Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Man I love when people try to narrow things down to only two choices, and it just doesn't work. You'd almost think there is never a time when there are only two choices.My example wasn't meant to be narrowed down to two choices, just removing the demon from the equation.
I'm curious, would you say that one of the two choices you mentioned in that situation is a [Good] act? If so, why?
I'm curious, would you say that one of the two choices you mentioned in that situation is a [Good] act? If so, why?Man I love when people try to narrow things down to only two choices, and it just doesn't work. You'd almost think there is never a time when there are only two choices.My example wasn't meant to be narrowed down to two choices, just removing the demon from the equation.
I don't really have a relevant opinion (when it comes to paladins). I personally believe that cutting the ropes is the "good" act because it saves the most number of lives with the least risk.
'You have the option of cutting the ropes and dooming the individual from the crow's nest or capsizing the entire ship causing many more deaths.'
*raises eyebrow*
I'm not going to sit here and list out every single option that's possibly available to you. I was pointing out the obvious options.
|
That's reasonable. It just read like too many others who try to say the paladin can only take one of two bad choices. Better I think to give the situation and ask 'what do you do?' without giving options.
"The antimatter bomb capable of destroying the entire city has been implanted in the brain of an innocent, unwitting nun" for example.
Wait, Wait, you commit an evil act or a whole town dies and you choose to "stay true to your alignment" HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA...O my god that is awesome, that is the poster boy for Pride. You choose to sacrifice a whole town so you wouldn't lose you powers. Somewhere a devil has milk coming out of his nose.
Sacrifice of themself? Yes, that is a good and noble act. Sacrifice a whole town???? No that is not the good.
In some traditions, a person willing to make a sacrifice of themself, so that others may be saved, is considered noble. (see Christ, Jesus)
Just so I understand you correctly. Trying to stop towns-people from sacrificing babies to a fiend for hopes of a favor in protecting their town is the same as putting the town to the sword. Is that correct in how you are seeing the issue?
If you stop me from murdering this person so I can harvest their organs to save my own life, then you are doing the equivalent of shooting me in the head. Would that be a reasonable analogy?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I don't really have a relevant opinion (when it comes to paladins). I personally believe that cutting the ropes is the "good" act because it saves the most number of lives with the least risk.
Saving the most number of lives with the least risk certainly makes it the Best option, and perhaps more Good than the alternative, but Best and Good are two different things altogether.
It sounds to me like perhaps you're deciding what is Good in this instance by asking what a Good character would do (hence you call it "the" good act, as opposed to "a" Good act). Is that accurate, or am I reading way to much into your comment?
I don't really have a relevant opinion (when it comes to paladins). I personally believe that cutting the ropes is the "good" act because it saves the most number of lives with the least risk.Saving the most number of lives with the least risk certainly makes it the Best option, and perhaps more Good than the alternative, but Best and Good are two different things altogether.
It sounds to me like perhaps you're deciding what is Good in this instance by asking what a Good character would do (hence you call it "the" good act, as opposed to "a" Good act). Is that accurate, or am I reading way to much into your comment?
hehe I think you might be reading too much into it at this point.
Given the options available to me, as a person (not a character) I would choose to cut the ropes. I think someone else pointed out the option a paladin would take, and that would be to cut all the ropes, save one, then tie it around yourself and cut it free from the ship and attempt to save the individual who was on the crow's nest. This saves the people on the ship and whether successful or not, you are attempting to save the drowning person as well.
I won't lie, as a person, there's no way I would do the same thing as the paladin. I simply don't trust my ability to save a person and in my personal view, losing two lives (one of which being my own) is too great a risk at that point.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
hehe I think you might be reading too much into it at this point.
Given the options available to me, as a person (not a character) I would choose to cut the ropes. I think someone else pointed out the option a paladin would take, and that would be to cut all the ropes, save one, then tie it around yourself and cut it free from the ship and attempt to save the individual who was on the crow's nest. This saves the people on the ship and whether successful or not, you are attempting to save the drowning person as well.
I won't lie, as a person, there's no way I would do the same thing as the paladin. I simply don't trust my ability to save a person and in my personal view, losing two lives (one of which being my own) is too great a risk at that point.
I thought I might be, so I figured I'd ask. :)
To me, this situation is one where neither act is 'Good'. Not to say cutting the ropes is Evil, I'd probably call it Neutral if anything. I just tend to see Good as being Idealistic in nature. The Good act is saving everybody, or at least trying to.
|
That's reasonable. It just read like too many others who try to say the paladin can only take one of two bad choices. Better I think to give the situation and ask 'what do you do?' without giving options.
A good point.
That's one problem with these 'paladin / alignment' debates, is that they turn into 'If I'm a rampaging dick to my players, because I hate them so much that I set the game up so that they will fail spectacularly no matter what they do...' straw men.
Who cares what happens to a paladin shoved into a no-win scenario? What's more interesting is why any player would ever sit down with such a chode again. Masochism?
I mean, there's an argument up there that a devil offers a bargain to stop a flood, and someone says, 'oh, the devil lies and doesn't stop the flood anyway.'
Okay, if you'll just change the rules to dick over the paladin anyway, why not just punch the player in the face and not pretend that you are playing a game? I mean seriously, why even go through all that prep-work and setup? Couldn't you just key his car or something, and get on with your life?
If a devil wants to fulfill his contract and *still* inflict some suffering, as part of an actual storyline involving theme and tone and stuff, he can avert the flood, but by sending it away from the villagers and into their crops and fields, leaving them in a great position for imminent famine and plague, *while upholding his contract, and winning the souls he bargained for.* And, best of all, he can then offer his services to some hungry desperate townsfolk, to 'save your family' in exchange for some paltry little thing (of course, any such 'save' will come at the expense of others in the community, and eventually word will get 'leaked' out, adding to the strife, finger-pointing and very real witch-hunts, but that's just good clean fun, by infernal standards).
It's not rocket science (although I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure Sebastian could come up with something that's actually clever, and not as obvious as the above example), and it creates the dramatic possibility that the PCs will have to find a way to deal with the threat of famine and disease, to deal with the social unrest that will erupt, to find a way from stopping the devil from making any more deals (and any witch-burnings that may result from the outing of such deals) and convey the thematic impression that deals with the devil aren't so hot, without actually ending the game. The scene, instead of being a big middle finger to the players, becomes an *opportunity* to continue the game, explore some moral and ethical issues and make things right.
Having the PCs in a situation where they are motivated to save the village, in this case, either from a misjudgement made by either whatever townfolk initially made this deal, or whatever PC made this deal. Beats the hell out of, 'The devil didn't really want souls, so he's ripping up the contract and letting the flood kill you all anyway. Ha HA! You should totally see your faces! Wanna go see a movie? Wait, why are you leaving?'
I mean, this is just me, but I sit down to game with;
A) people I *LIKE* or
B) people at conventions that I've just met and haven't had time to get to know well enough that I would have any real motivation to make their gaming experience miserable.
I don't much like Paladins (seeing them used too often to justify jerkish behavior), and I don't much like moral and ethical issues being as childishly and one-dimensionally depicted as they too often are, with no room to actually *tell a story,* but I don't get the perverse urge to use the code of conduct or alignment as a bludgeon to ruin other people's fun or to punish them for disagreeing with me.
I don't play D&D with a political agenda to bend people to my way of thinking or as part of some missionary work, deliberately crafting ethical or moral no-win scenarios to 'teach lessons' or enforce moral purity.
I pretty much play for the exploration, not just of territory, but of characterization and issues. If all the 'issues' are neatly softened and watered-down for the consumption of toothless kittens, I have nothing left to gnaw upon. I'm all growed up, and can explore like a big boy now, even the dark places, where I might not be able to see everything right away, 'cause I'm not scared of the stuff I don't know yet. I'm not intimidated by choices that aren't easy binary choices, and might be more complicated than 'yes / no,' 'cause, in addition to being an adult, I'm also a person, not a computer.
They say computers will never replace people, because all computers can give you are answers. It's the ability to question, to doubt, to occasionally even change our mind, that makes us other than ants.
Any question or challenge worth posing in a game, IMO, will have more than one right answer. The best ones will have some I didn't think of, and I'll get to be surprised too, by the choices the players come up with.
'Cause, sometimes, as a GM, I like to be surprised, too, and not just read a story to a bunch of passive observers, where I've already made all the decisions in advance for them.
|
What if we simply took the demon out of the equation? I was just watching Master and Commander, so some of you will recognize this scenario. Let's say that there's a ship full of people in a storm. Part of the mast broke off with the crow's nest and it fell into the sea along with the person in the crow's nest. That person is hanging on for life to the broken part of the mast, however the ropes that were attached to that part of the mast are causing a drag on the ship that is threatening to capsize it. You have the option of cutting the ropes and dooming the individual from the crow's nest or capsizing the entire ship causing many more deaths.
For Starters - I would have saved the kid at all cost first - Away the Lifeboat...but tie it off so we drag it rather than the Broken mast and sails that drags behind us.
If time was a factor - I would have had a powerful swimmer and climber who could climb down the rope - retrieve the boy, cut the sails loose, and climb back up with the kid go make the rescue.To go back to the previous example. Let's say the devil offered to save the village and asked nothing in return. The Paladin would then except the devil's help.
I believe the phrase no way in Hell is appropriate here. The Paladin would never make a deal with a devil to save a village - he would sooner evacuate the village and conduct an exodus to the nearest town.
What if we simply took the demon out of the equation? I was just watching Master and Commander, so some of you will recognize this scenario. Let's say that there's a ship full of people in a storm. Part of the mast broke off with the crow's nest and it fell into the sea along with the person in the crow's nest. That person is hanging on for life to the broken part of the mast, however the ropes that were attached to that part of the mast are causing a drag on the ship that is threatening to capsize it. You have the option of cutting the ropes and dooming the individual from the crow's nest or capsizing the entire ship causing many more deaths.
You! Secure the other end of this line! The rest of you get ready to cut those ropes and sing a prayer as you do! I'm either coming back with him or not at all!
Too late, the ship'd going over, you waited too long and they all die.
Sometimes there really ARE just two choices, especially for the commander of the ship: his first responsibility is to the ship and lives of those on board. He is deriliction of duty if he allows the mast to drag the ship over, and likewise if he abandons his post to save the sailor.
In the case of the devil, the flood and the paladin, however, the smart paladin knows that dealing with the devil is a waste of time - there will always be a catch to the devil's 'aid.'
Too late, the ship'd going over, you waited too long and they all die.
Sometimes there really ARE just two choices, especially for the commander of the ship: his first responsibility is to the ship and lives of those on board. He is deriliction of duty if he allows the mast to drag the ship over, and likewise if he abandons his post to save the sailor.
In the case of the devil, the flood and the paladin, however, the smart paladin knows that dealing with the devil is a waste of time - there will always be a catch to the devil's 'aid.'
Nope.
Since you cut the rope: the mast can't drag the ship under.The difference is you go with him with a rope tied around your waist so you can be pulled back.
You might go under and the crew fails to pull you back, but the ship is saved.
I think Set has it right here. I would never put my players in a no-win situation because then the game would be over. Where's the fun in that? I also trust that the GMs I play with not to do that either. So that is good enough for me.
The most important thing for me is that alignment not interfere with immersive roleplay. So, I let players decide what they want to do and why they want to do it. If their motivation is to save innocent lives, then they can do what they want. As this thread indicates, this can cause conflict among those of the same alignment, but that's OK. There are people who might thing something is "evil" IRL and others who disagree. What we can agree on (I believe) is that murdering an innocent person without any excuse or justification is evil. You may or may not think that sacrificing an innocent being to save others is evil, but that is a personal issue that I could reasonably disagree with. You may or may not think that the excuse or justification is sufficient, too. In game terms, it is just more polite to let players choose how their characters protect the innocent, and allow them to roleplay within the good alignment with more options (the detect-smite paladin, the wait until they break the law paladin, or any other style, so long as the player says the motivation is in the interests of protecting as many innocent beings as possible).
Intentionally smashing a bug is evil if you think it is a baby that was polymorphed and the spell is going to wear off before long. So is smashing a bug (if it really and truly is just a bug) evil? Of course not. Intention is everything. So I consider whether the motivations are, and avoid deciding whether a particular action is evil, even when it is reasonably disturbing (baby sacrifice, rape, torture, etc.), which would be suggestive of knee-jerk "That's EVIL!" judgments even if they are usually justified in some cases. I prefer to get past that and consider what the real intent is.
In the example of the devil offering a town the option of sacrificing some innocents to save everyone, I don't really consider whether the action of baby sacrifice is evil because it doesn't really mean anything unless you consider the actor. So, one person in the village might be good and see no other option, while another might suspect they could have done more to protect the innocent, but didn't want to risk his skin. Their actions might be identical, but their alignments are not necessarily. The devil might be able to influence a change in the alignments of some, but not all of the participants.
The motivation for a devil would depend on the devil. A low INT devil might think he could turn a natural disaster (no evil, but with lots of chaos and death) into a murder of innocent babies. Even forcing baby sacrifice in order to keep the devil from killing eveyone introduces evil, and perhaps even a little order, which might be sufficient motivation to do it. The murder might end up being on the hands of the devil, or it might have other nice (from the perspective of the devil) consequences. However, the devil isn't very smart in this example; so the chance to do a little evil and maybe prevent some chaos would be in the devil's interests even if he doesn't see a long con in the works.
A high INT devil might see more opportunity. Perhaps there is even a target in the town that he thinks can be pushed into an alignment change. Maybe when the king's soldiers show up, they will execute the good mayor who just couldn't come up with a better way to save the town, and orchestrated the sacrifice. The execution could be at the hands of a good king. Joy for the devil (good killing good is perfect). Both the king and the mayor might be doing what they think is necessary to save the greatest number of innocent people.
A great way to cut opportunity for immersive storytelling is to say that nobody can make any choices that the DM says are evil (however he decides to define it). You turn alignment into a comic book, instead of an exploration of the consequences for hard choices. You make atonement an act to placate the DM, instead of an act to make the character try to come to terms with a no-win decision, or a wrong decision, and give up a great roleplaying moment that the player can actually understand. Also, you don't have to pull punches with paladins when intent controls. A paladin player might be rightly angered if he is put in a no-win situation by the DM if you have the gotcha of "evil acts" that disregard intent, and forcing a choice that will always be evil by the definition. I can screw my paladin players around as much as I want, and they don't mind, because they know that as long as their intentions are pure, they can do what they want, and seek atonement when they make a bad choice or just because there was no good choice.
Nope.
Since you cut the rope: the mast can't drag the ship under.
The difference is you go with him with a rope tied around your waist so you can be pulled back.
If you cut the ropes before you go in after the sailor, the mast is lost behind you and you cannot find it. Taking that time can be crucial, and even if you pulled it off, you are in derriliction of duty because you have left your post.
You might go under and the crew fails to pull you back, but the ship is saved.
Without your sailing skill and experience, the ship may not make it out of the storm after you abandoned your post.
When you are the person in charge, you have responsibilities that go beyond a single person.
As Lawful Good, the paladin is entitled - required even - to place the needs of the many above the needs of the few. Sometimes, this means he does not get the luxury of making a martyr of himself.
|
|
I wouldn't personally put a PC into a basically no-win or break even at best scenario, but that doesn't mean a PC can't put THEMSELVES into that scenario through poor decision making.
They COULD have prevented the flooding, but they failed to do so (say, a near TPK), and now they barely have time to get to the village (which they should have evacuated ANYWAYS, at the very beginning when they learned there was a viable threat to said dam). *I* did not magically teleport them into this scenario, their crappy decision making skills forced them into a conundrum.
As a DM, the devil might represent both a line I'm throwing to them and as an adventure hook. Irregardless of what the contract specifies (baby killing or whatever), as long as the PCs do it after signing the dotted line, the devil saves them and the village but at a terrible cost.
The PCs must then both save the village AGAIN, from a seperate threat the devil has schemed, and kill the devil. It may not be a good choice, but if they don't want to take my DM Fiat, they can reroll characters. Pisspoor planning on the part of the PCs results in a bad outcome.
They have similiar results in the ending of all modules (especially Nick Logue's) and most adventure paths. The result of an adventure has consequences.
Nope.
Since you cut the rope: the mast can't drag the ship under.
The difference is you go with him with a rope tied around your waist so you can be pulled back.If you cut the ropes before you go in after the sailor, the mast is lost behind you and you cannot find it. Taking that time can be crucial, and even if you pulled it off, you are in derriliction of duty because you have left your post.
You might go under and the crew fails to pull you back, but the ship is saved.Without your sailing skill and experience, the ship may not make it out of the storm after you abandoned your post.
When you are the person in charge, you have responsibilities that go beyond a single person.
As Lawful Good, the paladin is entitled - required even - to place the needs of the many above the needs of the few. Sometimes, this means he does not get the luxury of making a martyr of himself.
The problem here is that I'm not the captain. I'm a paladin. I do not even have the luxury of having enough skill points to put into Profession: Sailor.
I fully expect those crewmen to be chopping at the ropes as I secure myself and dive over. We're not dallying about. They need to save the ship and someone needs to try to save the man in the water.
The problem here is that I'm not the captain. I'm a paladin. I do not even have the luxury of having enough skill points to put into Profession: Sailor.
No, the situation was you are the captain, you don't get to change it to make the choice easier. Class does not matter, you are the person in charge, with the responsibility to act who makes the decision for the ship and crew. I will agree, if you aren't the captain it's a much easier decision to make to be the hero, because you have much more freedom of action - the captain shouts to cut the mast free, you grab a rope, tie one end around you and the other to the rail and dive in before they finish cutting - but that isn't the situation being presented.
The problem here is that I'm not the captain. I'm a paladin. I do not even have the luxury of having enough skill points to put into Profession: Sailor.No, the situation was you are the captain, you don't get to change it to make the choice easier.
Where was this stated in the situation?
Where was this stated in the situation?The problem here is that I'm not the captain. I'm a paladin. I do not even have the luxury of having enough skill points to put into Profession: Sailor.No, the situation was you are the captain, you don't get to change it to make the choice easier.
The example was from the film Master and Commander, where the morality of the commander's decision to sacrifice one member of the crew to save the ship and rest of the crew was being debated, and whether or not there was a 'third option'. My contention is that there was not a third option for the captain, as any such option would mean abandoning his post where he was needed.
The example was from the film Master and Commander, where the morality of the commander's decision to sacrifice one member of the crew to save the ship and rest of the crew was being debated, and whether or not there was a 'third option'. My contention is that there was not a third option for the captain, as any such option would mean abandoning his post where he was needed.Where was this stated in the situation?The problem here is that I'm not the captain. I'm a paladin. I do not even have the luxury of having enough skill points to put into Profession: Sailor.No, the situation was you are the captain, you don't get to change it to make the choice easier.
There are other factors you could build into the scenario if you did in fact want to narrow it down to two options. Any rope that was on the deck of the ship has either gone overboard or is being used in some other capacity. It would take too long to get any more. The rope that's holding the mast to the ship is too taut to do anything with, etc.
Making a situation so specific that it forces predetermined options onto the players is called railroading. I hate GMs that do that...
I try to follow one simple rule when GMing, I provide the problems and the players provide the solutions.
I tend to agree, however the situation presented above is a very real and possible problem. As someone else pointed out above, sometimes it's not the GM's fault when a situation degrades to either a no win scenario or one with very few options. It's very possible that the party put themselves into that situation as well.
|
A captain is not held to a paladins standard, so he would be justified in leaving the one to save the ship.
A paladin, if the only option was cut the mast free or the ship goes under, would cut the mast free.
And then jump in to the ocean regardless of a lifeline, as long as he believed he could save the one.
A captain is not held to a paladins standard, so he would be justified in leaving the one to save the ship.
A paladin, if the only option was cut the mast free or the ship goes under, would cut the mast free.
And then jump in to the ocean regardless of a lifeline, as long as he believed he could save the one.
I can't agree more. Its that extra step that makes you a Paladin instead of a dude in armor. Its that extra step that makes your god say "This guy is an example to all, I will imbune him with my power," instead of just being happy for the extra follower granting him power. The Paladin is the only class with heroism innately in its blood. The rest can have it, but its the Paladin's job to emit it and bring it out in others.
|
|
I can't agree more. Its that extra step that makes you a Paladin instead of a dude in armor. Its that extra step that makes your god say "This guy is an example to all, I will imbune him with my power," instead of just being happy for the extra follower granting him power. The Paladin is the only class with heroism innately in its blood. The rest can have it, but its the Paladin's job to emit it and bring it out in others.A captain is not held to a paladins standard, so he would be justified in leaving the one to save the ship.
A paladin, if the only option was cut the mast free or the ship goes under, would cut the mast free.
And then jump in to the ocean regardless of a lifeline, as long as he believed he could save the one.
And promptly drowns, since he forgot to take off his armor.
|
|
And promptly drowns, since he forgot to take off his armor.
Must have dumped INT to not have traded the full plate out for a chain shirt while he was traveling the ocean.
Or gotten...
This +1 full plate is decorated with a wave and fish motif. Although the armor remains as heavy and bulky as normal full plate, the wearer of plate armor of the deep is treated as unarmored for purposes of Swim checks. The wearer can breathe underwater and can converse with any water-breathing creature with a language.
I tend to agree, however the situation presented above is a very real and possible problem. As someone else pointed out above, sometimes it's not the GM's fault when a situation degrades to either a no win scenario or one with very few options. It's very possible that the party put themselves into that situation as well.Making a situation so specific that it forces predetermined options onto the players is called railroading. I hate GMs that do that...
I try to follow one simple rule when GMing, I provide the problems and the players provide the solutions.
Indeed. Sometimes the situation is not so black and white as it seems, but sometimes it is very real and clear. Life is not always so obliging as always giving people a way out.
The difference, sometimes, is not what you do but why, and how you feel about it afterwards. A LE captain would cut the mast free without a second thought and lose no sleep over it. A LN would lose some, but would live with it. A LG captain would agonise over it and have troubled dreams for a long time. A captain who abandoned his post by diving in after the sailor wouldn't be acting lawfully.
A captain is not held to a paladins standard, so he would be justified in leaving the one to save the ship.
A paladin, if the only option was cut the mast free or the ship goes under, would cut the mast free.
And then jump in to the ocean regardless of a lifeline, as long as he believed he could save the one.
... and that his leaving the ship would not endanger the ship, also.
|
|
The example was from the film Master and Commander, where the morality of the commander's decision to sacrifice one member of the crew to save the ship and rest of the crew was being debated, and whether or not there was a 'third option'. My contention is that there was not a third option for the captain, as any such option would mean abandoning his post where he was needed.
Never seen/read it. I thought it was about Russell Crowe going from port to port, picking fights.
And promptly drowns, since he forgot to take off his armor.
Why would I be wearing heavy armor while on a boat in the midst of a storm?
And promptly drowns, since he forgot to take off his armor.I can't agree more. Its that extra step that makes you a Paladin instead of a dude in armor. Its that extra step that makes your god say "This guy is an example to all, I will imbune him with my power," instead of just being happy for the extra follower granting him power. The Paladin is the only class with heroism innately in its blood. The rest can have it, but its the Paladin's job to emit it and bring it out in others.A captain is not held to a paladins standard, so he would be justified in leaving the one to save the ship.
A paladin, if the only option was cut the mast free or the ship goes under, would cut the mast free.
And then jump in to the ocean regardless of a lifeline, as long as he believed he could save the one.
Why is he wearing his armor while onboard ship in the first place. I mean I can understand a cleric that has water walk prepared every day, but the paladin?
|
|
Why is he wearing his armor while onboard ship in the first place. I mean I can understand a cleric that has water walk prepared every day, but the paladin?And promptly drowns, since he forgot to take off his armor.I can't agree more. Its that extra step that makes you a Paladin instead of a dude in armor. Its that extra step that makes your god say "This guy is an example to all, I will imbune him with my power," instead of just being happy for the extra follower granting him power. The Paladin is the only class with heroism innately in its blood. The rest can have it, but its the Paladin's job to emit it and bring it out in others.A captain is not held to a paladins standard, so he would be justified in leaving the one to save the ship.
A paladin, if the only option was cut the mast free or the ship goes under, would cut the mast free.
And then jump in to the ocean regardless of a lifeline, as long as he believed he could save the one.
Well, you guys never said he WASN'T wearing armor.
|
|
And promptly drowns, since he forgot to take off his armor.Must have dumped INT to not have traded the full plate out for a chain shirt while he was traveling the ocean.
Or gotten...
This +1 full plate is decorated with a wave and fish motif. Although the armor remains as heavy and bulky as normal full plate, the wearer of plate armor of the deep is treated as unarmored for purposes of Swim checks. The wearer can breathe underwater and can converse with any water-breathing creature with a language.
So...he becomes Aqua Man?
... and that his leaving the ship would not endanger the ship, also.Well, unless I missed where the Kraken was the cause of the broken mast, I'd say he wouldn't be as much use to the ship except for another strong back.
Probably true, but you never know! Then again, realistically if there is an adventuring party on board the ship it's likely that there about half a dozen things that could be done to save the sailor at no risk at all to the ship.
|
|
... and that his leaving the ship would not endanger the ship, also.Well, unless I missed where the Kraken was the cause of the broken mast, I'd say he wouldn't be as much use to the ship except for another strong back.Probably true, but you never know! Then again, realistically if there is an adventuring party on board the ship it's likely that there about half a dozen things that could be done to save the sailor at no risk at all to the ship.
The wizard could just use Benign Transposition to switch the poor sailor with a party member buffed by the cleric with Water Breathing. :)
And promptly drowns, since he forgot to take off his armor.
Why would I be wearing heavy armor while on a boat in the midst of a storm?
You obviously have not played with some of the people I have.
I can't agree more. Its that extra step that makes you a Paladin instead of a dude in armor. Its that extra step that makes your god say "This guy is an example to all, I will imbune him with my power," instead of just being happy for the extra follower granting him power. The Paladin is the only class with heroism innately in its blood. The rest can have it, but its the Paladin's job to emit it and bring it out in others.A captain is not held to a paladins standard, so he would be justified in leaving the one to save the ship.
A paladin, if the only option was cut the mast free or the ship goes under, would cut the mast free.
And then jump in to the ocean regardless of a lifeline, as long as he believed he could save the one.
I could certainly agree with the heroic attempt of the Paladin, careless of his own life, who tries to save the doomed sailor between the waves...
but not if the Paladin was also the Captain of the ship.We have to remember that SOME situation DO NOT allow a character to simply 'throw away' his life. A Captain has responsabilities towards his ship AND the rest of his crew. Simply saying 'too bad guys, I'm the Shiny One, I cannot stand to see somebody drowning (please note : all this WOULD BE good if not for...) EVEN if all your lives depend on the fact that I HAVE to stay in command of this ship.'
Remember BattleStar Galactica ? When
Bill Adama resings from his role of Admiral of the Fleet, giving the leadership of the Fleet to Saul Tigh, and stays back in a Raptor, waiting for the Cylon BaseStar with Laura Roslin aboard, while the rest of the Fleet 'jumps' away ?
The Paladin in the 'Master and Commander' situation could reasonably try to save the drowning sailor ONLY after resigning his command to someone else with a sufficient competence. Otherwise, his possible death would only cause the death of other people too, since without a Captain the crew could easily mutiny while under such a dire situation.
If such chance would not possible, well, sorry but he simply CANNOT AFFORD TO DIE - no matter his desire to save another life. Other people would depend on him, and leaving them alone would not be heroic - it would be selfish.
Of course, he would feel shame for the rest of his life - maybe even the need to Atone (but I do not think that he WOULD HAVE to atone for this) - but leaving other people without a guide for playing hero ? This is not even a CG act - this is a 'Stupid'CG act. Akin to being stubborn and not cutting the rope.
This entire scenario was set up specifically to be morally ambiguous and force the party to take pause and assess who they should trust. It was not my intention to force or even sway the party in any particular direction.I think the scenario itself is causing the OP some problems that he didn't necessarily need. It just doesn't ring true that the assassins would try to kill everyone in their sleep without informing the pc's that they were there to help and working in their best interests. It's not exactly a great way to introduce yourselves by murdering everyone in the pc's group, most of whom are not military types other than one guard. As written, I don't think there's any question the acts were evil.
If the OP wanted to set up a scenario where the assassins are actually the good guys, he should have had them position themselves to subdue the caravan people or the guard at least, and then explain the situation to the pcs.
I mean, in real life if you were travelling with a group of people and someone walked up and calmly pulled a gun out and blasted everyone else with you and then told you they were the good guys trying to save you, would you buy that?
Now we are getting to the crux of the issue, in my opinion. You set up a morally ambiguous situation that forced the paladin character to make unpalatable choices. From other posts you have made, apparently your whole DMing style/world is full of these shades of gray, with a low fantasy, gritty feel. The paladin player, in turn, apparently wants to play high fantasy. He wants to be a hero, fight the bad guys, protect the innocent, and so forth. You have a mismatch between your DMing style and how this player wants to play. If you can't find a happy middle ground, he probably is better off gaming somewhere else.
I probably wouldn't walk away from a game over a misconnection like this, but I'd probably sit down and talk with you about it and then likely would ask to create a different kind of character.
Also, by the way, if a GM ever did hit me with a situation like that when I was playing a paladin character, slaughtering a group of unarmed civilians (in the PC's view, as that is the best knowledge he has) and then killing an NPC under my group's personal protection, I'd have gone off on the assassins. Either I'd have ended up dead (or at least beaten into submission) or they would have.
So the captain is a paladin? Ok, that must mean that all of the crew would have to be LG (see: Associates under the paladin entry). I think the fact that every single crew member is LG is going to put any decision into a different light.
This entire scenario was set up specifically to be morally ambiguous and force the party to take pause and assess who they should trust. It was not my intention to force or even sway the party in any particular direction.Now we are getting to the crux of the issue, in my opinion. You set up a morally ambiguous situation that forced the paladin character to make unpalatable choices. From other posts you have made, apparently your whole DMing style/world is full of these shades of gray, with a low fantasy, gritty feel. The paladin player, in turn, apparently wants to play high fantasy. He wants to be a hero, fight the bad guys, protect the innocent, and so forth. You have a mismatch between your DMing style and how this player wants to play. If you can't find a happy middle ground, he probably is better off gaming somewhere else.
I probably wouldn't walk away from a game over a misconnection like this, but I'd probably sit down and talk with you about it and then likely would ask to create...
I think you miss part of the point - the player assumed that the assassins were evil, and when he tried to detect evil and couldn't he assumed it was an error on the part of the DM rather than an error in his character's initial assumptions.
The situation was not as morally ambiguous as all that, really, the point of it was that 'things are not as they appear'. It isn't impossible to do a high fantasy character in this kind of game by any means, I think the player assumed the situation (from his PoV) was worse than it actually was.
This entire scenario was set up specifically to be morally ambiguous and force the party to take pause and assess who they should trust. It was not my intention to force or even sway the party in any particular direction.Now we are getting to the crux of the issue, in my opinion. You set up a morally ambiguous situation that forced the paladin character to make unpalatable choices. From other posts you have made, apparently your whole DMing style/world is full of these shades of gray, with a low fantasy, gritty feel. The paladin player, in turn, apparently wants to play high fantasy. He wants to be a hero, fight the bad guys, protect the innocent, and so forth. You have a mismatch between your DMing style and how this player wants to play. If you can't find a happy middle ground, he probably is better off gaming somewhere else.
I probably wouldn't walk away from a game over a misconnection like this, but I'd probably sit down and talk with you about it and then likely would ask to create...
I think you miss part of the point - the player assumed that the assassins were evil, and when he tried to detect evil and couldn't he assumed it was an error on the part of the DM rather than an error in his character's initial assumptions.
The situation was not as morally ambiguous as all that, really, the point of it was that 'things are not as they appear'. It isn't impossible to do a high fantasy character in this kind of game by any means, I think the player assumed the situation (from his PoV) was worse than it actually was.
I agree with a lot of what you say, especially the fact that "things are not (always) as they appear", although you note that I add one word to that statement to make it more accurate. The smaller point I was trying to make was that the paladin's assumption, based on the objective facts at his disposal (wholesale slaughter of apparently unarmed non-combatants in their sleep, cold-blooded execution of captured and helpless guard under the protection of the PCs), was not ridiculous. After reading the entire thread, it is obvious to me that honest men may disagree about whether the actions of the assassins (as the OP labeled them himself) are inherently evil, and if so, if those actions would, in and of themselves, make the assassins evil. So I'll take a pass on that. I just want to say that the paladin's assumption of evil was not baseless.
The larger point I was making was about compatibility of styles of play. The OP himself is the one who said that he deliberately created this to be a morally ambiguous situation, and from other posts, I gather that he does that regularly. I suspect that what the paladin's player objects to is being forced into morally ambiguous situations in which there is no clear "right" and "wrong" on a regular basis. That is not fun for him as a player, so he opted out of the campaign. I wouldn't have done the same, but I understand why he did. Isn't the whole point of playing a fantasy roleplaying game to have fun and to act out our heroic (or not so heroic) fantasies? Both the DM and the players are entitled to have fun, and if someone isn't, and they can't work out a compromise, it is probably a good idea for the unhappy camper to leave and find a group that fits his style better.