|
Kender's info says they have to disruptive. "You just don't understand Kender" is actually says in their description if you get upset wioth their "borrowing" of your stuff.There are also people who want to play builds that would be disruptive in some games, because those are the kinds of things they want to play. Kender players come to mind, for example.
And if a GM doesn't say upfront that isn't acceptable, the same people attack that GM for not being clear upfront.
100%. But they were a setting appropriate playable race, so for a GM to say no would be "cruel" in some peoples estimation.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is an option. I agree that you and AdrianGM have the right to tell a player who really wants to play a paladin "the entire rest of the party is chaotic, so no paladins." However, I personally would much rather say "the entire rest of the party is chaotic, how do you feel about playing a CG paladin with a slightly different code that we would work out together?"
For me, preserving the classic LG paladin is just not worth telling a player that he can't play the character he wants to play.
|
I've been wanting to play the Christian Knight version of the paladin forever. There is only two problems.
1. I can't be a neutral good sort of paladin (I believe the Christian philosophy to be neutral good -- especially given Christ being so moderate when it came to teaching.)
2. Most people hate paladins, but I'd have to bring my copy of Pendragon to the table and say: "I want to play a paladin like this."
I thought about playing a spell-less paladin myself. I think there's an option in UA besides CW, but I'm not sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a player only wanting to play one thing shows a lack of creatively on the part of the player. I can't remember the last time I haven't offered multiple options of things I would like to play to the GM to discuss with me and choose from. But YMMV.
That's not a lack of creativity. If someone wants to play Soccer and someone tells them to play American Football instead, that's not a lack of creativity if the player is disappointed or rejecting of that idea. Maybe he simply doesn't want to play American Football.
I have a player who plays with us sometimes (he used to play with us frequently but joined the Army a while back and so we only really get to hang out when he's home). I grew up with him as a teenager. We've played for a while and he's tried quite a few things and has found what he likes.
He generally likes playing things like Barbarians.
He really enjoyed playing a Psion for a caster (he deals with PP better than spell-slots).
His tolerance of the spell-slot system pretty much stops at Bard/Sorcerer.
He hates playing anything with a focus on prepared casting (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) because he doesn't find it fun at all as a mechanic.
For him, one end of the spectrum is really fun, yet the other end is simply anti-fun. This is the beauty of the d20 system. Mechanics play differently. Playing a Barbarian is DRASTICALLY different than playing a Fighter, even though at the end of the day they are both martials who don't use magic to beat people up. Their gameplay is different.
So when someone wants to play a *class that plays like a Paladin* then their options are: Paladin. The problem is the Paladin has a very specific playstyle that sets it apart from a gamist perspective, but is also one of the most restricted classes in terms of availability and ease of use. Not due to complex mechanics but instead do to forced fluff and the certainty that it's not even appropriate for many campaigns or any party not primarily good.
You cannot play a Barbarian like a Paladin. That is to say you can play a Barbarian with as much honor, justice, goodness, and even a special creed that the Barbarian stands for, and RP-wise he's a Paladin. But mechanically a Paladin is a Paladin. So if the player's idea of fun is being a primary tank with self-heal options and powerful metaphysical defenses who also fights as a martial and has some team-support options, well...no other class does that.
Every class can capture the flavor of the Paladin, proving that the Paladin's fluff is worth less than the paper it's printed. Not every class can capture the mechanical aspects of the Paladin which are or would be fun for many people.
I think a player only wanting to play one thing shows a lack of creatively on the part of the player. I can't remember the last time I haven't offered multiple options of things I would like to play to the GM to discuss with me and choose from. But YMMV.That's not a lack of creativity. If someone wants to play Soccer and someone tells them to play American Football instead, that's not a lack of creativity if the player is disappointed or rejecting of that idea. Maybe he simply doesn't want to play American Football.
I have a player who plays with us sometimes (he used to play with us frequently but joined the Army a while back and so we only really get to hang out when he's home). I grew up with him as a teenager. We've played for a while and he's tried quite a few things and has found what he likes.
He generally likes playing things like Barbarians.
He really enjoyed playing a Psion for a caster (he deals with PP better than spell-slots).
His tolerance of the spell-slot system pretty much stops at Bard/Sorcerer.
He hates playing anything with a focus on prepared casting (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) because he doesn't find it fun at all as a mechanic.For him, one end of the spectrum is really fun, yet the other end is simply anti-fun. This is the beauty of the d20 system. Mechanics play differently. Playing a Barbarian is DRASTICALLY different than playing a Fighter, even though at the end of the day they are both martials who don't use magic to beat people up. Their gameplay is different.
So when someone wants to play a *class that plays like a Paladin* then their options are: Paladin. The problem is the Paladin has a very specific playstyle that sets it apart from a gamist perspective, but is also one of the most restricted classes in terms of availability and ease of use. Not due to complex mechanics but instead do to forced fluff and the certainty that it's not even appropriate for many campaigns or any party not primarily good.
You cannot play a Barbarian like a...
I largely agree with Ashiel here.
I think it would be a really good thing if alignments were divorced from core classes and applied as an optional rule similar to vows. I don't think that there is any argument related to mechanical balance is there?
|
We had a similar conversation at the table yesterday. While judging PFS, the Paladin stepped up to Coup-de-gras the enemy. I asked if he was sure he wanted to do that. Several campaigns and iterations of D&D consider coup-de-gras to be an evil act.
My point is: If he was playing a Lawful Good fighter, I would consider it a minor stain on his soul. Not worth penalizing. A Paladin has to be held to a higher standard. If there is any doubt to the validity of an action, then it IS against the Paladin's extremely rigid code. Played properly, no action taken or not taken by a Paladin should ever need defending.
(This does not exclude using intelligent tactics such as flanking, tripping, AOO's and the like.)
We had a similar conversation at the table yesterday. While judging PFS, the Paladin stepped up to Coup-de-gras the enemy. I asked if he was sure he wanted to do that. Several campaigns and iterations of D&D consider coup-de-gras to be an evil act.
My point is: If he was playing a Lawful Good fighter, I would consider it a minor stain on his soul. Not worth penalizing. A Paladin has to be held to a higher standard. If there is any doubt to the validity of an action, then it IS against the Paladin's extremely rigid code. Played properly, no action taken or not taken by a Paladin should ever need defending.
(This does not exclude using intelligent tactics such as flanking, tripping, AOO's and the like.)
This is the problem. There is not "played properly". What is one person's idea of playing properly can be wildly different from another's. There you were judging the Paladin for something that is just a normal part of combat. Literally no different than flanking, AoOs, and the like. The code of conduct is vague and ties into alignment which people haven't agreed over since its conception.
At the end of the day I could say "Well, your Paladin is harming others which is evil, so your Paladin falls" where Harming is smacking with a sword and others is an Orc Barbarian and be justified. You could say "Well that's stupid" and turn around and decide that using a combat action, coup de grace, is evil and the Paladin should fall. Then someone else would say "That's stupid" and say that coup de grace is fine because it means a mercy blow, but flanking is bad because it's an unfair disadvantage and is dishonorable; and then round and round we go!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of what a Paladin should be...
Is anyone else here remembering that Rangers used to have to be Good aligned? Does anyone else after that recall that when Rangers could be of any alignment (in 3.0) you could only have a favored enemy of your creature type if you were Evil?
Does anyone here notice these aren't so? Does anyone here notice the sky isn't falling? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Played properly, no action taken or not taken by a Paladin should ever need defending.
(This does not exclude using intelligent tactics such as flanking, tripping, AOO's and the like.)
These two statements are contradictory. People have argued that paladins shouldn't be allowed to flank, trip, or take AoO's - in fact, I seem to remember that the Cavalier code from 1e explicitly called out "benefiting from flanking" as one of the only forbidden actions. People have also argued that paladins cannot use ranged weapons and cannot go first in combat. Meanwhile, other people will argue that a paladin is perfectly free to coup de grace.
What is obviously okay to you is dishonorable for someone else, and vice-versa.
Depending on who you're talking to, any action a paladin takes needs defending except for sending a letter to the villain issuing a formal challenge to meet on the field of battle in a week's time where the paladin shall, after the villain initiates hostilities, hit for direct but nonlethal damage to safely knock the villain unconscious, then deliver the villain to the proper authorities where a formal trial can be held. And even then, someone will complain that the paladin needs to get an arrest warrant in advance.
Speaking of what a Paladin should be...
Is anyone else here remembering that Rangers used to have to be Good aligned? Does anyone else after that recall that when Rangers could be of any alignment (in 3.0) you could only have a favored enemy of your creature type if you were Evil?
Does anyone here notice these aren't so? Does anyone here notice the sky isn't falling? :P
Give how perfectly they fit as forest stalkers, killing trespassers who enter the ancient forests, rangers in my setting are probably closer to 60% being evil.
Ah the old only yours if you are evil rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We had a similar conversation at the table yesterday. While judging PFS, the Paladin stepped up to Coup-de-gras the enemy. I asked if he was sure he wanted to do that. Several campaigns and iterations of D&D consider coup-de-gras to be an evil act.
My point is: If he was playing a Lawful Good fighter, I would consider it a minor stain on his soul. Not worth penalizing. A Paladin has to be held to a higher standard. If there is any doubt to the validity of an action, then it IS against the Paladin's extremely rigid code. Played properly, no action taken or not taken by a Paladin should ever need defending.
(This does not exclude using intelligent tactics such as flanking, tripping, AOO's and the like.)
--
Coup de grace is evil? I never knew. You know it means to end the suffering of the severely wounded right? It denotes mercy killing.
You don't heal them up and have them fight a few more terrifying rounds, you end it cleanly. I had a good cavalier that used it a lot without wrath or evil intent, yes, he used it in the old sense of the term with a heavy mace.
Uttering apologies "I'm really sorry about this", or that "it will all be over soon."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be sure to have my character say that the next time he CdG a sleeping child. ;)
Maybe in a situation like this.
I'll be sure to have my character say that the next time he CdG a sleeping child. ;)
Maybe in a situation like this.
You've just doubled my interest in Fate Zero. Why the hell haven't I watched this yet?
Yes, I've read killing children is an evil act, could you clarify on coup de grace though?
|
|
I think a player only wanting to play one thing shows a lack of creatively on the part of the player. I can't remember the last time I haven't offered multiple options of things I would like to play to the GM to discuss with me and choose from. But YMMV.That's not a lack of creativity. If someone wants to play Soccer and someone tells them to play American Football instead, that's not a lack of creativity if the player is disappointed or rejecting of that idea. Maybe he simply doesn't want to play American Football.
There's also the fact that even if you're flexible about the kind of character you play, it's easy for a particular concept to keep getting shelved due to lack of an appropriate campaign. This can get frustrating after a while. I've had a warforged mystic theurge I've been holding onto for 4-5 campaigns now because he doesn't seem to fit in any of the campaigns we're playing.
Let's say you want to play a tiefling paladin, someone seeking to transcend their fiendish blood. But the first campaign after you come up with the idea is in an asian setting, so you decide to pull out a ninja instead. The next campaign has a fighter, a cleric, and a cavalier in it, so you decide the party needs a wizard more than it needs a paladin. The next campaign the GM says "sorry, I want fiendish blood to be really corrupting in this one, a tiefling paladin doesn't fit." The fourth one everyone else is playing Chaotic characters.
When do you get to play your paladin?
ROBOT MYSTIIIIIC!
Tiefling pally could work if part oni demon somewhere in the far past.
|
|
And of course there is the fact that not every concept fits every setting, and so if you can't come up with a concept that does fit a setting, is that demonstrating creatively? Because it seems like a lack to me...
And an inability to play more than one thing isn't exactly demonstrating creativity either...so I'm not sure what that point was illustrating...
I mean, honestly if someone is a one trick pony player, isn't that going to get boring for everyone else at the table after awhile watching them keep playing the same thing over and over again?
I mean, I guess if it works at your table...maybe you like watching Wapner or something...
|
|
I think a player only wanting to play one thing shows a lack of creatively on the part of the player. I can't remember the last time I haven't offered multiple options of things I would like to play to the GM to discuss with me and choose from. But YMMV.That's not a lack of creativity. If someone wants to play Soccer and someone tells them to play American Football instead, that's not a lack of creativity if the player is disappointed or rejecting of that idea. Maybe he simply doesn't want to play American Football.There's also the fact that even if you're flexible about the kind of character you play, it's easy for a particular concept to keep getting shelved due to lack of an appropriate campaign. This can get frustrating after a while. I've had a warforged mystic theurge I've been holding onto for 4-5 campaigns now because he doesn't seem to fit in any of the campaigns we're playing.
Let's say you want to play a tiefling paladin, someone seeking to transcend their fiendish blood. But the first campaign after you come up with the idea is in an asian setting, so you decide to pull out a ninja instead. The next campaign has a fighter, a cleric, and a cavalier in it, so you decide the party needs a wizard more than it needs a paladin. The next campaign the GM says "sorry, I want fiendish blood to be really corrupting in this one, a tiefling paladin doesn't fit." The fourth one everyone else is playing Chaotic characters.
When do you get to play your paladin?
When you find a GM who has a setting that fits that concept. In my experience, this usually happens when you say to a GM who is looking for ideas "Hey, I have this concept I've been thinking about, any ideas for a setting where it might make sense?"
And if the GM likes you, and you run interesting characters, something gets worked out.
And this is all much, much better than trying to plug a square peg character into a round hole setting and derailing the whole game, in my experience.
But YMMV.
I prefer to keep RPing to RPing and not mechanics. Mechanics are like physics. You don't roleplay physics.
I don't just disagree with this viewpoint, I find it to be false.
The rules of an RPG impact the roleplaying within that game. You might not realize that they're doing it, but they do none the less.
For example, the discussion on Tieflings being allowed, or not, to be paladins tells us something about the game world through mechanics. We learn something of the philosophy represented within a story.
Disallowed: It tells us that who we are (heritage and past experiences) is extremely important. You can never run from your past, you can struggle against it, but your victory will never be complete. Consequences are permanent. Destiny is greater than free will.
Allowed: The choices you make and continue to make are more important than your past. Choices have consequences, but how you deal with those consequences are just as important, if not more important. Free will being greater than destiny.
Mechanics that feed into and from roleplaying are much more effective mechanics.
When I'm designing a game or creating a campaign, I always limit player choice. Those limits help define the setting and inform the players about their surroundings. I then make sure that within those limits, the players have a lot of authority to choose and create the characters they want to play.
It's one of the flaws of PF, D&D, Shadowrun and similar games. I can pick up a character sheet and read it, but unless the player is present for me to ask questions, I don't know WHY that character wants to do anything. The sheet has all sorts of information about how they do stuff, but not why. I tend towards all the classes that you described as having a flaw because of their restrictions, specifically because they have those restrictions.
In a CoT game, I played a clouded vision Oracle with the Lost Nobility trait. He had been blinded in a fire when his family had been killed during in fighting in Cheliax. It told me WHY he wanted to do things during the campaign.
|
|
If in your game you want to throw out anything that gets in the way of a player playing exactly what they want, how they want, regardless of the logic of the created setting or the design of the rules, and verisimilitude be damned, no one is in charge unless they exist only to tell you that you are correct, and that works for you, great.
I wouldn't want someone who doesn't have a clear vision or who doesn't value form to be in charge of my game, and I wouldn't want a player who is uninterested in exploring the vision of the GM to be at my table, either as a fellow player or someone I am GMing for.
To me it's like having someone in your foxhole who doesn't understand why they should play flashlight tag, because "It's fun!"
|
|
I don't just disagree with this viewpoint, I find it to be false.The rules of an RPG impact the roleplaying within that game. You might not realize that they're doing it, but they do none the less.
For example, the discussion on Tieflings being allowed, or not, to be paladins tells us something about the game world through mechanics. We learn something of the philosophy represented within a story.
Disallowed: It tells us that who we are (heritage and past experiences) is extremely important. You can never run from your past, you can struggle against it, but your victory will never be complete. Consequences are permanent. Destiny is greater than free will.
Allowed: The choices you make and continue to make are more important than your past. Choices have consequences, but how you deal with those consequences are just as important, if not more important. Free will being greater than destiny.
.
Well put. If you aren't interested in the setting, and what you bring to the game is all that matters to you, that to me is disruptive.
It's like if we all sat down to play Cards Against Humanity and you show up with Settlers of Cataan and demand we all play that. It isn't that Settlers isn't a fun game, but that wasn't what we agreed to play, so why did you come if you weren't interested in the game we agreed to, why did you show up and cause problems?
|
|
Paladins would act as if they were under the restrictions of the modern day 'Rules of Engagement'.
In our modern military operations, in any combat situation the soldiers are operating under RoE specific to that incident. The reasons for this usually stem from the political needs for the conflict in the first place.
For example, when rescuing hostages it is usually permitted to shoot terrorists on sight, while in 'peacekeeping' duties they may only fire if fired upon.
It will be similar with paladins (and other soldier types). What is defined as 'honourable' is, like it or not, situational.
For example, if engaged in an official duel it would be dishonourable to use ranged weapons, or start before the opponent is ready, or coup de grace the opponent if the fight was to 'first blood'.
But not all combat situations have the same expectations of what 'honourable' behaviour means. In modern warfare it is assumed that prisoners are not executed, and this idea goes back a long way. However, it was certainly an option to fight 'with no quarter given or expected', which means 'to the death; no prisoners', resulting in any incapacitated enemy being CdG'd. The french even used to fly a special flag, the 'Oriflamme', to indicate this to the enemy.
It is also honourable to declare war on a nation, before engaging in hostilities. This was why America was so incensed by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, when the declaration of war was delivered after the attack had started.
When you're rescuing hostages, there is no need to tell the terrorists that the rescue operation will start in ten minutes, or even that you plan to launch a rescue assault at all!
If the military objective was to infiltrate an enemy compound at night to rescue hostages, and slit the throats of the guards before they can make a sound and alert the defenders, the paladin is under no obligation to tap the guard on the shoulder and offer a formal duel, 'But please don't shout to your mates!'
I don't just disagree with this viewpoint, I find it to be false.The rules of an RPG impact the roleplaying within that game. You might not realize that they're doing it, but they do none the less.
For example, the discussion on Tieflings being allowed, or not, to be paladins tells us something about the game world through mechanics. We learn something of the philosophy represented within a story.
Disallowed: It tells us that who we are (heritage and past experiences) is extremely important. You can never run from your past, you can struggle against it, but your victory will never be complete. Consequences are permanent. Destiny is greater than free will.
Allowed: The choices you make and continue to make are more important than your past. Choices have consequences, but how you deal with those consequences are just as important, if not more important. Free will being greater than destiny.
.Well put. If you aren't interested in the setting, and what you bring to the game is all that matters to you, that to me is disruptive.
It's like if we all sat down to play Cards Against Humanity and you show up with Settlers of Cataan and demand we all play that. It isn't that Settlers isn't a fun game, but that wasn't what we agreed to play, so why did you come if you weren't interested in the game we agreed to, why did you show up and cause problems?
I try to be pretty agreeable and accommodating with my games. If you really want to play a Ninja, but they don't exactly exist in my game, I'll help you create a way to include them. They might not exist exactly as you're used to playing them in other campaigns, but we'll get to the core idea of what it is you like about them and include that.
Mostly I just find that a setting/game is better when it starts with fewer options. As time goes on, expanding that list and adding exceptions is cool and fun. The theme/tone/mood has already been established, so you can push the boundaries and add new elements.
I'm working on a "new" character creation method at the moment. I'm borrowing some ideas from Paizo's newest editor, Ryan Macklin, from another game he did to try and get players to think about who the character is before they even write one thing on their character sheet. Trying to design it to take about 30 minutes, be done in a group setting and then roll right into normal character generation. My hope is that it helps the players have a better sense of who the PC's are from the start, provide more material for the GM to use to create engaging stories and be easy to modify for each campaign (or even other kinds of games). I'll have a thread in the homebrew section on it once I have it done and we make characters with it (about 2 weeks from now).
|
|
It is much easier for a player to come up with a new concept than for a GM to create a new setting.
I'll work with a player if they have a concept that 'could' exist, more so if it is a player who has shown they will try and fit in like the one listed in the OP, but at the end of the day I'm not herding anyone into a setting they don't want to play, if they can't come up with a concept that fits the setting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you find a GM who has a setting that fits that concept. In my experience, this usually happens when you say to a GM who is looking for ideas "Hey, I have this concept I've been thinking about, any ideas for a setting where it might make sense?"
The GMs I know have too many ideas for that. They are chain-campaigners. The idea for the next campaign is usually well in development before the current campaign ends. One GM who knows I've had a warforged theurge on my "future characters" list for a while is planning a campaign which is particularly unsuited to warforged. Which is fine, because he's tentatively approved my lawful monk-barbarian pending a campaign-suitable backstory. Which I suggested because he's the guy who played the CG paladin and I knew he wouldn't let an alignment restriction get in the way of a good character concept.
Mechanics that feed into and from roleplaying are much more effective mechanics.
When I'm designing a game or creating a campaign, I always limit player choice. Those limits help define the setting and inform the players about their surroundings. I then make sure that within those limits, the players have a lot of authority to choose and create the characters they want to play.
And sometimes it makes sense to do that for a campaign, but that's campaign specific - if you are playing a humans-only campaign, or one in which only elves are wizards, or one in which wizards are all-male and witches are all-female, you would not expect to see these limitations reflected in the core published materials.
It's one of the flaws of PF, D&D, Shadowrun and similar games. I can pick up a character sheet and read it, but unless the player is present for me to ask questions, I don't know WHY that character wants to do anything. The sheet has all sorts of information about how they do stuff, but not why. I tend towards all the classes that you described as having a flaw because of their restrictions, specifically because they have those restrictions.
In a CoT game, I played a clouded vision Oracle with the Lost Nobility trait. He had been blinded in a fire when his family had been killed during in fighting in Cheliax. It told me WHY he wanted to do things during the campaign.
Except that seeing the "Clouded Vision" curse wouldn't have told you that he lost his sight in a meaningful way. You still would have needed to ask. Mechanical choices can lead to and support interesting RP, but they don't always and it's possible to create an interesting character largely or wholly divorced from mechanics. In fact mechanics can just as easily stereotype a character, for example if you assume all druids are vegetarians because they revere nature, or if you assume that all barbarians have a temper because of rage. The monk-barbarian I mentioned above is an interesting concept particularly because it defies the typical restriction and merges two character concepts you normally wouldn't see together.
If in your game you want to throw out anything that gets in the way of a player playing exactly what they want, how they want, regardless of the logic of the created setting or the design of the rules, and verisimilitude be damned, no one is in charge unless they exist only to tell you that you are correct, and that works for you, great.
I wouldn't want someone who doesn't have a clear vision or who doesn't value form to be in charge of my game, and I wouldn't want a player who is uninterested in exploring the vision of the GM to be at my table, either as a fellow player or someone I am GMing for.
I'm not talking about throwing out all logic or ignoring the setting when designing characters. I'm talking about the fact that the GM and player should work together to come up with a character that is both true to the player's concept and also fits well into the campaign. And that if published class restrictions get in the way of that it might be time to waive the restrictions.
I try to be pretty agreeable and accommodating with my games. If you really want to play a Ninja, but they don't exactly exist in my game, I'll help you create a way to include them. They might not exist exactly as you're used to playing them in other campaigns, but we'll get to the core idea of what it is you like about them and include that.
Which is what I'm advocating - modifying the traditional flavour and restrictions of a class, especially alignment restrictions, if it better fits the character concept and campaign than the standard version.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And sometimes it makes sense to do that for a campaign, but that's campaign specific - if you are playing a humans-only campaign, or one in which only elves are wizards, or one in which wizards are all-male and witches are all-female, you would not expect to see these limitations reflected in the core published materials.Mechanics that feed into and from roleplaying are much more effective mechanics.
When I'm designing a game or creating a campaign, I always limit player choice. Those limits help define the setting and inform the players about their surroundings. I then make sure that within those limits, the players have a lot of authority to choose and create the characters they want to play.
Not making a choice is still a choice. When you allow everything from published material you are creating a hodgepodge campaign that lacks a sense of direction. You can try and use other methods to give it that direction again, but now you're working harder in other areas.
An analogy from another favorite hobby of mine, canoeing. I can paddle a canoe pretty far using just my upper body. By engaging my core muscles and legs I can go further, faster and be less tired at the end of the day.
Not using tools, such as picking which classes/races are available, is fine. You can do it and have a great campaign.
On the other hand, using such tools means that your creative energies in other areas of the campaign can be utilized more efficiently and effectively.
IMO, restrictions are also made to be broken. Then we get to explore and answer why it happened.
Good points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What sticks in my craw was once I was penalized as a Paladin for executing a captured bandit.
Now these bandits were murderers without a doubt and the surrendered bandit admitted to murdering wayfarers. The group was on a mission that could not be delayed.
My paladin basically took the position that in this case he could act as a Officer of the law and executed the prisoner by hanging the gave them a decent burial...yet was still penalized and had to atone for killing a surrendered prisoner.
I would say that a Paladin should have the power of Low and High Justice as needed if there are no local Law Dogs around...just my 2 cents.
|
|
3.5 Loyalist,
In the case I mentioned, when the final bad guy dropped, the paladin player immediately states "I coup de grace him." No context of mercy was mentioned. As judge, I felt that a paladin should be above doing a coup de grace without justification. If he had role-played it better, and stated "this creature is irrevacably evil and I will put it out of it's misery" I would probably tolerate the CdG. However, a paladin has the power to stabilize a dying creature and bring it to the authorities. To me CdG without justification is the same as attacking a helpless creature. When a Rogue does it, he is being pragmatic. When a paladin does it he is acting beneath his station.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My paladin basically took the position that in this case he could act as a Officer of the law and executed the prisoner by hanging the gave them a decent burial...yet was still penalized and had to atone for killing a surrendered prisoner.
I would say that a Paladin should have the power of Low and High Justice as needed if there are no local Law Dogs around...just my 2 cents.
Huh. You know, my immediate response is "giving people the power of Low and High Justice is asking for them to abuse it." But with Paladins, you have a really easy way to tell- do they still have their powers? Yes? Okay then, they still retain the authority.
I can imagine a group of investigators tracking down a Paladin to question him over an incident.
"Do you believe what you did was both Lawful and Righteous"
"Yes."
"Okay. Can you lay on hands to heal this scratch on my arm?"
"Um... I've exhausted my uses for the day."
"That's fine sir, we can try it tomorrow."
"Uh...."
"Sir? You're under arrest."
Huh. You know, my immediate response is "giving people the power of Low and High Justice is asking for them to abuse it." But with Paladins, you have a really easy way to tell- do they still have their powers? Yes? Okay then, they still retain the authority.
I can imagine a group of investigators tracking down a Paladin to question him over an incident.
"Do you believe what you did was both Lawful and Righteous"
"Yes."
"Okay. Can you lay on hands to heal this scratch on my arm?"
"Um... I've exhausted my uses for the day."
"That's fine sir, we can try it tomorrow."
"Uh...."
"Sir? You're under arrest."
"I've been cursed with a Bestow curse I can't heal another with my powers without someone removing my curse first. Sorry, I must be on my way..."
3.5 Loyalist,
In the case I mentioned, when the final bad guy dropped, the paladin player immediately states "I coup de grace him." No context of mercy was mentioned. As judge, I felt that a paladin should be above doing a coup de grace without justification. If he had role-played it better, and stated "this creature is irrevacably evil and I will put it out of it's misery" I would probably tolerate the CdG. However, a paladin has the power to stabilize a dying creature and bring it to the authorities. To me CdG without justification is the same as attacking a helpless creature. When a Rogue does it, he is being pragmatic. When a paladin does it he is acting beneath his station.
Justification? I imagine the justification was that the final bad guy, was a very very bad guy.
Killing evil, powerful and resourceful evil should not cause a paladin to fall or need atonement.
It is not up to the player to try and lawyer you and win with rhetoric, paladins smite evil, and this one didn't want to give the big bad a chance to get up, escape, come back. Good prevailed, and then it was punished. :(
Poor form.
The villain was indeed helpless, but they were not helpless, innocent and good. They fall if they attack and kill the just and good, not the unjust.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it comes down to a GM communicating the expectations of the setting, after discussing the concept with the player.
@Weirdo - Why is it ok to say a warforged concept is unsuited to a campaign, and that not be a problem, but saying that a setting is going to follow the traditional Paladin expectations is a problem?
This is what really throws me in these conversations. It sounds like you have found a very flexible GM in one respect who is rigid in another respect. But that rigidity you appreciate for setting consistency, but the other restriction is "bad".
Trying to stay true to the characters concept comes after you figure out if the concept fits the setting.
Not specifically from you, but there is a lot of conversation from some about how the GM needs to be creative and open minded to find ways to make the setting allow for unusual concepts, but not a lot of conversation from those same people about how to find creative ways to make a character that fits into the setting.
|
|
IN the above example was the Paladin engaging the BBG directly? If not why not. Did the BBG ask for quater? IF the BBG asked for quarter the Paladin would be obligated to except his request for Quarter.
From the compiled writings of Talbot True Hart
IT is hard to be a Paladin. As far as bring a Paladin in a party don’t be a boar work with your friends to advance the cause of Law and or good at all times. Try to prevent your friends form committing acts that would imperil them like Coup de grace. Most foes can be redeemed. Restrain foes that have surrendered or have been rendered out cold and turn them over to the authorities to be judged. Unless they be outsiders of an evil nature and of Chaos or be of a Demonic nature. Then those are to be destroyed and theie essence sent back to their home plane saving all sentient creatures on the material plane. Outsiders of a lawful Nature that have fallen to evil have opportunity to be redeemed summon an angelic power and give over the malefactor over to them for judgment.
Serve your god first your comrades second and do your best by both and you shall be rewarded in this life and in the afterlife.
These are things a paladin should strive for.
As for adventuring with comrades of a chaotic nature if the be of a goodly bent engage them and try to get them to walk the path of Law the same goes for those of neutral bent in regards to chaos. If thee should find one that is of both Chaos and evil then it your duty to slay that one as quickly as one can that that one does not corrupt the rest of they comrades. That is why you have been gifted with the power to smite evil by your god or goddess. Not for going adventuring and slaying the random monster you may run into, [Though it is quite useful for that.] but for protecting those that have not been as gifted by the gods as you. Remember that you are not only the mighty arm of your gods justice but the protector of your gods flock as well.
Be true to your God your friends and your country and you shall have served your god well indeed.
Talbot True Hart
Paladin of the Inheritor
Well Cir, I don't like warforged but I do like golems. The dm made a mistake though, because he could have had a few side quests with great horror potential. Imagine a warforged realising they have entered a heavily infested rust monster area, and they can't escape.
IN the above example was the Paladin engaging the BBG directly? If not why not. Did the BBG ask for quater? IF the BBG asked for quarter the Paladin would be obligated to except his request for Quarter.From the compiled writings of Talbot True Hart
IT is hard to be a Paladin. As far as bring a Paladin in a party don’t be a boar work with your friends to advance the cause of Law and or good at all times. Try to prevent your friends form committing acts that would imperil them like Coup de grace. Most foes can be redeemed. Restrain foes that have surrendered or have been rendered out cold and turn them over to the authorities to be judged. Unless they be outsiders of an evil nature and of Chaos or be of a Demonic nature. Then those are to be destroyed and theie essence sent back to their home plane saving all sentient creatures on the material plane. Outsiders of a lawful Nature that have fallen to evil have opportunity to be redeemed summon an angelic power and give over the malefactor over to them for judgment.
Serve your god first your comrades second and do your best by both and you shall be rewarded in this life and in the afterlife.
These are things a paladin should strive for.As for adventuring with comrades of a chaotic nature if the be of a goodly bent engage them and try to get them to walk the path of Law the same goes for those of neutral bent in regards to chaos. If thee should find one that is of both Chaos and evil then it your duty to slay that one as quickly as one can that that one does not corrupt the rest of they comrades. That is why you have been gifted with the power to smite evil by your god or goddess. Not for going adventuring and slaying the random monster you may run into, [Though it is quite useful for that.] but for protecting those that have not been as gifted by the gods as you. Remember that you are not only the mighty arm of your gods justice but the protector of your gods flock as well.
Be true to your God your friends and your...
I agree paladins shouldn't be boars. Perhaps a cursed/punished wereboar paladin could make sense as a tragic figure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Weirdo - Why is it ok to say a warforged concept is unsuited to a campaign, and that not be a problem, but saying that a setting is going to follow the traditional Paladin expectations is a problem?
This is what really throws me in these conversations. It sounds like you have found a very flexible GM in one respect who is rigid in another respect. But that rigidity you appreciate for setting consistency, but the other restriction is "bad".
That's because the one rigidity improves the game and the other does not. The GM saying "sorry, there's nothing remotely like warforged in this setting" is fine because that's a decision he's made specifically about the campaign. Saying "sorry, but in this setting it's really important that paladins follow the traditional alignment and code" is also fine if that's a decision the GM has specifically and intentionally made about the setting. Saying "sorry, LG paladins only because the book says so" or "You only want to play a CG paladin because you're a cheater / don't understand RP / just want more power" is not fine, because it limits player options without improving storytelling or other aspects of gameplay.
I think this is also what Irontruth was trying to say with...
Not making a choice is still a choice. When you allow everything from published material you are creating a hodgepodge campaign that lacks a sense of direction. You can try and use other methods to give it that direction again, but now you're working harder in other areas.
...
IMO, restrictions are also made to be broken. Then we get to explore and answer why it happened.
And I agree with this. First off that GMs should be able to limit items from published materials in order to build a cohesive campaign setting, and second that the GM and players should also consider restrictions from published materials to be easily breakable, especially those restrictions such as race or alignment restrictions that do not have a significant effect on game balance.
Trying to stay true to the characters concept comes after you figure out if the concept fits the setting.
Not specifically from you, but there is a lot of conversation from some about how the GM needs to be creative and open minded to find ways to make the setting allow for unusual concepts, but not a lot of conversation from those same people about how to find creative ways to make a character that fits into the setting.
I absolutely agree with this. That's why I keep repeating my belief that a good game needs a good GM, good players, and good communication.
Me: Hey GM, I was thinking of playing either a warforged theurge or a lawful monk-barbarian for your next game, what do you think?
GM: well, there are no warforged, how do you see the lawful barbarian working?
Me: A character from a warrior culture with a strong sense of honour and tradition who enters into a trance in battle, a communion with ancestors or primal spirits.
GM: OK, here's a country in my setting you could be from...
Me: That sounds great, but does the character have to be from a fighting school?
GM: What do you think of having this NPC mountain man as a teacher?
*etc*
Edited for clarity, but hopefully you get the idea that there was some back-and-forth.
@Weirdo - Why is it ok to say a warforged concept is unsuited to a campaign, and that not be a problem, but saying that a setting is going to follow the traditional Paladin expectations is a problem?
This is what really throws me in these conversations. It sounds like you have found a very flexible GM in one respect who is rigid in another respect. But that rigidity you appreciate for setting consistency, but the other restriction is "bad".
That's because the one rigidity improves the game and the other does not. The GM saying "sorry, there's nothing remotely like warforged in this setting" is fine because that's a decision he's made specifically about the campaign. Saying "sorry, but in this setting it's really important that paladins follow the traditional alignment and code" is also fine if that's a decision the GM has specifically and intentionally made about the setting. Saying "sorry, LG paladins only because the book says so" or "You only want to play a CG paladin because you're a cheater / don't understand RP / just want more power" is not fine, because it limits player options without improving storytelling or other aspects of gameplay.
I think this is also what Irontruth was trying to say with...
And I agree with this. First off that GMs should be able to limit items from published materials in order to build a cohesive campaign setting, and second that the GM and players should also consider restrictions from published materials to be easily breakable, especially those restrictions such as race or alignment restrictions that do not have a significant effect on...Not making a choice is still a choice. When you allow everything from published material you are creating a hodgepodge campaign that lacks a sense of direction. You can try and use other methods to give it that direction again, but now you're working harder in other areas.
...
IMO, restrictions are also made to be broken. Then we get to explore and answer why it happened.
Awesome. +11
|
|
@Weirdo - Why is it ok to say a warforged concept is unsuited to a campaign, and that not be a problem, but saying that a setting is going to follow the traditional Paladin expectations is a problem?
This is what really throws me in these conversations. It sounds like you have found a very flexible GM in one respect who is rigid in another respect. But that rigidity you appreciate for setting consistency, but the other restriction is "bad".
That's because the one rigidity improves the game and the other does not. The GM saying "sorry, there's nothing remotely like warforged in this setting" is fine because that's a decision he's made specifically about the campaign. Saying "sorry, but in this setting it's really important that paladins follow the traditional alignment and code" is also fine if that's a decision the GM has specifically and intentionally made about the setting. Saying "sorry, LG paladins only because the book says so" or "You only want to play a CG paladin because you're a cheater / don't understand RP / just want more power" is not fine, because it limits player options without improving storytelling or other aspects of gameplay.
It isn't just because it this setting Paladins are the traditional Paladin. Gods grant divine power to Paladins for adherence to a code, in this setting, as part of the design of the class and as understood in the setting. Being a Paladin, in the setting, has a meaning and an effect that is changed fundimentally if you remove the alignment restrictions.
That isn't just an arbitrary "Because the rules say so" thing. It is part of the trope of the class in the same way that clerics actually worshiping the god who provides them the divine powers, druids not wearing armor, etc...are part of the trope of the class. And there are benefits that come with the hinderances.
The GM isn't being mean or close minded by saying "Paladins are LG". He is saying this class gets these benefits in exchange for this behavior expectation in the same way that sorcerers and wizards suffer an arcane spell failure chance for wearing armor.
In the same way saying "Warforged aren't in this setting" is a decision the GM makes about the setting. Paladins being Lawful Good was a decision the developers made about the flavor of the class.
When you say to a player that you don't need to by Lawful to play a Paladin, you are saying "In this setting, Paladins don't need to be lawful. If you see a Paladin, you don't need to trust them and you can't assume you will be trusted. You aren't considered a paragon wherever you go, you are just a fighter who can smite. Because Paladins aren't considered special in this setting."
And that is a very, very different setting than what is described in most written work. It is a very different thing is being a Paladin means nothing that is different than being a fighter.
For many, if not most of us, removing that from the class would be like saying traditonal Druids are kind of meh about nature or Clerics are occasionally agnostic.
It makes no sense, it breaks versimilitude. It would be like asking to play Super Mario or Batman. Could you make a player that could very closely resemble them? Yes. If the setting plays into that, could it be a lot of fun? Yes.
If the rest of the table isn't into it, are you a jackass?
Yes.
And this is where everything circles back in these discussions for me, and why I think such restrictions need to be the default and should only be removed as part of a total setting revision in your home game rather than a "But I'm a good drow" kind of 'special' way.
No one is saying you can't houserule that way, but it isn't just a minor tweak, either.
In the same way saying "No warforged" means a great deal to a setting, saying "Paladin alignment is irrelevent" means a great deal to a setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the biggest fan of paladins but I agree that the restrictions of law and good should be in place. Mainly because they are shining examples of righteousness and valor. In these aspects, the main group of individuals who could perhaps match the high standards of their ideals would be honurable and chivalrous knights. If you want to do away with certain alignment restrictions of the class, you don't want to play a paladin. You just want to play a fighter with magical powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of what is great about playing a Paladin is walking into a village and having the people there trust you and your group, specifically because you are a Paladin.
It is a class that derives benefit from a well earned reputation for being exactly what it is.
That is not a listed bvenefit so it is DM only benefit. A Good DM might, but not neutral or evil DMs.