XP for writing a backstory, or something similar.

Again, my emphasis here is on expectation. I am in no way saying that the players are unable to get their "who" on unless there's explicit mechanical support.

 

[buzz]

I agree the DM's vision ought not to matter. That's why I dislike alignment as more than mechanical effect interaction and the paladin power revocation part of the rules. They require DM adjudication of ambiguous moral code issues in ways that can lead to DM/PC ill will based on ethical disagreements instead of enhancing characterization and storytelling

Well, I don't want to derail this thread into an Ailgnment debate; I've probably derailed it enough already. I just think that, as written, the Alignment text and Paladin's code is pretty clear for purposes of play. If that's not enough to help adjudicate paladin-related issues, then the DM and player should sit down and agree on an interpretation. The DM shouldn't be forcing the player to fly blind.

FWIW, this hasn't been much of a problem in my 3e play.

EDIT: Let me head off further discussion by saying that I'm not arguing Alignment is a good or a bad source of "who," just that it is one.

 

[Ourph]

Umm, dude, back in the day, my characters were George, George the Second, George the Third etc. Role play? What was that?

You're obviously a young'un. When I started playing, we didn't even name our characters until they'd reached 3rd level or so. It just wasn't worth the effort.

I remember a campaign that my friend Josh started about 3 months after we got the 1981 Basic set. I and my other friend Todd were each playing multiple 1st level characters at the same time. IIRC I had "the Fighter with the sword", "the Fighter with the spear" and "the Cleric with the magic shield".

The funny thing is, if it weren't for peer pressure from the other players to show at least minimal involvement with my character, I'd probably still be playing the exact same way today. Ahhhh, fun times!