Would you allow this paladin in your game? (new fiction added 11/11/08)

[Furby076]

I guess I don't really have a good handle on what a valid 3e Paladin is; IME people still played 3e and even 4e Paladins much like 1e Paladins.

Don't worry, you are not alone. Nobody really knows. There is no concrete answer because we are talking about "morality" and "behavior" and "faith" which is interpreted differently between each person.

In Shils campaign the "gods" have a very tenuous relationship. Someone can be CE and still be a cleric of a LG god. People assume the powers come from the god but it has been made clear that it is simply unknown for sure - meaning it can come from something else. This is not just something the characters don't know, but the players don't (which is frustrating, not in a fun way, to the players).

In the end, when playing characters that require a heavy morale RP component (e.g., paladins) it is up to the player/dm to negotiate what those restrictions are. It would be unfair for the DM to restrict a class to a player because the player does not have the same morality viewpoint as the DM - which i have seen many times over the years. It does help to make a contract. Pick 3-4 things the paladin would hold as virtues to uphold and that is the morality they need to keep.

People disagree though on what it is. One of the players at the table would argue with me that my character wasn't a paladin...that was his viewpoint. Perfectly valid, but again, it was his viewpoint. People need to keep open minds about these things.

 

[Rackhir]

In Shils campaign the "gods" have a very tenuous relationship. Someone can be CE and still be a cleric of a LG god. People assume the powers come from the god but it has been made clear that it is simply unknown for sure - meaning it can come from something else. This is not just something the characters don't know, but the players don't (which is frustrating, not in a fun way, to the players).

Actually, this is a feature of Eberron, not necessarily of Shil's DMing/campaign.

People disagree though on what it is. One of the players at the table would argue with me that my character wasn't a paladin...that was his viewpoint. Perfectly valid, but again, it was his viewpoint. People need to keep open minds about these things.

Perhaps you'd care to go into more details as to the specifics of that situation.

 

[Furby076]

Actually, this is a feature of Eberron, not necessarily of Shil's DMing/campaing.

Didn't realize that. Fair enough

Perhaps you'd care to go into more details as to the specifics of that situation.

Nope. It would start up an argument which I don't feel like getting into because it would be an argument based on differing opinions - not facts. Suffice it to say, I've never seen two DMs view paladins in the same way. Hell, depending on which official D&D book you read the rules and viewpoints differ. Go from 3.0, to 3.5, to 4.0. From Book of Exalted Deeds to Defenders of the Faith to the PHB. They all have statements that dramatically change how you can play a paladin.

 

[pemerton]

There's another situation - where the PC does X knowing that it breaches a moral code, but believing that it is the best thing to do, and willing to accept judgement

<snip>

I had a LG PC (Zana Than, Ironborn Fighter in a Midnight campaign), who had to kill a human prisoner in order for the mission to succeed.

<snip>

The greater good made it necessary, but not right. She may have been right or wrong about that, but I'd say she did have the appropriate moral humility that I associate with Paladins - the willingness to be judged in the Balance, and potentially to be found wanting.

I count this as an example of what I was talking about upthread - letting the player take the lead on what counts as morally permitted or forbidden. Or am I misunderstanding who was player and who GM in this situation?

I believe that all drama is based on conflict and tension, if you can't come into conflict with the world around you, there's no drama

<snip>

If you plan to make moral philosophy a part of your game, then it also becomes a part of your drama, which means that to remain fun, it must have the potential for conflict and tension, which means the potential MUST exist for the players to be wrong or just screw up

<snip>

I believe that a skilled DM, one who is willing to take the time to discuss a little philosophy with their players beforehand and to use their world and their storytelling role to convey to players how they intend the universe to work, as well as give the players some leeway to have a say in the matter without just saying "do whatever you want", can create a world that makes enough sense and has strong enough recognizable philosophical themes that players can interpret it if they try and figure out what is expected of their characters, without the answers always being immediately obvious.

What you describe in the last of these quoted paragraphs is one way to play an RPG. It's not the only one. And I know from experience that it is possible to make moral themes a central dramatic focus without the GM having to play the role you describe. I've posted some examples upthread (for example, deciding whether or not to turn against the gods; or deciding whether or not to sell out one's home city for the promise of a magistracy). One possibility you don't mention, for example, is that the drama is provided not by GM adjudication of the game rules, but by the response at the table, by the other participants, to the choices a player makes for his/her PC.

 

[S'mon]

I count this as an example of what I was talking about upthread - letting the player take the lead on what counts as morally permitted or forbidden. Or am I misunderstanding who was player and who GM in this situation?

I was the player. My PC was a LG Fighter in the Midnight setting.

BTW I often play LG Fighters if I want to play Paladin-like characters but don't want to have to worry about the GM taking my powers because his moral conception differs from mine. Conversely players often play Paladin PCs IMCs without a problem, including in 1e AD&D, but it's most common in 4e D&D, probably because 4e has no rules about Paladins losing powers so players worry less. Even so, every 4e Paladin I've seen has been (a) Lawful Good and (b) clearly straight down the line Lawful Good, such that they'd have no problem in a 1e AD&D game.

 

[Aurondarklord]

I honestly believe Pemerton that "it is possible for the players to be wrong" is one of the few baseline elements of an RPG that is actually REQUIRED for it to qualify as a game. From Wikipedia's definition of a game:

"Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction."

Goals are something you strive to meet. if it's automatically met because you can't fail it, it's not a goal. Similarly, challenge does not exist in the absence of the possibility of failure.

And if moral philosophy is an element of your game, and not simply a topic discussed while playing, then it must be possible for a player's action to provably fail to live up to a moral standard imposed by the game.

I am really really REALLY not trying to be that guy who tells people that my way of playing is the only way of playing and if you disagree you're doing it wrong. But I do believe that there are certain basic elements an activity must have to qualify as a game, because the term "game", like any other word, has a fixed definition.

 

[pemerton]

I honestly believe Pemerton that "it is possible for the players to be wrong" is one of the few baseline elements of an RPG that is actually REQUIRED for it to qualify as a game.

<snip>

And if moral philosophy is an element of your game, and not simply a topic discussed while playing, then it must be possible for a player's action to provably fail to live up to a moral standard imposed by the game.

That argument is not sound. The play of the game, in D&D, is at a minimum engaging the gameworld via your PC, telling everyone at the table (especially the GM) what your PC is doing, where s/he is going, etc. Action resolution rules are triggered by some of this; other times it's resolved via free roleplaying.

All it takes to make moral concerns part of the game is that (i) the GM sets up the gameworld, or elements within the gameworld, having regard to the moral concerns that they invoke (eg the PCs learn that one of their friends makes his money as a slave trader), and (ii) the players respond to certain situations (via their PCs) having regard to the moral concerns that are invoked, and to which their concerns will give rise.

I mentioned upthread the paladin who turned on heaven. Here is a fuller account of that campaign:

* The PCs encountered an aspect of a dead warrior god, corrupted and mad, and also discovered his giant, petrified body (an island in an item port) which cultists were trying to use as the heart of a ritual;

* The dead god entered into a "merge" or "communion" with the paladin PC (I can't remember now if this was initiated by the player playing his PC, or by me playing the dead god);

* The paladin PC learned the background of the dead god - that he was trapped eternally in the void fighting a battle with an otherworldly abomination, to save the world from it;

* The player of the paladin PC, after destroying the cultists that were desecrating his body, decided that his chief ambition was to free the dead god from his torment;

* The PCs learned that certain children were being born without souls, due to some sort of interruption of the karmic cycle;

* The PCs learned that the gods weren't prepared to do anything about this, because of ancient pacts with the lords of karma and the rulers of the hells;

* The PCs learned that the one god who might help (i) had been banished for prior interference with the workings of karma, and (ii) had been the best friend of the dead god, before the dead god became eternally trapped in the void;

* The PCs resolved to make contact with the banished god to get his help;

* The PCs discovered that the banished god was trapped in a prison plane, the gate to which was an angel, and one of the PCs (not the paladin) persuaded the angel, via moral argument, that her duty required her to let him kill her to open the gate, rather than to obey her original instructions from the god;

* The PCs went through the gate and befriended the banished god, and acquired from him a lesser copy of his Soul Totem, which would let them bend certain karmic laws;

* The PCs then concocted a final showdown, where they entered the void, temporarily defeated the otherworldy evil there, rescued the dead god and brought him back to the world; originally the paladin intended to take the dead god's place in the eternal struggle, but then the PCs tricked the lord of hell into using the Soul Totem to create a karmic duplicate of the paladin, who went into the void instead, so that the paladin could found a monastery on the island that was the dead god's petrified body and establish an order dedicated to the dead god (in the process of sending the paladin to the void the PCs managed to banish the ruler of hell, and a minor godling they had been confronting for many levels, to the void also).​

That account leaves out some of the other PCs and their endgames: the one who persuaded the angel to let herself be killed ended up reconciling with the parents of his dragon lover; the party leader took control of the port town in which the paladin's monastery was located; the leader's quieter cousin disobeyed the leader's wishes that he enter into a political marriage, and instead married the NPC sorcerer the group had rescued from an outcast demon, and with her founded a dynasty dedicated to keeping the gates between the world and the void closed on the worldly side. I believe that the fox spirit, exiled from heaven before play began (as part of the PC's backstory), managed to regain some sort of heavenly role. (Before the PCs turned against the wishes of the heavens, they turned against the lords of karma, protecting their fox spirit friend from constables of hell who had come to earth to enforce the terms of his exile.)

From the account I've given, I hope it is fairly clear how the campaign put moral concerns into play: questions of loyalty, love, obligation, freedom, compassion and nobility were front and centre in the campaign. There was the paladin's relationship to the dead god; the whole party's relationship to the banished god; the relationship between the PC cousins; the relationship between the PC and the dragon, in the context of her own obligations to her parents; etc. All these relationships, and the moral questions around them, unfolded in play. None of the outcomes were predetermined, although - after the final showdown - the PC endgames were worked out through free roleplaying and narration, based on the various events and choices that led up to and followed from the showdown.

For all that to come out in the game, and be at the centre of it, there is no need to judge the players (or their PCs) right or wrong. There is only the need, as a GM, to continue to push the unfolding campaign in a way that raises these concerns, and to follow the leads of the players in responding to them.

Here are some passages from Ron Edwards that describe this approach to play, and contrast it with the approach you are advocating (I hadn't read Ron Edwards when the campaign I am describing started, but reading him did help me GM it successfully to its conclusion):

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all.

The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback. . .

Therefore, when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary. . .

Story Now [ie Narrativism] requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

* Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.

* Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.

* Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances. . .​

The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. . .

"Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play.​

In advocating a morality "inherent to the gameworld", which the GM communicates through thoughtful, consistent and subtle framing and adjudication, and with the players do their best to discern and have their PCs adhere to, you are advocating a simulationist approach to the incorporation of moral concerns into play. This is the sort of approach that I would expect the standard Star Wars or LotR game to take: anger leads to hate leads to the dark side, and the aim of the game is to show that this is true, and part of the GM's responsibility is to make sure that this is the case.

But that is not the only way to go. What happens when you disobey the gods and break the laws of karma? Is creating a karmic substitute to take the place of the dead god an act of cowardice, of cunning, the proper way to honour the dead god and recognise the horrors to which he has been subjected by the gods? In the campaign I described, the answers to those questions are not pregiven. Part of the point of play is to address them, and to find out the answers.

In my current game, one of the PCs is a drow chaos sorcerer who is a member of a Corellon-worshipping cult dedicated to overthrowing Lolth and undoing the sundering of the elves. He is also a demonskin adept who wears robes sewn from the skins of dead demons and emblazoned with a dire rune (the same rune is emblazoned on the inside of his eyelids, and would blind him from time to time except for the Robe of Eyes that he wears), and who is in communion with the Queen of Chaos. Is drawing on the powers of chaos and the abyss compatible with this character's loftier goals? Or will the whole thing come unstuck? There is no pre-determined answer. We'll find out in play.

And if I were to run a Star Wars game I'd run it the same way. Does anger really lead to hate? And the dark side? Let's find out by playing!

 

[Aurondarklord]

Okay, Pemerton, I think we're comparing apples and oranges here.

Did you just describe a very interesting piece of fiction that would be enjoyable to role play out? absolutely.

Did you discuss any game mechanics? ....No.

See, that's what makes D&D, and the whole genre of tabletop/play by post games, with fixed rules or freeform, that all spawned from D&D, so unique, they're a game and a story at the same time, and sometimes those elements are in competition with each other. Some groups prefer to ignore game mechanics sometimes in favor of telling the story they want to tell, other groups prefer to make their story fit the mechanics, but you cannot ignore the mechanics and the "game" side of things completely and still claim to actually be playing D&D. You might be having a lot of fun, but whatever you're doing it's something besides this game.

The scenario you described, barring some sort of story element that actually dictates that the paladin doing these things was acting morally, appears to me to be in conflict with the 3E paladin as written, because he dedicated himself and his quest to a goal entirely in defiance of what, as far as I can tell, was the greatest source of legitimate authority in the setting, the pantheon.

Of course, that's completely fine, if you choose to ignore certain mechanical limitations of the paladin or amend the way the class works to suit your game, that's entirely your decision, but you ARE ignoring an element of the game rules and while morality may still be a theme of the story, it is no longer a mechanical element of the game at such a table. Personally, I'm sorry to say that as fun as what you wrote sounds, I probably wouldn't allow it for a paladin at my table because, as an extension of respect for legitimate authority, I see the paladin's code as requiring that a paladin have enough humility to accept that he or she is just a mortal, and may not be capable of seeing the whole picture at the cosmic scale, and trusting the deities or whatever relevant heavenly powers to have the wisdom to know what they're doing, even if the paladin can't understand it. Giving Heaven the finger and charging off to do things your way like a 90s antihero, should not, IMO, be the mentality of the paladin class. But the paladin at my table doesn't have to be like the paladin at your table and that's the beauty of the game.

But if we are discussing the rules as written, and this is in large part a rules thread, then the DM has to make those calls, because just leaving it to the player removes that element of the game mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

Did you discuss any game mechanics? ....No.

The scenario I described drew heavily on d20 resources: the Freeport trilogy for cultists in port towns; Monte Cook's Requium for a God for the dead god; Bastion of Broken Souls for karmic shenanigans; and also on AD&D sources, like the Fiend Folio Slaad Lords for statting up some of my voidal beings, and Oriental Adventures for statting up constables of hell; as well as a range of Rolemaster creature books.

The actual game in question was run playing Rolemaster. It could have been run, in rougly similar terms, using any edition of D&D. All have the action resolution mechanics to resolve the combats I describe; neither Rolemaster nor any pre-4e edition of D&D really has good mechanics to resolve things like persuading an angel, via moral argument, to let herself be killed (though Rolemaster has good mechancis for building persuasive PCs), but I muddled through.

Of course I didn't apply any alignment mechanics, and have not done so since the first AD&D campaign I GMed in the mid-80s. But that's my point: you don't need mechanical alignment, nor the idea that moral truths are imbedded in the gameworld, to run a game in which moral concerns are front-and-centre.

See, that's what makes D&D, and the whole genre of tabletop/play by post games, with fixed rules or freeform, that all spawned from D&D, so unique, they're a game and a story at the same time, and sometimes those elements are in competition with each other. Some groups prefer to ignore game mechanics sometimes in favor of telling the story they want to tell, other groups prefer to make their story fit the mechanics, but you cannot ignore the mechanics and the "game" side of things completely and still claim to actually be playing D&D.

The only mechanics that were disregarded in what I described are mechanical alignment rules (and related rules like those for ex-clerics and ex-paladins).

You might be having a lot of fun, but whatever you're doing it's something besides this game.

Mechanical alignment is not essential to fantasy RPGing (it plays no role in Runequest, for example, and almost no role in Rolemaster as written). Nor is it essential to D&D - I dropped it from my game after reading an article in Dragon #101 called "For King and Country", which persuasively explained why my game would be better without it. I've since identified further reasons, not canvassed in that article, why I dislike mechanical alignment.

The scenario you described, barring some sort of story element that actually dictates that the paladin doing these things was acting morally, appears to me to be in conflict with the 3E paladin as written, because he dedicated himself and his quest to a goal entirely in defiance of what, as far as I can tell, was the greatest source of legitimate authority in the setting, the pantheon.

Of course, that's completely fine, if you choose to ignore certain mechanical limitations of the paladin or amend the way the class works to suit your game, that's entirely your decision, but you ARE ignoring an element of the game rules and while morality may still be a theme of the story, it is no longer a mechanical element of the game at such a table.

Of course it's not a mechanical element! That was my point. You contended, upthread, that

If you plan to make moral philosophy a part of your game, then it also becomes a part of your drama, which means that to remain fun, it must have the potential for conflict and tension, which means the potential MUST exist for the players to be wrong or just screw up​

and that

if moral philosophy is an element of your game, and not simply a topic discussed while playing, then it must be possible for a player's action to provably fail to live up to a moral standard imposed by the game.​

I've just provided a counterexample to your claims - that is, I've described a fantasy RPG campaign that actually happened, in which moral concerns were part of the game, part of the drama, and had the potential for conflict and tension, but in which it was not possible for a player's action to provably fail to live up to a moral standard imposed by the game.

(You may ask, what was the source of the tension, then? I answered with my quote from Ron Edwards: "emotional feedback" between the participants, that is, the evolving aesthetic and evaluative judgments of those playing the game together.)

Personally, I'm sorry to say that as fun as what you wrote sounds, I probably wouldn't allow it for a paladin at my table because, as an extension of respect for legitimate authority, I see the paladin's code as requiring that a paladin have enough humility to accept that he or she is just a mortal, and may not be capable of seeing the whole picture at the cosmic scale, and trusting the deities or whatever relevant heavenly powers to have the wisdom to know what they're doing, even if the paladin can't understand it.

That's fine. I'm not trying to persuade you to play in any particular fashion, or to drop mechanical alignment. I'm just pointing out why the claims you made upthread, that I've requoted above, are not true as such about fantasy RPGing.

Nor even about D&D, given that it is not inherent to D&D that it have mechanical alignment rules (4e does not, for instance, and since the beginning of the game, well before Dragon #101, I would say that mechanical alignment has been one of the most contentious and ignored elements of the game rules).

But if we are discussing the rules as written, and this is in large part a rules thread, then the DM has to make those calls, because just leaving it to the player removes that element of the game mechanics.

Just to reinterate - my entire point is that moral concerns can be front and centre in a game without the GM having to make the calls that you describe. As Ron Edwards says, all you have to do is "stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play" - which, in this case, means dropping mechanical alignment.

Contrary to what you asserted upthread, that won't make the drama and tension any less. In fact, in my experience, it is almost guaranteed to increase it. (Because the player is now responsible for his/her choices for his/her PC, rather than having the cover of the ingame moral framework to hide behind.)

 

[S'mon]

Giving Heaven the finger and charging off to do things your way like a 90s antihero, should not, IMO, be the mentality of the paladin class.

I agree - and if the Paladin can do that and still retain his powers, it just means there is a LG power higher than the Pantheon that is granting them, and that approves of his actions. Perhaps that power is the LG Alignment itself as a cosmic force.