| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah man, that's just spoiled players acting entitled. I mean, they picked a paladin after all! They should know they're signing up for the GM arbitrarily deciding on them losing all class features.I can't tell whether you mean this statement sarcastically, but as a GM I would endorse a literal reading thereof. You trust your GM, you should be entirely happy to sign up for them getting to make that scale of decision. You don't trust your GM, why are you playing with them ?
Trust is a spectrum, not a binary. Well written, sane, not-troublesome rules are a nice way to mitigate "Trust the GM to not screw everything up deliberately, but don't trust them to not screw everything up accidentally". The Paladin Code fails on this front.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The same half dozen players keep making "paladin falls" threads and dragging them up in other threads and i'm supposed to buy that it makes it a huge problem.
Never mind that it always turns into those half dozen against basically everyone else on the board.
I'm sorry so many of you have bad gms with an antagonistic relationship with their table, but their lack of ability isn't an issue with a class most of the posters here haven't seemed to have a problem with.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the people who seem to have issues with Paladins on these boards are also people with ideas around the alignment system that I consider curious. There's probably a correlation there.
Since to me the basic Paladin code is roughly isomorpic to "You are a good person, generally above reproach. Though you need to be humble enough to realize that you are capable of making a mistake, you are quick to try to make things right to the extent of your ability" which is one of the easier things for me to roleplay since honestly "you're a really good person" is a nice fantasy to indulge in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The same half dozen players keep making "paladin falls" threads and dragging them up in other threads and i'm supposed to buy that it makes it a huge problem.
Never mind that it always turns into those half dozen against basically everyone else on the board.
I'm sorry so many of you have bad gms with an antagonistic relationship with their table, but their lack of ability isn't an issue with a class most of the posters here haven't seemed to have a problem with.
You are the kind of player that blames the GM for poorly written rules.
If the code is vague, any interpretation is fair and any violation removes your class features. If that isn't fun. Then you blame the rules not the GM.
Expecting the GM to be more than just fair in their running of the game is being an entitled player.
Bad vs Good GMing does not come from a GMs ability to write rules a good way. If the code is ambiguous and expects the GM to fill in the specifics and fall for any violation, your experience with the code and falling mechanics is reflecting of your GM's developer abilities not what they can do as a GM.
You are blaming the wrong people for fair rulings not being fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM's only job is to make a fun game Rhedyn. If their interpretation invalidates an entire core class that countless others have no problem running for or with, its their interpretation that's skewed not the class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the code is vague, any interpretation is fair.
No. Any interpretation is raw. Not all of them are fair. A competent DM is more than a computer parsing code, they look at the best available evidence for the rules.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by my statement. Ridiculous antagonistic Gotchaism is bad GMing and leads to sore feelings. Its not the paladins code that screws that up, its playing the antagonist to your friends at a gaming table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much, yes.
Folks have been playing Gygaxian paladins (i.e., lawful good, must obey a strict code of conduct to keep powers) for about 40 years now.
The vast majority of them don't have any issues.
Now, perhaps you've stumbled upon some deep dark secret and all of those groups who are running paladins without issue are doing something wrong.
Or perhaps they aren't doing anything wrong at all, and you need to reconsider why your group has problems when most other groups don't.
A rule making leeway for GM discretion does not entitle GM antagonism. That's just trying to lay the blame for bad GMing on the rules.
|
If the code is vague, any interpretation is fair.No. Any interpretation is raw. Not all of them are fair. A competent DM is more than a computer parsing code, they look at the best available evidence for the rules.
That and further, what exactly is stopping the GM from throwing a warning at PCs again? A simple "Hey, you know refusing surrender is evil right?" when the paladin decides to not accept parlay from the local lich followed by a conversation after the game if the player finds such an interpretation silly?
Certainly seems more sensible to me than "You fall due to taking advantage of a surprise round. No take backs"
There are SEVERAL Paladinable deities who would be in 100% favour extermination of said lich. Plus unless they have his phylactery killing the bugger is only going to be a minor inconvenience, not a terrible setback.
For example a Paladin of Ragathiel is likely going to strike down that evildoorer in a heartbeat.
Same if say a serial killer who is also a powerful/rich noble surrenders, and then mocks a paladin of Damerrich about how they will be able to pretty much buy the judges and therefore continue his ways. Well I doubt the paladin in question is going to sit idly by and let this miscarriage of justice happen.
Undead are one of those things the paladin smite gets SUPER BONUS DAMAGE against. It ooesn't even specify evil undead in the smite description the way it does evil outsiders and dragons. Smite that lich
That and further, what exactly is stopping the GM from throwing a warning at PCs again?
PFS requires that you give a warning anyway (partially because its impractical to hash out ideas of good and honor with a rotating pool of dms)
|
|
If the code is vague, any interpretation is fair.No. Any interpretation is raw. Not all of them are fair. A competent DM is more than a computer parsing code, they look at the best available evidence for the rules.
That and further, what exactly is stopping the GM from throwing a warning at PCs again? A simple "Hey, you know refusing surrender is evil right?" when the paladin decides to not accept parlay from the local lich followed by a conversation after the game if the player finds such an interpretation silly?
Certainly seems more sensible to me than "You fall due to taking advantage of a surprise round. No take backs"
There are SEVERAL Paladinable deities who would be in 100% favour extermination of said lich. Plus unless they have his phylactery killing the bugger is only going to be a minor inconvenience, not a terrible setback.
For example a Paladin of Ragathiel is likely going to strike down that evildoorer in a heartbeat.
Same if say a serial killer who is also a powerful/rich noble surrenders, and then mocks a paladin of Damerrich about how they will be able to pretty much buy the judges and therefore continue his ways. Well I doubt the paladin in question is going to sit idly by and let this miscarriage of justice happen.
Trust me, I know. I'd be right up there complaining to the GM after that sesh since I find it solidly lawful stupid that some people expect paladins to blindly accept the surrender of every orc, demon, and zombie that spits it out.
(Torag paladins also generally don't give a rat's rear about surrender either)
A Paladin of Sarenre on the other paw... Might have to listen. Once at least.
Was GMing a PFS game with one of my friends who was running a Cleric of Sarenre. The character got SOOOO pissed off when someone pretended to surrender and then attacked them. There were no second chances when the guy surrendered (for real this time)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM's only job is to make a fun game Rhedyn. If their interpretation invalidates an entire core class that countless others have no problem running for or with, its their interpretation that's skewed not the class.
Fun for ALL people on the table and not only the Paladin!
And problem childs like Kender or Malcavians are core in other games too so thats not realy an argument.
A mistake by tradition is still a mistake imho.
The GM's only job is to make a fun game Rhedyn. If their interpretation invalidates an entire core class that countless others have no problem running for or with, its their interpretation that's skewed not the class.Fun for ALL people on the table and not only the Paladin!
And problem childs like Kender or Malcavians are core in other games too so thats not realy an argument.
A mistake by tradition is still a mistake imho.
Whats fun about one player at the table becoming functionally a Warrior npc class and having to derail the campaign on a personal quest for redemption because the GM decided to kafkatrap them into falling, or spring a gotcha at them with no warning?
And just to step back to a bit where i was called an entitled player.
Things GMS have done to my characters that i've let slide for the sake of a campaign.
1. In a Vampire dark ages game he spent 25 points of experience as he saw fit because the child character was being tutored
2. Force shifted alignment from NG to CN due to exposure to primal chaos
3. Let me create an operator in a high powered rifts game who then died in the first session by being caught in the backblast of an attack on another character whom it barely damaged.
4. had a 4 point mentor background refuse to teach the forces sphere to a mage because he had a 2 point intolerance flaw for people cracking bruce lee jokes at him.
The list goes on. I'm profoundly flexible for GM fiat for the sake of a campaign point. Antagonistic behavior toward your players and taking glee in rendering their characters completely powerless is a separate issue and a line even someone willing to let a gm spend a months experience on his own choice in skills isn't comfortable putting up with.
Eh, i have 3 different gms. The first one made sense, child character being forced to go to school. He ended up with like 150 dots in skills and was probably the most powerful character in the coterie with no disciplines or skills over 4, and only 3 at 4 by the end of it.
The alignment thing also made sense, we were exposed to primal chaos gods and spent time insane when they were relased.
the operator sucked, not gonna lie, but it was mostly because building rifts characters takes forgoddamn ever.
The mentor...eh I wasn't happy about it but the whole "you must control your temper child" aspect added a lot to the game and let me play up a 2 point intolerance with a lot more intensity than i otherwise would have.
Either way, its not some combat with the gm for me and its not entitled to want core classes to be playable in a campaign or at the least made apparent that they aren't allowed from the outset rather than waiting to hamstring them out of the blue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whats fun about one player at the table becoming functionally a Warrior npc class and having to derail the campaign on a personal quest for redemption because the GM decided to kafkatrap them into falling, or spring a gotcha at them with no warning?The GM's only job is to make a fun game Rhedyn. If their interpretation invalidates an entire core class that countless others have no problem running for or with, its their interpretation that's skewed not the class.Fun for ALL people on the table and not only the Paladin!
And problem childs like Kender or Malcavians are core in other games too so thats not realy an argument.
A mistake by tradition is still a mistake imho.
Not everything in this game was made to be fun, believe it or not. If you want a game that's truly pure fun, I'd find something else. (Cards against Humanity is my personal recommendation.)
The fact that you keep referring to GMs using the code as a means of "Gotcha" moments and players using the code as a means to walk all over the GM is paramount to why people dislike Paladin mechanics, and why I leave them as NPCs at my table.
But hey, it's only 12 people who have this problem, right? Who knew that so few of people make more buzzing than an equivalent amount of developers?
Six people...half dozen. Thumb back through this thread and others and you'll see its the same crew over and over and over again and the common thread is that the community as a whole looks at their interpretations as oddly beyond the norm.
Also yeah, everything about this game is meant to be fun, if you aren't having fun it isn't worth your irreplaceable leisure time. Its not a competition, there are no points, you will not ascend to a better afterlife because you took a hardline gotcha position on paladin codes, and it wont get you a raise at your job.
6 people in one thread does not constitute the entirety of Paladin Falling threads that have existed since the creation of the messageboards. I should know, I wasn't around for 3/4ths of them, and in the others, my participation didn't matter. So unless your claim is only in relation to this thread, I'd reconsider what you're implying.
I still disagree. Save or Dies, or brutal crits at 1st level, are not things that most players on the receiving end (or even on the giving end) find very fun, but they are very much a part of the game's design. And those are but a couple of numerous un-fun situations that the game possesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disagree all you want, you're the one whose philosophy on the game disqualifies an entire core class from your table. No one else here seems to have that trouble outside of Lady J's table where the act of killing causes an instant fall.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only good argument against Paladin I've seen here has been Graystone's which makes perfect sense in the context of him having many different GMs for non-organized play online games.
I totally understand disliking Paladin if you're constantly playing with different GMs and would rather not have to have a morality discussion with each one.
Disagree all you want, you're the one whose philosophy on the game disqualifies an entire core class from your table. No one else here seems to have that trouble outside of Lady J's table where the act of killing causes an instant fall.**** the druid's restriction on armour. Metal is just as natural as your pitiful organic lives!
Its an old celtic tradition that iron blocks magic. Which itself probably comes froom the guys that were on the island before the celts not having iron getting killed off by those that did...
I would really hope I never play with such a bad player that they whine and call the GM bad for following the rules.
tl:dr. My thoughts which follow are therefore almost certainly repeats of points others have articulated, probably better-
1. It's the only class which specifically and explicitly limits not just what the class itself is permitted to do, but what the character will tolerate out of the people around them. Note that this is a facile distinction- if I play a Druid, and someone in the party is actively disrespectful of/damaging toward nature, you can bet my character isn't going to stand for it, even though there's no "code of conduct" sidebars about it. For that matter, a well-roleplayed character will almost certainly have actions they won't tolerate, regardless of whether they have class features attached to it- and not just the good-aligned ones.
2. If you spent your angsty teen years when you were really getting into the game going, "Captain America's a boring putz," "Honor is stupid," "man, I do what I WANT!" then a Paladin's going to seem like a dork. And even if you outgrow those views, the impression of the class may well remain.
3. One actual point against Paladins, in my opinion- Falling is so crippling to them on a mechanical level that the more interesting dynamic of no one being fully capable of meeting their standards at all times isn't something that ends up being fun to play out on tabletop. Due to the all or nothing nature of a Paladin's fall, there's not a lot of nuance without heavy GM investment in keeping track of a single character's moral standing at all times.
Everything else comes down to the actions of individual players (you can correct someone's actions without trying to chop their heads off) or GMs (constantly plotting to strip a PC of their class abilities for the lulz is a crappy way to do things)
I would really hope I never play with such a bad player that they whine and call the GM bad for following the rules.
You have an odd definition of following the rules. One that is not whining to call someone out on.
By your own admission is makes the class, which should be playable, not playable. I think that's a pretty good indicator of where the problem lies.
I would really hope I never play with such a bad player that they whine and call the GM bad for following the rules.
I think its been pretty well established that You and I have wildly different views on what makes a GM bad. The difference is I have the ability to play in campaigns that use the entire core class lineup, continue for years and end at or near 20th level without issue, whereas the philosophy of so many others that they're certain is right has them on forums decrying how badly broken X or Y is and how unplayable a core class is despite the weight of public experience claiming otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would really hope I never play with such a bad player that they whine and call the GM bad for following the rules.You have an odd definition of following the rules. One that is not whining to call someone out on.
It is whining.
Basic reading comprehension let's a player know that their class features are active at the GM's whims. A mature player either accepts that or plays a different class.
An immature player ignores the resections the rules place on them because "this isn't faaaairrr" and will pout/rage at "bad GMing" because this game has rules and restrictions.
That is someone I wouldn't want to play with let alone GM for.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. One might think calling kafkatrapping the class and warning free falls being ascribed to a bad gm touched a nerve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would really hope I never play with such a bad player that they whine and call the GM bad for following the rules.I think its been pretty well established that You and I have wildly different views on what makes a GM bad. The difference is I have the ability to play in campaigns that use the entire core class lineup, continue for years and end at or near 20th level without issue, whereas the philosophy of so many others that they're certain is right has them on forums decrying how badly broken X or Y is and how unplayable a core class is despite the weight of public experience claiming otherwise.
"Simulacrum is in the CRB. If I can't make a genie of one and get unlimited free wishes, you're a bad GM!"
"Wizard is a core class and high level spells have been in the game for decades. If you can't condone my specific abuses and limit my power in any way. You sir are bad at GMing. To hell with anyone else at the table!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disagree all you want, you're the one whose philosophy on the game disqualifies an entire core class from your table. No one else here seems to have that trouble outside of Lady J's table where the act of killing causes an instant fall.
How dare I remove problem children from my table in an attempt to make the game more fun for everyone involved, instead of leaving them be and waiting until something comes up and creating a problem that will drive people away? I fail to see how what I'm doing is a bad thing here, when it's done for the good of the table and the players, and is commonly done when a player is overly disruptive to the rest of the group. Just because I take a proactive approach to a hypothetical situation instead of a reactive approach doesn't make me a bad GM; in fact, most people would say GMs who do just that are better than those who do not.
I also think it's funny that you think my houserule of Paladins being NPCs is akin to the paradox of Lady J's operation, where Paladins can't reasonably be adventurers of any caliber as they would fall because of what being an adventurer entails.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. One might think calling kafkatrapping the class and warning free falls being ascribed to a bad gm touched a nerve.
I've played with munchkin paladins.
I would never let that code touch my table. Someone tried to bring that code for Savage Words as their miracle background sins. I told them they would auto-fall, so he rewrote it and we all had a good laugh at how stupid "act with honor" is as a restriction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basic reading comprehension let's a player know that their class features are active at the GM's whims. A mature player either accepts that or plays a different class.An immature player ...
You have no cause to level that accusation while accusing others of having bad reading comprehension and "whining" because you insist on not only twisting whats written but also stubbornly insisting that the result of that deliberate misinterpretation is the one true rules.
What you are doing is NOT whats written there. It's in your head. You are not following the rules you are twisting them. That is a legitimate complaint.
.
It's not the only interpretation.
You just have no right to complain when it is the interpretation.
That's whining/immature/bad playing that is terrible to have at any table.
It's not the only interpretation.
You just have no right to complain when it is the interpretation.
That's whining/immature/bad playing that is terrible to have at any table.
People are welcome to bad interpretations of the rules thats true. They probably shouldn't get defensive when those bad interpretations are translated as "bad gming" because thats also true.
When there are multiple ways of interpreting a rule, and you choose the one that renders a long time core class unplayable, thats on you, not the rules. Good gms look at that and go "man, this just makes it not work, especially if i go into it looking for reasons to make the players character useless, maybe i'll use the other interpretation so as to not disingenuously pretend the game i bought has something as integral as a base book class that simply doesn't work in play"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are welcome to bad interpretations of the rules thats true. They probably shouldn't get defensive when those bad interpretations are translated as "bad gming" because thats also true.It's not the only interpretation.
You just have no right to complain when it is the interpretation.
That's whining/immature/bad playing that is terrible to have at any table.
Then People shouldn't get defensive then when such accusations of "bad gming" are translated as "bad playing"
Again, im capable of playing in campaigns where ALL the core rulebook classes can be represented without ill feeling or disruption to the campaign. Can you say the same?
Again, im capable of playing in campaigns where ALL the core rulebook classes can be represented without ill feeling or disruption to the campaign. Can you say the same?And that's fine, but not everybody plays where they can just houserule that the Druid can wear whatever armour it wants.
Your GMS often in the habit of tricking druids into wearing metal armor, or putting them in a position where its wear metal armor or lose druid powers another way?
Because thats the bone of contention, antagonistic "gotcha" gming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, im capable of playing in campaigns where ALL the core rulebook classes can be represented without ill feeling or disruption to the campaign. Can you say the same?
Note "playing" not GMing. because you have twisted the GMs arm to let you do what you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, im capable of playing in campaigns where ALL the core rulebook classes can be represented without ill feeling or disruption to the campaign. Can you say the same?Note "playing" not GMing. because you have twisted the GMs arm to let you do what you want.
No because my gm isn't Dwight from the office.
No because my gm isn't Dwight from the office.Again, im capable of playing in campaigns where ALL the core rulebook classes can be represented without ill feeling or disruption to the campaign. Can you say the same?Note "playing" not GMing. because you have twisted the GMs arm to let you do what you want.
IDK Dwight does get bullied a lot.