| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the alignment system sucks at describing characters that aren't specifically tailored to it, then that says a lot about the alignment system.
The good and evil axis of the alignment system really did not get added until after Arduin (third party dnd supplement)was released. The original game only had lawful, choatic, and neutral. The first version of the game to include the good /evil axis was AD&D, while basic DnD continued to use the original system of lawful/chaos. By this time, I think that the best games have moved past the simplied system of alignment.
I also find it quite funny that most who want to define a paladin strictly as a LG Knight in shining armor forget that the very first paladin was a cowboy with magic six shooters at Gary Gygax's table.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the OP (and I would know because I wrote it) is if your players are invested in playing by the rules, you don't have these conflicts because they will self police.
They will define with you in advance what a Paladin is, for the purposes of the game. And then whatever you all agreed to before hand will actually be how the person plays, because the person actually wanted to follow the rules and standards they agreed to.
Imagine that!
It is a game construct, formed by a social contract between the GM and the player as to what the code is. If that was done in advance, and neither the player or GM is a jerk, there should be no issue.
If either (or both more often it seem on here...) are a jerk, the game is FUBAR from the start anyway.
See, there are three ways to violate a player-GM contract.
1) Bad Player: The player acts in bad faith and breaks the contract (intentionally violates paladin ethics).
2) Bad GM: The GM acts in bad faith and breaks the contract (putting the player in fall-or-fall situations or otherwise making it needlessly and excessively difficult for the player to be a paladin)
3) Bad Communication: Both player and GM act in good faith, but are not clear on the details of the contract. This is why real contracts use precise legal language.
Your thread title and OP focus on issue 1 - you say that a good player will not have problems with a paladin, implying that anyone who has problems playing a paladin is not a good player. This is disrespectful to those people experiencing problems 2 or 3, the bad GM or bad communication. I think based on your post here ("so long as neither player nor GM is a jerk" / "if either are a jerk") you do understand it could be a GM problem as well. You also appear to agree that this depends on forming the social contract "in advance" and working out the communication issue. But your rhetoric in general (and the first paragraph in your above post) focuses on the player's responsibility and fault.
Personally, I expect that the most problematic thing about paladins is that a lot of people experiencing (3) will assume that the problem is either (1) or (2), because of course you understand what a paladin is so it's clearly the other guy's fault. This blame game can cause more problems than the actual alleged paladin violation. I think one of the reasons my group gets along well is that we usually assume in any conflict that the problem is due to a communication error rather than one person being a jerk.
Happy V day all. May all your paladins find cute little succubi to settle down with.
In one game, the paladin pc retired, to settle down with the bloated woman, whom the party had freed (to feed again).
http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/The_Bloated_Woman
|
I can get passionate on this subject, and have had some unfortunate experiences myself.
However, in all honesty, in my personal experience, for the vast majority of the time, paladins don't spoil the game. This doesn't help on the few occasions where problems do occur!
I find it easy to play paladins. I find it very easy to play a good person, and getting into the mind-set of a Lawful Good person is also easy, even though I'm chaotic myself.
My most recent example was less than a fortnight ago, playing my first PFS character, the Chelish paladin Malachi Silverclaw. (Where have I heard that name before?) I won't say the name of the scenario, but the elements I'll describe are common to many PFS scenarios.
Of the five players only I was playing my own PC; the others were playing the pre-gens. The player who chose the wizard Ezren chose to play him as neutral and grumpy, always complaining about something and always out for himself, while still trying his best to be a team player. He wasn't really trying to recreate Ezren per se, just using those stats so that he could play the game, while also role-playing a personality of his own choice, and there's nothing wrong with this at all. I like the way he made the PC his own (they all did), and there were no problems between the players at all, and any disagreements between the PCs were minimal.
Our mission was to get an NPC to agree to help turn his property into a base for the Pathfinder Society (aren't they all?), and when we arrived the NPC had his own problems that needed solving by us (don't they all?).
When we eventually caught up to this NPC, he wanted our help and the party wanted his help. He asked us to help him, and Ezren suggested that we want something from him! He wanted to make it more than a quid pro quo situation, almost to the point of blackmail, by suggesting that we'd only help him if he agreed to our requirements first! Y'know, role-playing his character!
It was very easy for me, as Malachi, to understand the rights and wrongs of this situation from his point of view, not because I was motivated to keep my paladin abilities at all costs, but because Malachi is a good person so he treats people well! Unless he has to kill them for his god, that is.
It was natural to say, 'Lets just get the important things done first. We'll deal with your problems now, and worry about the rest later.'
His belief is that acting in a 'good' way is just an effective way to be successful as acting in an 'evil' way. Actually, he believes it will be more successful. From his point of view, if we succeeded in our mission by using blackmail, then the NPC will always resent the Pathfinder Society, laying the foundations for future problems. But by putting the NPC's (legitimate) problems first, without first securing an agreement to site a PF lodge, Malachi risked the NPC saying no, resulting in mission failure. But his belief in the validity of 'goodness' was such that he believed that the NPC would, after being rescued and helped by us, would be happy to ally with us, laying the foundations for future loyalty!
He was right! However, he was motivated to make that approach work. : )
This is a longer post than I intended, but I'm bewildered by the behaviour of players who have their paladins assault and torture on a regular basis, and then think the DM is being unfair! Why do they do that?
So there are dick players. There are also dick DMs.
But there are also many, many games where paladins don't cause problems.
|
|
The point of the OP (and I would know because I wrote it) is if your players are invested in playing by the rules, you don't have these conflicts because they will self police.
They will define with you in advance what a Paladin is, for the purposes of the game. And then whatever you all agreed to before hand will actually be how the person plays, because the person actually wanted to follow the rules and standards they agreed to.
Imagine that!
It is a game construct, formed by a social contract between the GM and the player as to what the code is. If that was done in advance, and neither the player or GM is a jerk, there should be no issue.
If either (or both more often it seem on here...) are a jerk, the game is FUBAR from the start anyway.
See, there are three ways to violate a player-GM contract.
1) Bad Player: The player acts in bad faith and breaks the contract (intentionally violates paladin ethics).
2) Bad GM: The GM acts in bad faith and breaks the contract (putting the player in fall-or-fall situations or otherwise making it needlessly and excessively difficult for the player to be a paladin)
3) Bad Communication: Both player and GM act in good faith, but are not clear on the details of the contract. This is why real contracts use precise legal language.
Your thread title and OP focus on issue 1 - you say that a good player will not have problems with a paladin, implying that anyone who has problems playing a paladin is not a good player. This is disrespectful to those people experiencing problems 2 or 3, the bad GM or bad communication. I think based on your post here ("so long as neither player nor GM is a jerk" / "if either are a jerk") you do understand it could be a GM problem as well. You also appear to agree that this depends on forming the social contract "in advance" and working out the communication issue. But your rhetoric in general (and the first paragraph in your above post) focuses on the player's...
I don't disagree with you generally, but I see it this way.
The GM can be bad, there is no doubt about that. But if you think about it, the GM is the person who the rest of the table selected to run the game. So if the GM is bad, you are doomed from the start, much in the same way if your chef is bad, the meal is going to be bad regardless of the quality of your ingredients.
To many people on here talk about bad GM experiences which when you read what happen sound more like "selfish player not getting what they want exactly how they want it because that wasn't that tables expectations" experiences. Because, you know, you as a grouped picked the GM and allowed them to run, so why did you do that?
A player can be bad, but that is easily fixed since players are a dime a dozen. Similarly a lot of GM complaining about bad player threads are really "I invited a guy who doesn't want to play how the other people want to play and I am angry" threads, which leads me to...
Communication, which is something that is the responsibility of the GM and the Player, but if push comes to shove, the GM is going to run the game and if 4 people want to play the game the way the GM is running the game, that GM is doing it right for that table, and if you are the odd person out at the table...find a table where they play how you want to play rather than trying to GM from a player slot.
As a player you actually have more power to choose a table than a GM in many ways. A GM has to find 4 people willing to trust them enough let them run a game. A player just has to find a game willing to let them sit in.
In my experience, it is players being unwilling to conform to table norms that create far more problems then problem GMs, because if a GM sucks, people just make excuses and stop coming to the games they are trying to run.
A very self-correcting mechanism. You don't have to do anything differently as a player other than not show up.
On the other hand, if you are running a game and a player is causing problems, it is much more difficult to say to your friend "No, I want the game to keep going, but without you unless you stop being disruptive and making it not fun for us."
And that is the goal. The GM is either someone you trust to run or you are making a mistake letting them run a game for any length of time. The amount of things even a halfway decent GM is doing in prep far exceeds anything a player is doing for the same game, and all that work blows up to nothing if the players aren't having a good enough time to not want to come back. The expectations that need to be met for someone to be a good GM are fairly high, and the outcome of failure is pretty immediate.
A player is just someone you invite who either makes it better for everyone or doesn't. All they need to do is show up, play what they built and not be a jerk and things generally go fine. If they are a jerk, and refuse to not be a jerk, with very little investment they can ruin it for everyone else and if they refuse to adjust to the expectations of the rest of the table...
My experience is that it takes a long time before someone will trust you enough to let you GM. In my group it took years before they let me run and I would say that at this point I'm still the 3rd choice GM of the group of about 10 people with 5 to 7 people who are comfortable enough to run a game.
If when I ran, I was a jerk, I wouldn't have been able to convince people to let me run anymore. If you are playing with a GM who is a jerk...why did you put them in charge?
Jerk players I get, you don't know until you game with someone if they are a jerk sometimes. But GMs...you should be doing due diligence I would think before you put someone in charge, right?
A friend of mine was trying to expand out for another weekly game. Her friend said he had a friend who was running. She put out a feeler about the campaign and got what seemed like 40 pages of detailed instructions on how to make a character, down to rolling birthdays.
And she passes, because that isn't a playstyle she was interested in. Someone is, that game is happening, god bless them.
But if a game is happening, you are a player, everyone else is happy with the way the GM runs but you...who is the problem in this scenario?
My friend isn't a problem player in our group. Far from it. In that group, maybe she would be. Not a bad person, not wrong bad fun, but having regular, serious arguments with the GM is a sign you probably sat down at the wrong table.
|
|
Ciretose, I think your idea is wishful thinking. It's not that your analysis of the consequences of the situation you describe is wrong, but that the situation you describe is nowhere near as universal as you seem to think.
In real life, players don't have the luxury of an abundance of DMs. If they did, then your analysis would be sound. But most of us live in a world where games/DMs are quite rare and hard to find, so that the evolutionary effect of competing DMs resulting in better DMs simply does not apply.
Further, most of us play with people who are our friends outside the game. Simply taking your bat and ball home may be a reasonable response when faced by a poor DM who you don't know or care about, but it's much less reasonable to be so quick to lose a friend.
|
|
The player always has access to a GM. The person in the mirror. They just need to find 4 people who will let them run. And once you demonstrate you are a decent GM, you just need to teach someone else how to run and in a few years your problem becomes "Who don't we invite" rather than "How do I find a game"
Everyone I know who is even a halfway fun player has no problem finding a game or a GM in the age of internets. 20 years ago, sure it could be a challenge, now...not so much unless you get a bad reputation or you live in the literal middle of nowhere.
If you post in gamer meetup right now you want to run a game in your area will be narrowing people out of your group by morning.
EDIT: Now getting them to keep playing after the first game requires you not to be a jerk....
In the middle of nowhere, sometimes you can easily find games because there isn't much else to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player always has access to a GM. The person in the mirror.
Being a player is an entirely different animal from being a GM. I know many people who are ideal players and horrible GMs, and the reverse is true. I know people who don't like playing but love GMing, and the reverse is also true. When all you want to do is play but are forced to GM, you may run the risk of GM woes.
Or you might not. Truth be told, I became a GM because I didn't have the option to play. I was introduced to the game by my cousins from out of state and when they went home, I was left as a budding D&D nerd with no fellow blooms. The only way I could play D&D was to GM and introduce D&D to everyone else. Now, I know quite a few people who have played D&D. I know a lot of people who are into D&D whom I know play because of the grapevine effect that began with me (I introduced and taught some of my friends and their siblings, and then they taught their friends and their siblings, etc). Today, I still GM way more often than I play. Yet I've grown rather accustomed to it. I miss GMing when I go for a while with nothing on the plate.
So who knows? Maybe beginning your own group will work out and be great. It can be filled with some pitfalls and you might not get what you want when you want it, but it can lead to a very rewarding experience.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Edit: Let me just preface that none of this was intended to be sarcastic, derisive, or in any way offensive. I'm genuinely trying to bridge the gap, and I hope you'll take it as an honest effort.)
You know Ciretose, the more I know about you, the more I begin to understand your position.
Which is not to say that I agree with it, because half the time I don't. But if I was a long time player in a large group of long time players, half (or more) of whom had heavy GM experience and all swapped out the GM chair with each other... I'd probably hold many of your opinions too.
At first, I thought... well, I was inclined to doubt your opinions. But it's beginning to seem like you're genuinely trying to give practical advice. You just can't quite Get players who don't come from your (role-playing) background and resources.
I'm willing to bet that with your group, you GM regularly. But you ALSO get to be a player regularly, whether by running/playing in two games simultaneously or by 'taking a break' after a long campaign.
In my area at least, GMs tend to GM because they don't mind doing it, and nobody else wants to. So they go years at a time without ever getting to be a player, and it wears them out. Years will pass, but eventually they become a "never want to GM again" player, or drop out entirely. New GMs will appear, but the number of GMs in the area doesn't to grow a whole lot (if it grows at all). All this means that as a player, it's either play with a stranger (or someone you don't entirely agree with), or don't play at all.
So when disagreements come up, we try to hash things out first, or even stick with a sub-optimal group because it's our only chance to play the game.
You've had some really good points. It *is* the player's ultimate responsibility if they're in a game with a GM they don't agree with on an issue, or possibly just don't plain get along with. It really WOULD be better, both for the player and the group they're in, if they exercised their right to walk away. They stay- often long past the point where it's healthy- because they don't want to just Not Play. It's not that no other GM will have them, it's that no other GM has an open spot at their table.
Well okay, let me revise that: for some, it's not that no other GM would have them. There are FAR too many players that people genuinely don't want to play with, much as I wish it were otherwise.
So since finding a game elsewhere is so difficult, the impulse for a lot of players is to stick with what they can find even if they're having problems. It's either the best game they can find or they're honestly hoping that things will improve.
Having read some of the horror story threads about GMs and players, I can see your point of view. I can certainly see why you'd get frustrated enough to speak up and actually try to talk some sense into your fellow forum members. And most of the time I agree with your essential point, if not to the degree that you state it. Looking at some of the people posting in those horror threads, I know that I wouldn't want to play with them; either the people being posted about or the people doing the posting. So I can understand where you're coming from if you get frustrated enough to say (speaking generically) "look, it's not that hard. Either you trust and get along with your GM or don't... why are you playing with someone who causes you so much misery?!?"
And for a lot of those horror story posters, I completely agree. If the GM or player in question is so awful, they really SHOULDN'T be playing together. And if a GM or group feels strongly about an issue, then players who disagree shouldn't raise the issue if they can help it. For example, the GM and senior member of my group both take an extremely traditional view of the Paladin. They hate Paladins with a passion because of that view, but feel that RAW prevents people from playing them differently. I'm of the rainbow Paladin (but still with a code) view, but recognize that such a Paladin would have to be house-ruled. Since I know that half my group (including the GM) feel strongly traditional about Paladins, I'd never play a Paladin with that group. Problem solved. If I had such a burning desire to play a Paladin, I'd use it as motivation to find a group that would let me play the Paladin that I wanted to. Eventually I'm either going to find that group, or spend so much energy looking for it that I stop caring about the Paladin.
I think that you're getting a lot of opposition on the forums from people who would otherwise agree with you because you're coming across (to us) as so black and white. Your stance seems to be "don't get along with the player/GM? Fine! Leave!" I get the impression that if you were to encounter such a problem with your current group, you'd do just that. But because you have such a large and well developed social network, you'd be in a game again within the month. At worst, you'd simply host your own game. Even if you got a group of completely new players, you'd be able to keep your enthusiasm for the game alive long enough for the 1-2 years it'd take to train a new GM replacement so that you could be a player again. (Though to be honest, it doesn't sound to me like you'd accept a table of new players- or at least new players that you don't already know personally. You come across as having REALLY high standards.) You could afford to do it because you genuinely enjoy GMing and you (probably) get chances to play quite often right now. A couple years without being a player wouldn't be so bad.
That's where I think at least some of the dissension you're getting on the forums is coming from. From your point of view, the worst case scenario wouldn't be so bad. From another point of view, the worst case scenario is not getting to play at all. While there are other things we could do for fun, we're all on the pathfinder forums because we enjoy playing the game... so we'd all rather be in a group if we could.
So when a difficult situation is talked about on the forums, some of us are thinking "wow, that'd be rough if it were me. I'd leave if I had to, but first I'd try to work it out if I could." To those of us thinking along those lines, some of your posts can seem very "leave the group at the first sign of trouble."
In truth, I doubt you feel this way. I'm sure there are occasional disagreements at your table, but they are discussed and quickly smoothed over because you've all known each other so long and you wouldn't be playing together if you didn't get along. Some of us forum members don't have such a deep history with our groups. Disagreements can be sharper, more jagged, possibly more desperate. The last thing we want to hear is "just leave the group already" because we're all trying so hard to avoid it.
Meanwhile, I can totally picture you getting more and more frustrated with 'these obstinate forum people' who insist on making their own lives more difficult. If only they would handle things sensibly they'd be much happier and why can't they just see that...
And of course, some of those horror story forum posters sound just plain knuckle-headed, and I wouldn't want to game with them anymore than you would. I can't say a whole lot about that... politely, at least.
You raise a lot interesting points. The whole 'train a GM to replace you' thing is a concept that I don't think a lot of people get. And I think these forums genuinely NEED a reminder that players and GMs ultimately control their own destinies simply by choosing to play. I'm slowly growing to appreciate your point of view. I just hope that you'll try to keep in mind that there is a (possibly small, possibly not) percentage of forum posters who ARE perfectly reasonable people. We're just in a different situation, and see things differently because of it.
In the end, it boils down the a matter of degree. At least for me, personally.
My brother trained me as a dm to carry on gaming, but I have yet to take on an apprentice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The amount of things even a halfway decent GM is doing in prep far exceeds anything a player is doing for the same game...
Which explains why some people have a hard time finding an alternate GM if they're not liking how a game is going.
I'm the only person in the game I'm currently running who has the time, energy, and inclination to GM. And every one of the players has GMed at least once - two of them have significantly more GM experience. They just cannot do it right now. If I did not run a game, these players would not have one (at least for now). If they have problems with how I run a game, they let me know and I try to fix it so everyone has more fun. Because that's what a good gaming group does and that's what they would do and have done for me when I'm on the player side.
If a player just decides to quit a game over a bad GM experience, that GM will never know why and will never get a chance to improve their GMing if it is indeed a flaw rather than just a playstyle difference. Many creators would rather hear legitimate criticism than nothing at all. That's how you move from apprentice to journeyman to master.
Obviously what your group has worked out is really working for you, but it's not a universal solution.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
@MI - I largely agree with what you wrote, however there is also what I say vs the hyperbole of what others say that I am saying.
If ever you find yourself in hobby (not a job, not a marriage, not even a relationship. A hobby) that makes you unhappy, I do believe you need to look in the mirror first.
When I began playing regularly, after I got a solid grasp on the rules I could be a problem player at times. One of the regular GMs and I would have heated back and forth rules discussions, mostly off table but also with some brief table exchanges. It disrupted the game, it didn't make me happy, it didn't make him happy, it didn't make the other players happy...and frankly, enjoying the time is why you engage in the hobby.
I had to take time away from the table, because I wasn't enjoying it and I didn't want it to effect friendships, and even now I don't generally get in games where that person is running and vice versa, because it isn't as fun as other options I have in both my gaming and real life.
When I came back for a game another GM was running, I enjoyed myself again. I fully trusted him, even when I was unsure what he was doing I knew it would end up somewhere fun so I didn't question it, and by watching him and asking questions after the game rather than questioning him, I eventually learned how to GM and earned back enough of a positive reputation that some of the group gave me a chance to run as a GM.
After I ran a few games and saw how much was going on from the other side with regards to table dynamics, secrets, and the delicate balance of rooting for the players to be successful while at the same time acting as the antagonist and building tension and excitement, I understood what a problem I was to the old GM and to the table as a whole when I was effectively undermining the GMs and disrupting the game. As a result I became a much better player, and people enjoyed playing with me more from both sides of the table and I got an even more positive reputation as someone you want to have in your game or running your game.
What frustrates me a great deal in these discussion is when people advocate more people arguing and fighting with the person who is running the game, particularly when it comes from those who also advocate for loopholes and exploits, while bemoaning balance problems in the game.
The GM must be the the person who adjudicates the rules. Period, full stop. If you want to play a particular style of play, and that GM doesn't want to run that particular style of play, the solution is not to demand that they do so. That is what breaks up groups, that is what gets you a (deserved) reputation as a problem player. That is when you can't find games.
If I were a big play by post kind of person, or someone who goes to conventions or played PFS, I would be much less outspoken on here. My being outspoken will quite surely keep me from being invited to participate in such things. I fully understand I have a reputation on here for, in the parlance of my profession, not effectively deescalating conflict in various threads I participate in.
But I'm not. I have a group, I have very little interest in open or random games specifically because of my experiences with encountering players in these open settings who are disruptive, problem players. As I have said in many threads, I wish I could walk into my FLGS and sit down for one of the open sessions, or go to cons for open events and have a good time, but my experience has been that while the vast majority of the people who show up are cool, there is also a good number of people who show up at open events in part because they have been thrown out of all the good home games for being a pain in the butt. And so, sadly, I invest my free time in other things that I know I will enjoy rather than risk that 4 hours of my life in a game of table roulette. And I don't have to because...
You are correct, I do have access to a group of like minded gamers, and that is something many people don't. But I have that access not because I am just lucky, but because over time I have built relationships with people in my gaming community, based in large part on not being a jerk to the GMs anymore and by being someone who is going to find a way to fit into your table rather than trying to take it over.
What I am trying to convey in this discussion is that if you can't have exactly what you want at the table, you should adapt to the table and enjoy what the table provides. If you and the GM can't agree on what a Paladin is, with regards to the code, don't play a paladin at that table. Play something else that you all can enjoy.
If you can't play anything you can enjoy at a GMs table, and the other people at the table can, that is a problem you are having not a problem with the GM. The GM is apparently able to make others happy, or the game would dissolve (which happens). The GM does not exist to make you happy or conform to your version of the rules. The GM exists to facilitate a game that some people want to play.
If you aren't one of those people, and you can't enjoy what the GM is doing, much like any other relationship, no one is benefiting from you disrupting everyone else's fun.
The guy I provided as an example in the OP has never run a game. He is welcome at every table I can think of, more tables that I am actually since I still have some carry over reputation even after all these years from my conflict with the GM I mentioned above (which was a conflict that pales in comparison to most of the posts I've seen...) Why is he welcome? Because he is a lot of fun to game with, and he only joins games where he is excited about the setting the GM is creating and willing to be a part of that game.
People always want him to be a part of any group they are running, hell schedules are adjusted regularly to accommodate him, specifically.
Not being willing to conform to table norms, but still taking a spot at the table is selfish behavior. Being selfish is not a trait that will get you invited to more groups or build a reputation for yourself as someone you want to game with. And if you really can't play the game the GM is running, leave. Because unless you are the GM, you are not the person the group appointed to adjudicate the game.
If you want to have a gaming group, and you don't live in the middle of nowhere, it isn't hard anymore. You can go to the open cattle call games at your FLGS, or a convention, or respond to postings online, play by post/skype, etc...and if you do and you aren't a jerk, you'll build a reputation as a good person to game with in your local gaming community and more people will invite you to more game and so on and so forth until, like me, you find your group that fits your style.
Because if you have limited access to tables, pissing off the people in the one table that will let you play certainly isn't going to help you get access to more tables.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My brother trained me as a dm to carry on gaming, but I have yet to take on an apprentice.
I was slowly teaching my wife, but I don't think she really is into being a GM long term. And frankly, there is a GM at our table who I learned from who is just better than I am, so if there is any apprenticeship going on, he is doing it. So far 3 of us have spun off from him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Ciretose.
That was well said and perfectly correct.
*NodNodNod*
You have me wondering how I could be a better player at my GM's table. Thank you, Ciretose. That was thought provoking.
Everyone loves favorites. :P
But Weirdo have you not considered that if the player and the GM ever don't see eye to eye on what qualifies as honorable then it is in fact the player's fault for agreeing to play with that GM in the first place? Or that it is in fact the player's fault for not being part of a hive-mind with the GM? Or that it is in fact the player's fault for being a dishonorable dirty cheater?
The moment you sit down at a table with a GM, everything is your fault and nothing is the GM's fault because you sat down at the table. Once you take your seat, the GM is blameless and all problems rest squarely on your shoulders. However, the reverse is not true because
YES! YES! That's what I wanted to hear! For example, if you were a GM, and you have your own view about Paladin Code, and let's say I sit down and say that I want to play the Paladin. You start to explain to me how Paladin Code goes, whats ok to do, what not, what's honorable, what's dishonorable etc. Since, I hope you are an OK GM and of course you told me everything you had about Paladin Code, I as a player should agree on your terms, you are GM and you are the boss, you are GOD! Anyway it's in my interest and in the interest of GM that we both agree on how Paladin Code goes, but it must be how you the GM described it.
So I think it can't be harder than that, and that's why I CAN'T BELIEVE that someone wants to play a Paladin but to act like a Barbarian, beating people, be egotistical etc, I cannot simply let that happen, then the PALADIN loses its true meaning, its true self. You cannot act like a coldblooded freak and be chaotic, doing what's not Paladinly and call yourself a Paladin, that's unacceptable!
I had many issues with a friend who played as a Paladin, since after 20 sessions he started beating good NPCs, starting to lie, being selfish, egotistical etc. and I tried many times to find an agreement with him but he was so stubborn to continue doing all those things, that in the end I gave up GMing for some time and made some new statements considering if I'm going to allow Paladin class to be played by someone in my,hopefully, future campaigns. Since it's one month after I quit to being GM and relaxed, I finally got some inspiration in making puzzles, maze, labyrinths, dungeons etc. During this period, the same friend that played as a Paladin had 'transfered' his own Paladin into another party of PCs where one of his friends is a GM, and I found out that he still continued doing things as he did in my sessions, and that GM also had issues with him, and once again the friend playing was once again stubborn and continued doing his things, and in the end the GM made a very, to me very FUNNY thing, I laughed loud for 5 minutes after I heard about it. The GM gave the Paladin to be of CG alignment so he could do whatever he wants, from beating good people,to lie, be egotistical, don't respect authority etc. That's hilarious! The whole ideal of Paladin is ruined. Ok GMs can make exceptions, break some rules, but to go that far is hilarious!!!That sounds like a good way to handle it. If you don't want to get into arguments with the player and don't particularly care about the Paladin code, just shift his alignment and let him keep his powers.
If I were GMing, I would probably do something similar. As long as they aren't disrupting other players, I don't care what people do with their characters.
Wait! Wait! Wait! Waaaiittt!!! You would rather let the Paladin act like a cold blooded Barbarian that drinks blood from enemy's skulls, defiling female clerics and beat the hell out of his own superiors and act like an egotistical, selfish bastard and still be called a PALADIN and go unpunished? I would then rather prohibit players from playing the Paladin class than to let them playing like I said above.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait! Wait! Wait! Waaaiittt! Are you saying that there are players who have their Paladin act like a cold blooded Barbarian that drinks blood from enemy's skulls, defiling female clerics and beat the hell out of his own superiors and act like an egotistical, selfish bastard and still expect to be called a PALADIN and go unpunished?
Mostly I'm in the paladin gig to defile the female clerics.
Wait! Wait! Wait! Waaaiittt! Are you saying that there are players who have their Paladin act like a cold blooded Barbarian that drinks blood from enemy's skulls, defiling female clerics and beat the hell out of his own superiors and act like an egotistical, selfish bastard and still expect to be called a PALADIN and go unpunished?
Well, yes. I mean, if you're not informed about problems that I had with a Paladin player. Yes, he started to act like a cold blooded Barbarian, beating innocent people, he even didn't have respect for authority, so he even had an, lets say, "unoficial UFC match" with Watcher Lord of Lastwall and Paladin of Iomedae Ulthun II, and he did started to act like an egotistical, selfish bastard. And I even said something in one of my previous posts how he continued the same when he transfered his character at the other GM and he continued to do how he did in my sessions and in the end that GM gave him CG alignment so he could act as I said before and still call himself a Paladin and go unpunished.
If the name and the meaning of PALADIN can be ruined in that way, then I demand I play as a Demonic Paladin with not Holy Avenger but Holy Bastard in my hands.
Since i made some confusion in my previous post, my post starts with "Well, yes." :)
You'd like to play a tiefling Paladin with a named sword called the "Holy Bastard"? I'd certainly let you, I like that concept.Wait! Wait! Wait! Waaaiittt! Are you saying that there are players who have their Paladin act like a cold blooded Barbarian that drinks blood from enemy's skulls, defiling female clerics and beat the hell out of his own superiors and act like an egotistical, selfish bastard and still expect to be called a PALADIN and go unpunished?Well, yes. I mean, if you're not informed about problems that I had with a Paladin player. Yes, he started to act like a cold blooded Barbarian, beating innocent people, he even didn't have respect for authority, so he even had an, lets say, "unoficial UFC match" with Watcher Lord of Lastwall and Paladin of Iomedae Ulthun II, and he did started to act like an egotistical, selfish bastard. And I even said something in one of my previous posts how he continued the same when he transfered his character at the other GM and he continued to do how he did in my sessions and in the end that GM gave him CG alignment so he could act as I said before and still call himself a Paladin and go unpunished.
If the name and the meaning of PALADIN can be ruined in that way, then I demand I play as a Demonic Paladin with not Holy Avenger but Holy Bastard in my hands.
If you would let me play that, in that case the meaning of PALADIN CODE and what PALADIN truly stands for shall be no more. And how James Hetfield from Mettalica says: "And nothing else matters!" :)
Mostly I'm in the paladin gig to defile the female clerics.
My Paladin of Wee Jass preferred being defiled. It was the best way to unwind at the end of an adventure. Assuming of course "defile" is synonymous with "lots of sex" in this instance. All of it was happy consensual "defilement". :P
|
|
Wait! Wait! Wait! Waaaiittt! Are you saying that there are players who have their Paladin act like a cold blooded Barbarian that drinks blood from enemy's skulls, defiling female clerics and beat the hell out of his own superiors and act like an egotistical, selfish bastard and still expect to be called a PALADIN and go unpunished?Well, yes. I mean, if you're not informed about problems that I had with a Paladin player. Yes, he started to act like a cold blooded Barbarian, beating innocent people, he even didn't have respect for authority, so he even had an, lets say, "unoficial UFC match" with Watcher Lord of Lastwall and Paladin of Iomedae Ulthun II, and he did started to act like an egotistical, selfish bastard. And I even said something in one of my previous posts how he continued the same when he transfered his character at the other GM and he continued to do how he did in my sessions and in the end that GM gave him CG alignment so he could act as I said before and still call himself a Paladin and go unpunished.
If the name and the meaning of PALADIN can be ruined in that way, then I demand I play as a Demonic Paladin with not Holy Avenger but Holy Bastard in my hands.
I can't believe that there is any doubt that this 'paladin' must fall!
This wouldn't be a dick DM, this is a dick player!
As his DM at the start of this behaviour, it was your decision to make. Did he, in fact, fall?
Why or why not?
The solution to this particular problem 'paladin' is that he falls, not that the world changes so that paladins can behave as badly as they want while retaining their powers!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly I'm in the paladin gig to defile the female clerics.My Paladin of Wee Jass preferred being defiled. It was the best way to unwind at the end of an adventure. Assuming of course "defile" is synonymous with "lots of sex" in this instance. All of it was happy consensual "defilement". :P
Consensual defilement?
Not convinced you've got the hang of this whole 'defilement' thing...
Next time we set out to rape and pillage, I think it's best if you do the pillaging!
: )
|
|
Well, yes. I mean, if you're not informed about problems that I had with a Paladin player. Yes, he started to act like a cold blooded Barbarian, beating innocent people, he even didn't have respect for authority, so he even had an, lets say, "unoficial UFC match" with Watcher Lord of Lastwall and Paladin of Iomedae Ulthun II, and he did started to act like an egotistical, selfish bastard. And I even said something in one of my previous posts how he continued the same when he transfered his character at the other GM and he continued to do how he did in my sessions and in the end that GM gave him CG alignment so he could act as I said before and still call himself a Paladin and go unpunished.
Unprovoked attacks on innocent people and other heroes disqualify you from the "Good" title at all. This problem is way more than just a guy who doesn't understand paladins - it sounds like he didn't read the chapter on alignment at all. Had a CG paladin in our group. Awesome character, and a legitimately inspirational and virtuous hero with rock-solid convictions. Played Chaotic Good, not "probably evil but because I'm chaotic who cares."
EDIT: And a really good example of player-GM cooperation and trust. GM didn't accuse the player of trying to scam the system or devalue the paladin, and the player did not do these things.
EDIT EDIT: And has anyone considered that there might be less problems with people playing paladins if the class wasn't crammed into such a tiny RP box? Maybe people who can't play a decent LG wouldn't make such horrible attempts if they were allowed to try the class any other way. If it wasn't for the fact that this particular character doesn't seem to be Chaotic Good I'd absolutely support the GM's decision to run a CG paladin in order to keep everyone having fun. Heck, I'd say the GM should have gone one further and turned this guy into the CN paladin he'd probably feel most comfortable playing! Neither the GM nor the player appears to be attached to the classic LG paladin anyway, as long as the other people at the table don't mind, go nuts!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not really a good reason for the alignment restrictions anymore, other than being a sacred cow. Unlike in editions of old, Paladins are actually very well balanced today. They are not simply superior to other martials. Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger are all very well balanced between each other and bring stuff to the table. There is no alignment or code restrictions for game balance so it's entirely for fluff.
That being said, I rather hate forced fluff. See, every other class in the game can be a Paladin. Seriously. I can make a Ranger and mechanical powers aside am free to be Lawful Good and uphold the Paladin code all day long any day of the week, no worries. Paladins can't though. If you want to play a Paladin (because Paladins play differently than Barbarians and Rangers) then you're basically out of luck unless you want to deal with the extra baggage that serves no real purpose.
I prefer to keep RPing to RPing and not mechanics. Mechanics are like physics. You don't roleplay physics.
I agree. Not only is it completely unnecessary, adding nothing valuable to the game, but I would say that its inclusion is actually is a detriment. If we are saying that paladin's are champions of gods...well there are very few gods that actually have champions. The Code of Conduct is too restrictive (not to mention vague). It creates this strange scenario where paladin's morality has nothing to do with his god since his conduct is not dependent upon which god he is serving.
Which actually could be kind of cool if the game were to adopt a position in which the paladin didn't look to higher powers for moral guidance, and instead decided right from wrong on their own. Any god they chose to follow, if indeed they chose one at all, would have to live up to their standards. That would be kind of interesting. In a setting like that, you would expect paladin's to see themselves as an ally to a god, and rarely as a servant, holding their gods accountable for their actions and disobeying them when they thought it was the right thing to do. It would also explain why all paladin's had the same code of conduct despite not following different gods with different values and priorities.
While that's interesting and all, it's contrived as long as it is guided by the code of conduct and I just can't see any reason why having players decide for themselves wouldn't be in every way superior.
|
|
Actually, as I understand it the PF paladin is supposed to be about the alignment first and the deity second - they're champions of LG who might also serve a deity, but being LG comes first. And that's just fine. I'm perfectly happy with Paladins being champions of an alignment or moral code rather than a particular religion. But either way, there's a huge range of philosophies that don't get that kind of champion. And not only is it more interesting for a player to choose what they want to champion, but that way they'll actually be attached to it and want to play it honestly.
I'd rather have someone play a CG paladin well than a LG paladin poorly.
Wait! Wait! Wait! Waaaiittt! Are you saying that there are players who have their Paladin act like a cold blooded Barbarian that drinks blood from enemy's skulls, defiling female clerics and beat the hell out of his own superiors and act like an egotistical, selfish bastard and still expect to be called a PALADIN and go unpunished?Well, yes. I mean, if you're not informed about problems that I had with a Paladin player. Yes, he started to act like a cold blooded Barbarian, beating innocent people, he even didn't have respect for authority, so he even had an, lets say, "unoficial UFC match" with Watcher Lord of Lastwall and Paladin of Iomedae Ulthun II, and he did started to act like an egotistical, selfish bastard. And I even said something in one of my previous posts how he continued the same when he transfered his character at the other GM and he continued to do how he did in my sessions and in the end that GM gave him CG alignment so he could act as I said before and still call himself a Paladin and go unpunished.
If the name and the meaning of PALADIN can be ruined in that way, then I demand I play as a Demonic Paladin with not Holy Avenger but Holy Bastard in my hands.
I can't believe that there is any doubt that this 'paladin' must fall!
This wouldn't be a dick DM, this is a dick player!
As his DM at the start of this behaviour, it was your decision to make. Did he, in fact, fall?
Why or why not?
The solution to this particular problem 'paladin' is that he falls, not that the world changes so that paladins can behave as badly as they want while retaining their powers!
In the end, he fell. I told him: "I'm sorry, but you are fallen right now. You didn't act according to your Code".
After that, the next 5 sessions he was seeking for atonement, and I even watched how will he behave and session after session I restored one of his abilities. But one again after he "did everything alright", he started once again to act like I said above and in the end we had a huge arguing and that was the point where I stopped being GM, since because of him, no one else didn't want to play.
Anyway, I don't care anymore. If anyone would allow someone to play the Paladin act like that and give him chaotic alignment, I don't care. I just think that Paladins are of LG Alignment for a reason, not just made so that the rules be broken. If I'm going to be a GM again and there will be a player who wants to play the Paladin class but to act like that player above and doesn't respect what I as a GM say how Code of Conduct goes, then I would tell him to create a Fighter or Barbarian or he can go away and not play at all!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway Malachi Silverclaw, thanks again, since I see you are the one that agrees with me that the solution to that particular problem is that he indeed falls, not that the world changes so that paladins can behave as badly as they want while retaining their powers. Bravo! My man!
|
|
We should also remove the Oracle curse, because who wants to play a curse, right?(S)
And Rage seems really...well angry...that should go. And why should can't they be lawful, that seems like a silly restriction?(S)
Just like why shouldn't monks be allowed to be chaotic? And why do Druids have to be neutral? And why can't they wear metal armor? And arcane spell failure is cruel.(S)
See how well the tag would work if it became universal?
So, here's what I want you to do. I want you to go find where it says Paladins (or PALADINS) can't have demonic blood in them, or where it says they can't swear.If you would let me play that, in that case the meaning of PALADIN CODE and what PALADIN truly stands for shall be no more. And how James Hetfield from Mettalica says: "And nothing else matters!" :)You'd like to play a tiefling Paladin with a named sword called the "Holy Bastard"? I'd certainly let you, I like that concept.Wait! Wait! Wait! Waaaiittt! Are you saying that there are players who have their Paladin act like a cold blooded Barbarian that drinks blood from enemy's skulls, defiling female clerics and beat the hell out of his own superiors and act like an egotistical, selfish bastard and still expect to be called a PALADIN and go unpunished?Well, yes. I mean, if you're not informed about problems that I had with a Paladin player. Yes, he started to act like a cold blooded Barbarian, beating innocent people, he even didn't have respect for authority, so he even had an, lets say, "unoficial UFC match" with Watcher Lord of Lastwall and Paladin of Iomedae Ulthun II, and he did started to act like an egotistical, selfish bastard. And I even said something in one of my previous posts how he continued the same when he transfered his character at the other GM and he continued to do how he did in my sessions and in the end that GM gave him CG alignment so he could act as I said before and still call himself a Paladin and go unpunished.
If the name and the meaning of PALADIN can be ruined in that way, then I demand I play as a Demonic Paladin with not Holy Avenger but Holy Bastard in my hands.
I think that it is obvious that there can't be a Paladin with demonic blood in his veins fighting demons, it's absurd. But I see you are that kind of GM that would allow parties like Halfling Barbarian, Half-Orc Bard, Dwarf Wizard, Tiefling Paladin, Dark Elf Cleric of Sarenrae, and Minotaur Rogue that backstabs with a large greatsword etc.
|
|
I agree. Not only is it completely unnecessary, adding nothing valuable to the game, but I would say that its inclusion is actually is a detriment. If we are saying that paladin's are champions of gods...
Because there aren't at least 3 other classes that can fill this description and a Paladin isn't a specific trope some people really enjoy playing?
Something being something people other than you like to play is something means it's value to the game is greater than "Nothing".
We should also remove the Oracle curse, because who wants to play a curse, right?(S)
And Rage seems really...well angry...that should go. And why should can't they be lawful, that seems like a silly restriction?(S)
Just like why shouldn't monks be allowed to be chaotic? And why do Druids have to be neutral? And why can't they wear metal armor? And arcane spell failure is cruel.(S)
See how well the tag would work if it became universal?
Like I said to Gaekub, in that case, let's make a party consisting of a Halfling Barbarian, Half-Orc Bard, Dwarf Wizard, Tiefling Paladin, Dark Elf Cleric of Sarenrae, and Minotaur Rogue who backstabs with a large greatsword. Epic, twisted, hilarious party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I love to criticise Pf all day, the newer material on the differences of paladins from different faiths is all good news.
|
|
Anyway Malachi Silverclaw, thanks again, since I see you are the one that agrees with me that the solution to that particular problem is that he indeed falls, not that the world changes so that paladins can behave as badly as they want while retaining their powers. Bravo! My man!
I think several posters in here believe the default solution to any restriction should be "world changes"
Never had to drop a paladin down the long fall as a dm. I found players of other classes would push it a lot further and risk losing the juice: clerics, druids etc. Then of course they would be offended at the very thought.