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

[pemerton]

What can I say, I'm a bit cynical when it comes to games and religion/philosophy butting heads. I didn't say that a GM has to police it of course, but I do recommend everyone at the table know what they might be getting themselves into to avoid alienating those who aren't up for such discussion and storytelling.

Fair enough.

In that case, my advice would be as per post 864 upthread: the GM plays along too, and doen't confront the paladin with the sorts of dilemmas that make moral enquiry necessary.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Fair enough.

In that case, my advice would be as per post 864 upthread: the GM plays along too, and doen't confront the paladin with the sorts of dilemmas that make moral enquiry necessary.

Given how tired I am I guess I wasn't totally clear: In a game where those situations are possible I feel it's important to let players know those questions can come up and to let them opt out if they don't feel comfortable with it. If everyone agrees of course then there's the possibility and perhaps likelihood of confronting a highly religious character with those kinds of dilemmas.

 

[pemerton]

In a game where those situations are possible I feel it's important to let players know those questions can come up and to let them opt out if they don't feel comfortable with it.

I think we're agreeing on that. That's what I had in mind by the GM "playing along".

The sort of thing I don't like in a game is where (i) the player is assumed to have no power or responsibility in respect of moral matters, but (ii) the GM nevertheless confronts the paladin or cleric PC with moral dilemmas. Because in that situation, either the game becomes "guess the GM's moral opinion", which I'm not a big fan of, or the moral answer is obvious and the game becomes a purely procedural challenge of making sure that the religious PC can pull off the right solution. I like a procedural challenge as much as the next player, but don't feel the need to spice it up with the threat of losing your PC as a consequence of stuffing it up!

 

[S'mon]

Not agreed. The paladin has to be humble. The player is just another player at the table, who is entitled as the rest of the group to play a role in exploring moral issues.

I've played with players whose PCs have questioned the morality of the gods who purport to direct them. It has nothing to do with being a dick. Nor with Neiztschean value creation (the Euthyphro explains why gods are beholden to morality, not creators of it, and Plato is hardly a Neiztschean value creator!).

I mean, the GM has to play humble NPCs, including clerics and paladins, and the GM gets to define the morality of those NPCs!

My own experience has been that a wide range of players can play a serious game that puts moral commitment at the forefront, provided the GM steps back and doesn't pounce on their every move.

My own view is that the idea that the game will collapse into juvenile amoralism unless the GM polices it via alignment rules and heavy-handed roleplyaing of deities is no more valid than the idea that the game will generate a satisfactory and engaging story only if the GM maintains a heavy rein on the plot.

(1) The GM gets to define the morality of the NPCs, exactly right. The Paladin player doesn't get to define his god's morality. Because his god is an NPC, not an extension of the player.

(2) I am ok with PCs who question the morality of the gods, and I am ok with players disagreeing with NPCs' moral views, including deity NPCs. I like Moorcockian Humanist protagonists who disagree with the Lords of Law.
I am not ok with a Paladin PC doing this. It completely goes against the concept of a Paladin, for me. If the Paladin can reject his god and retain his powers, then his powers are coming from a higher source. That higher source is still judging him, and can find him wanting.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Holy necro, Batman!

But to answer the original question, no I wouldn't allow him. This guy's not a paladin.

Kudos on the entertaining writing, though.

 

[shilsen]

Hah! It's always amusing to me--and a bit gratifying--when Cedric rises once more from the dead. Alas, the pleasures of my first semester at a new job and tons of grading have ensured that I pretty much don't follow ENWorld in general any more, but I'll be keeping an eye on the thread.

 

[Dozen]

@shilsen After I read the first post, I said there was nothing to be said.(Kind of contradictory...) Then I noticed there were more stories. Having read all of them, I have one complaint. About the poll options, specifically. Why can't we vote 'Hell yes'?

 

[Kobold Boots]

I voted yes. Forgive this post, it may tangent, and it's all opinion.

1. I think it's important to make a distinction between a deity's will and the will of his, her or its Church. The point of a Church in a fantasy milieu is to further the worship of its deity. Depending on how uptight the deity is about how to accomplish that against his, her or its value system; you may get some interesting conflicts there. Not all deities are against things considered socially wrong by mankind. Instead, they're focused on their own scope.

2. Building on point 1 for clarity, mankind would by and large create some social code that says "prostitution is bad because it leads to children without responsible parents or relationships that break up, lessening the fabric of the town." or another that says "drinking to excess can lead to arguments and unnecessary deaths, lessening the fabric of the town." but at the end of the day, these things don't necessarily matter to the deity unless the GM decides it should.

3. Last, there are cultures where such things are accepted as part of the greater good as a way to cure a social ill.

So points 1 through 3 exist to state that alignments can mean different things in different campaigns and in different parts of the same campaign.

Next on adult themes:

1. It's my personal preference to only address adult themes with adults. Ergo, I feel that if you're not in a group where everyone is at least 21, (younger depends on the group's maturity) these things should be fade to black moments or avoided.

2. If you're going to address adult themes, let the players know ahead of time so they're ready for it. A lot of players can't read when a DM is being plotty and when he or she is being flirty or worse. Make sure they know.

3. Last, when you're actually handling an encounter where adult themes are in play, do not break the physical wall. Avoid any physical contact with your players (shoulder touch, innocent stuff meant).. keep it professional. Some people can't separate fiction from real and adding touch makes it more real.

Point three may sound weird, but adult themes at the RPG table is already kind of weird, so if you're going to do it.. be cool about it.

All things said, well done to the OP

 

[Aurondarklord]

Hah! It's always amusing to me--and a bit gratifying--when Cedric rises once more from the dead.

Yeah! This Raise cost me 5000gp in diamonds, it BETTER be gratifying somebody!

Even with mature, skilled role players, I still believe D&D is built around the model of the DM as referee. How tightly or loosely they should hold the reins depends very much on the group, but letting the reins go entirely shouldn't be a valid option, else why have a DM at all? And if you don't have a DM, well...if you're having fun it's not for me to judge you, but whatever you're playing isn't actually D&D at that point.

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, and if you can't potentially LOSE, there's no tension, and thus no valid conflict. That's why I bet most of us stopped playing video games with a God Mode cheat on at about the age of 10.

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, otherwise they will quickly realize that they can basically never break their code and lose class abilities unless they decide to have their character fall as part of the story they want to tell. And while a mature group of players won't intentionally abuse this, it's still a lot less fun because the tension, and thus the drama, involved in having to balance the code with the demands of combat and trying to succeed in your character's endeavors, is lost.

I believe it's a false choice to say morality is either player defined, purely procedural, or "guess the DM's opinion". 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.

 

[S'mon]

Y
I believe it's a false choice to say morality is either player defined, purely procedural, or "guess the DM's opinion". 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.

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 - including their deity's judgement. Eg 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. She really hated doing it, and if asked she would likely have said she deserved to be punished for doing it. 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.