Dragonslie wrote:
and I had a plan for that char in the end anyway.. regarding the whole boned part... honestly I don't care that i boned the char as the player is basically in it to be "the best" which in D&D really isnt the point of the game... the point is to have fun.. its not really enjoyable when all the player wants is.. (ooh make me level 1000000 and give me the most baddest stuff in the game)... and thats my issue with the whole thing..
You just lost my sympathy.
1) Fine you had a plan for the character - but the player had other ideas and it is the player who controls the character not you. You need to adapt to what the player did. It is not your story. The story belongs to the whole group and the player can change it though the actions of their characters. As DM you only control the setting and the NPCs. You can (and should) manipulate them to try to help a good story be created, but you are not creating the story alone. The players control what should be the most important characters in the story, so they can affect it as much as you.
2) You are correct that the point of D&D is to have fun. Some people get that fun from pretending to be powerful characters. There is nothing wrong with that providing he doesn't mess with how other participants get their fun. Being powerful is a perfectly reasonable fantasy. Your job as DM is not to create the best story you can, it is to help the players have fun whilst having fun yourself. Maybe you get your fun from helping in the creation of a good story. Maybe some of your players do also. But that is not the only point of playing {though some other systems do say that and are based around doing that).
Ones of the difficulties of DMing is identifying what your players like and giving each of them enough of what they like.
3) Your attitude seems to be that the player is having fun in the wrong way. not in the way you would. Just because you wouldn't do what they player did does not make the player wrong. The player almost certainly knows better than you what is fun for him. Your intolerance of his way of having fun is ugly.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
We can talk about problems with rules until we're blue in the face.
Problems with players and dms.... we'll you're on your own. :)
I would have manned the up and generated my own divine power.
On a more serious note: the gods are wrong, all of them. I would have told them they need to sit and talk this out, neither of them are acting "good" by any sense of the definition. I'd try to act as an arbiter, hear both sides of the story, and come up with a solution that, even if they can't completely agree with, they will go a long with, because this is utter nonsense. They are both acting like children.
TriOmegaZero wrote: And this is why I drop alignment completely. Because no one can agree on what they mean out the gate. You have to sit down and hash it out.
No, I do not believe that you can make a LG baby-killer. The same way I believe that a LG character would never kill an innocent to save the world, because the ends do not justify the means.
Happens in games all across the world EVERY DAY. You think those kids of those goblins you wiped out are magically going to survive on thier own? You did just kill everyone who took care of them. So essentially by action or inaction your Lawful Good character is a baby killer. The question is did you kill them yourself or did you leave them to die of starvation and dehydration.
Absolute law eh okay your Paladin walks into a town where Sacrificing people is legal and they are going to cut open and consume the hearts of 25 virgin kids. Do you save the kids and violate your alignment or do you not save the kids and violate your alignment?
There is no such thing as absolutes when it comes to alignment if there were it would be impossible to play a Paladin or any alignment based characters.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
What kids? You're suggesting that I have characters murdering goblin villages. I don't. And no, I don't consider someone knowingly leaving goblin children to starve a LG character.
My Paladin is not restricted by a "Lawful equals following laws" fallacy. Thus he is perfectly able to save the kids without violating his alignment.
And again, I do not use alignment for just the reason you state.
Decorus wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: And this is why I drop alignment completely. Because no one can agree on what they mean out the gate. You have to sit down and hash it out.
No, I do not believe that you can make a LG baby-killer. The same way I believe that a LG character would never kill an innocent to save the world, because the ends do not justify the means.
Happens in games all across the world EVERY DAY. You think those kids of those goblins you wiped out are magically going to survive on thier own? You did just kill everyone who took care of them. So essentially by action or inaction your Lawful Good character is a baby killer. The question is did you kill them yourself or did you leave them to die of starvation and dehydration.
Absolute law eh okay your Paladin walks into a town where Sacrificing people is legal and they are going to cut open and consume the hearts of 25 virgin kids. Do you save the kids and violate your alignment or do you not save the kids and violate your alignment? 1. No good character I've played left babies to die. Good means Good, not Convenient. When we wound up capturing a mentally handicapped mook left alive after a bandit camp raid, we travelled a week out of our way to put him somewhere he could be cared for properly. In that same campaign I'm personally funding an orphanage to handle that exact baby-killing trap you mentioned above. Then again, we don't run around genociding other races either.
2. Paladins reject evil laws.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
*fistbump to Mikaze* We should totally hang out.
The biggest issue I see is the "morality/alignment is absolute" but NEVER defined. A couple lines of "tends to....." is worthless in a world of ABSOLUTE alignment. Because right not morality and alignment are VERY subjective, by the whims of each DM
Yay! Paladin Alignment thread!
I think the player of the paladin described in the OP did a good job of playing his character, first off.
Alignment can be a crazy thing. I look at the dropping of the atomic bombs. I've been to the Peace Park in Nagasaki. My Japanese professor, Dr. Hara, had us read a very interesting book, the Chrysanthemum and the Sword, written just after WWII off of sociological research funded by the American Government in an attempt to understand the very different psychology of Japanese culture.
Given what the American government knew at the time, I think dropping the bombs was the best choice available. I don't think it was, in alignment terms, a "good" choice. I think it was the "least bad" choice. The American government's first responsibility is to its citizens and territory. It saved countless American soldiers' lives to not have to take the home islands via more conventional means. It also, I believe, saved many Japanese civilian lives, as the Japanese citizenry had been taught it was better to die in a suicidal attack rather than be taken by American soldiers. I think it probably saved a lot more Japanese culture than would have survived such a horrible ground war. Yet it indiscriminately killed large amounts of non-combatants. It was a horrible, horrible thing.
Yet...I think I would make the same choice, given the same situation, even now.
TriOmegaZero wrote: *fistbump to Mikaze* We should totally hang out. Imma Gencon, at the very least!
I've just read every post in this long discussion, and now my 2 cp.
The paladin was acting in alignment. Falling because he chooses no to follow a morally gray command from his deity w/o explanation is not grounds for him to be stripped of his powers, in and of itself.
But, since in the campaign setting the paladin is granted his powers through his piety to his deity, his god has grounds to remove his patron-ship. The deity gave a command, and regardless of reasoning, the paladin disobeyed. So the paladin should have fallen.
But, since he was still acting within the purview of his alignment and code, I would, as others suggested, allow the paladin to draw power from a higher, 'truer' power source, his own conviction. He exemplifies what it means to be a paladin. Granted, one undergoing a moral and emotional crisis of faith.
Now, if the paladin doesn't try to be one anymore, such as quitting and retiring, I wouldn't give her any chance of regaining her powers.
If the player does decide to forge onward, she should receive he powers. I would go further and possible adapt parts of Complete Scoundrel's Gray Guard PrC and give her the flexibility of the code he PrC entails.
I honestly would have stripped her of powers, but I would definitely tell the player there is an excellent chance of regaining them by just trying to be a paladin.
WarColonel wrote: I've just read every post in this long discussion, and now my 2 cp.
The paladin was acting in alignment. Falling because he chooses no to follow a morally gray command from his deity w/o explanation is not grounds for him to be stripped of his powers, in and of itself.
But, since in the campaign setting the paladin is granted his powers through his piety to his deity, his god has grounds to remove his patron-ship. The deity gave a command, and regardless of reasoning, the paladin disobeyed. So the paladin should have fallen.
But, since he was still acting within the purview of his alignment and code, I would, as others suggested, allow the paladin to draw power from a higher, 'truer' power source, his own conviction. He exemplifies what it means to be a paladin. Granted, one undergoing a moral and emotional crisis of faith.
Now, if the paladin doesn't try to be one anymore, such as quitting and retiring, I wouldn't give her any chance of regaining her powers.
If the player does decide to forge onward, she should receive he powers. I would go further and possible adapt parts of Complete Scoundrel's Gray Guard PrC and give her the flexibility of the code he PrC entails.
I honestly would have stripped her of powers, but I would definitely tell the player there is an excellent chance of regaining them by just trying to be a paladin.
this is exactly what i was going for (if you notice my previous posts about wanting to do this) the problem is the PLAYER just wants her to 'retire" and I just don't see how she would??? maybe he is just tired of playing the char?
in anycase Im probrobly going to NPC the paladin ( with his permisstion) and if it gets to the point where she gets her powers back im 99% certain he will then jump bandwagon back to the char...
this week..
Cooper dragons and how they are bounty hunting a good party.......(It needs to prevent them, as they are the destroyers of this realm!)
Black dragons.. and why they hate cooper dragons so much that it is going to try to HELP the party......(of course it wants the all the gods to fall)
Interesting that the party has a TON of mis-information, and i would believe 99% of both worlds would have the wrong information....
what happends when they all ACT on it?
He,He,He
Dragonslie wrote: this is exactly what i was going for (if you notice my previous posts about wanting to do this) the problem is the PLAYER just wants her to 'retire" and I just don't see how she would??? maybe he is just tired of playing the char?
in anycase Im probrobly going to NPC the paladin ( with his permisstion) and if it gets to the point where she gets her powers back im 99% certain he will then jump bandwagon back to the char...
this week..
Cooper dragons and how they are bounty hunting a good party.......(It needs to prevent them, as they are the destroyers of this realm!)
Black dragons.. and why they hate cooper dragons so much...
Actually, I could see the Paladin just as likely suffering a crisis of faith and going to spend a few lifetimes meditating in a monastery for guidance. After all, his god did pretty much screw him royally for doing what was right.
As hard as it is to be a paladin, what happens when you find that the forces of "good" arent really that good? Its been known to destroy the best of men....
But by abandoning attempting to " prevent the gods from warring" which is his ENTIRE REASON for telling the god NO. pretty much goes against EVERYTHING and the very REASON and CORE of the char.
Dragonslie wrote: But by abandoning attempting to " prevent the gods from warring" which is his ENTIRE REASON for telling the god NO. pretty much goes against EVERYTHING and the very REASON and CORE of the char. Funny thing.
The DM doesn't get to determine what the "REASON and CORE" of the characters is - that's solely the player's discretion.
enrious wrote: Dragonslie wrote: But by abandoning attempting to " prevent the gods from warring" which is his ENTIRE REASON for telling the god NO. pretty much goes against EVERYTHING and the very REASON and CORE of the char. Funny thing.
The DM doesn't get to determine what the "REASON and CORE" of the characters is - that's solely the player's discretion. he played the CHAR for 3 years. You don't think that gives the DM ANY insight over the char's values???????
thats a foolish statement.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I knew a man for seven years and served three overseas tours with him.
I was still stunned when he took his own life.
The DM does not have final say on what is and is not in character for a PC. The player does. The DM can disagree, but that is all.
on to other news. I Spoke with the player today, and he agreed that playing the character and the ability to find 'Inner strength" is something she would probably do. and that gaining the abilities back over a period of time by "doing something that shows conviction" is an appropriate way to handle this.
Thanks to all...
Now.... to see how he handles a copper good dragon coming after the party.....
Congratulations, Dragonslie. I'm glad to hear the paladin's player has chosen to continue with the character. Hopefully they'll find playing through the adversity rewarding, even if you had to tip your hand a bit to convince him. :)
Edit: Wow was I Ninja'ed
I can say that, if I had been playing a character for 3 years who was a devoted follower of a god that inspired the character to become a Paladin only to encounter that god and found them... lacking, I'd see that as a good reason to have the character retire. My faith has been proven false, the afterlife I was hoping for is out of reach and probably not desired now anyways. I'd see this as a good reason to retire.
Now, as a player, I might not give my DM my entire train of thought on why I'm retiring the character, especially if I think they might take it badly. "I'm retiring my charcter because my god is an @#$..." could be taken as an insult towards their DMing by some. Just because you have insight into a player doesn't mean you know everything going on in his or her head. I've been playing with many of the same people for over a decade and we still surprise each other all the time.
Skaorn wrote: Edit: Wow was I Ninja'ed
I can say that, if I had been playing a character for 3 years who was a devoted follower of a god that inspired the character to become a Paladin only to encounter that god and found them... lacking, I'd see that as a good reason to have the character retire. My faith has been proven false, the afterlife I was hoping for is out of reach and probably not desired now anyways. I'd see this as a good reason to retire.
Now, as a player, I might not give my DM my entire train of thought on why I'm retiring the character, especially if I think they might take it badly. "I'm retiring my charcter because my god is an @#$..." could be taken as an insult towards their DMing by some. Just because you have insight into a player doesn't mean you know everything going on in his or her head. I've been playing with many of the same people for over a decade and we still surprise each other all the time.
the player and I have known each other a VERY long time. and when he said He lost faith in his god i agreed, and even said he was right, But at the end of the day everyone in my group agreed that the GOD in question would probably try to LIVE and this is the aftermath.
after I explained to him that the char could become a "true becon of good" he realized that the char prob wouldn't abandon the quest.
the point is that he stood up to the god for what the char believe was the TRUE good and TRUE law.
so in essence she lost her powers because of what she believed in. (He didn't mind that because as he said what could he ask for thats the ONLY way a paladin fail, believing what she believes in.)
and that why i was somewhat upset about it. If she believes in this so much why would she not go on the quest that VALIDATES her beliefs.
the REALLY cool part is when i mentioned that just starting the quest would probrobly allow him an aspect of his power back, he refused saying he wanted to "earn them' back.
we also agreed once this transformation is complete to an independent paladin from a god, she would never be dependent on the gods for her powers.(A first for anyone in any of the games I've played or DMed.)
so yes interesting interesting.
I have another friend who is coming tommorrow. Since the party is PL 15 im going to allow him to play the black dragon. He hasn't decided if he would play it or not but if he does it will be interesting. The CR of the dragon is 15. ( He DM's other games for long periods so i have no problems with this) and the other players I do not believe will mind. Knowing it is an NPC.
onto the copper dragon :) ... straight out of the book... or...Should i change it? any suggestions or arch tpes you guys wanna throw at me?
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
