All about Pen & Paper rpgs and their relation to video games.

[Frostyfirefly]

Oh, I love Game of Thrones too. The whole Paladin thing is very tricky, because Paladins need to protect good and act lawful (I almost always play a Paladin or Ranger), but there will be a ton of instances in which a Paladin must choose to eliminate someone or perform some act for the greater good, and that small act (as compared to the general scheme or plot) may be considered "dark" or "shadowy" or "severe", etc. That's why I tend to be flexible when someone plays Paladin in my group, otherwise, the drama will escalate a lot, at least in my games.

 

[Omnimental]

I don't know... of the people I know, the ones who play paladin just like the archetype of the good knight, and the idea that his power comes from his determination to be good itself.

It feels strange to me, seeing paladins dumped in the same category as evil PCs, since I've never actually seen a "supreme authority" lawful-stupid paladin.

Different experiences and all that, I guess.

Then you are very lucky.  Seeing a well-played paladin is a special sort of boon for me, because I usually see Judge Dredd "I am the LAW" style paladins over "protect and inspire" paladins.  I love paladins myself, and enjoy playing them.  But I've seen plenty of players use the archetype to justify their egotistical actions.

And I guess I didn't word that too well, because I'm not trying to compare evil PCs and Paladins so much as describe that the problems that people encounter with them is less the option [Evil/Paladin] and more the player behind the choice.  If you have a selfish player, then you're going to have a problem no matter what they play.  It's just that selfish players tend to pick options that 'justify' their actions, and we associate the choices.  Since the evil alignment and the paladin class both offer options to play selfishly, they tend to get targeted more.

Evil PCs and paladins can both be played well.  There's no doubt about that.

@ Monkeynohito:  That's a rather novel way of putting it.  I find the amount of PC friction you can safely incorporate directly relates to the maturity of your players.  If your players can't distinguish character conflict from player conflict, then the party should be encouraged to avoid it.

All in all, the players need to buy into the concept of the game.  If the GM wants to run an all-for-one-one-for-all hero campaign, then they need to make sure the players are on board with that idea.  Conversely, a player shouldn't sign up for said campaign and make a brooding anti-villain backstabber.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@Omnimental: That's true, usually the worst kind of players hide behind the Paladin's mask of righteousness; kinda like in real life, no better way to shield a negative behaviour than hiding behind ethics, morality, etc.

 

[Cozzer]

So, I take it you don't watch a lot of Game of Thrones, huh? :3

Game of Thrones is a story, not an RPG, though. In a story you can decide that characters do unwise things (which also applies to the Firefly crew keeping Jayne, in some cases), in an RPG you have to face the fact that when it's a life or death situation the player will probably choose the safest route (which in this case means booting the evil bastard or the unsufferable paladin, which wouldn't make that character's player happy).

Seriously though, if you want a really low-maintenance party or you aren't big on interaction between PCs, make sure all the characters are on the same page; if you want more drama in the party, throw increasingly differing viewpoints in the mix to create more conflict or chemistry. You can run a successful game either way, it really just depends on taste. In all honesty, the GM doesn't get to decide how well the PCs get along anyway, it really shouldn't be a reason for a ban.

I think you got me wrong: I love inter-party conflict and drama, and actually encourage it.

But it has to be a kind of drama that I find interesting too, as a GM. And I find selfish-evil the least interesting thing in the universe, in this context.

(As I said, I like other kinds of evil, such as the idealism-taken-too-far one or the I-protect-my-friends-in-a-utterly-ruthless-way one)

 

[Frostyfirefly]

Anyone who wants a great portrayal of a selfish villain, who is ruthless and works things so that everyone should have special considerations towards him and such, should see Dio's performance in the manga / anime Jojo's Bizarre Adventure; well, at leas to me it's an interesting profile of over the top evil. You can get some pretty good ideas for exaggerated campaign villains there.

 

[monkeynohito]

I've only seen a paladin not be a complete ass a few times and then they played them like boring fighters. The best-played paladin-style characters I've seen were actually fighters or rangers and honestly, I just think the paladin class is broken:

There's a barrier to entry - Every human on the planet can pick up a fighter, thief or wizard and have some idea how to act like one. No normal person even knows what a paladin is. The alignment restriction on top of that requires the player be a decent RPer.

They're a stupid, drawn out alignment argument waiting to happen - People don't understand Lawful Good. They think it's about the actual relative laws of whatever code of ethics they feel like following or they think it means the ends justify the means. God help you if you get that player who thinks LG means their personal political and religious beliefs, they're going to be taking things a little bit personally.

They force alignment into your game and cause tension in the party - Raise your hand if you've had a paladin character detect alignment on the party and now he hates the thief forever. Meanwhile, an evil character couldn't care less about the paladin's alignment as long as they mind their own business. A paladin is basically hard-wired to boss other people around and the game includes eight other basic types of people that disagree with him. A cleric can also be perfectly functional if he's the only character in the game with an alignment, the paladin's abilities require -every other- characters to have one.

Mounts are more trouble than they're worth - Have you ever gone into a dungeon? Did you bring the horses with? Were the horses still there when you came out of the dungeon a week later? Did the paladin let you ride his magic horse after all the other ones disappeared? Did he get off his horse to give you all maneuvering room when you got into that fight in a tiny woodland grove on the way back? Did pally have to dip into party funds to buy feed and barding for his horse?

The authority really appeals to a lot of jackasses - By far the characters that get along worst with NPCs across the board are paladins. Some people hear horror stories about samurai or knights treating peasants like crap, so they assume that **** goes over in every game world. Being a holy warrior answering directly to the ultimate divine authority, they also tend to lack any respect for mortal authority figures because that's a super LG way to act. Then you get rules lawyers who think they understand Palor or St. Cuthbert well enough to argue with how the GM is playing them.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

I think the problem with Paladins is people are too stict on what is "Lawful Good". They view Paladins through the view of modern Christianity.

I played a young Paladin, who was a handsome ladies man in his early 20s, had the potential for leadership but mostly didn't take his life seriously enough. Yes, he went out and crusaded against evil orcs, but it was all a bit of a game to him. When forced into a serious situation, he took it seriously, and he really did believe in his god and the purpose put out before him.

He was full of life, made bad decisions romantically regularly, drank excessively, reveled with the riffraff. Other Paladins of his faith tended to not take him seriously, but when push came to shove, he had their backs.

Lawful Good doesn't mean strict adherence to everything.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@monkeynohito: Yeah I don't like mounts either, unless it's a war type campaign. I usually go for the Paladin's magical weapon option instead.

@Touchfuzzy: That's true, lawful doesn't necessarily mean restriction, and good doesn't mean acting passively or peacefully; you have the Half-Orc Peaceful Paladin archetype for that (I hate that one, I don't think anyone in their right minds will choose it)!.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

For a bit of elaboration, for instance my comment on the view of paladins being too hyperfocused on modern Christianity, the character I described would have been breaking a lot of lawful tennants of Christianity by leaving a trail of women everywhere he went, but we tend to forget the gods they worship are NOT Judeochristian deities.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@Touchfuzzy: I see your point, Christianity was never my thing anyway. But yes, I think that's the thing too, Paladins may have started as classes modeled after the catholic crusaders and whatnot, but when playing rpgs, we are talking about different worlds who have no relation whatsoever with any of Earth's religions. Unless, of course, maybe you are playing an rpg that has to do something with life here on Earth, and even so, there are many types of crusaders, as the cross is a very ancient symbol. Hm, maybe you could play as some sort of mythological atlantean Paladin, that sounds cool.

 

[monkeynohito]

I think the problem with Paladins is people are too stict on what is "Lawful Good". They view Paladins through the view of modern Christianity.

Yeah, I think a lot of players start with an alignment at the core, equate it with their personal beliefs and then the game gets too personal. They're no longer playing a character, they're playing themselves and then any force that opposes them loses any irony, especially when it's a party member disagreeing with their 'character's' opinion. To be fair though, I think you also see plenty of that with some atheists or whatever wanting to play some super edgy 'anti-Christian' alignment like chaotic evil and there again, they bring in the idea that Christianity is the default law and good.

Like I said before, a character really needs to be based on a solid concept and motivations and I, personally, think of alignment as more of an extra RP bonus challenge depending on how much you want to constrain your actions with it.

 

[Omnimental]

In regards to Paladins, I much prefer the Fantasy Craft approach, where Paladin isn't a class you can take at first level.  Personally, the idea of paladins feels too 'epic' to be first level characters.

A large part of the issue people have with Paladins is that they put the lawful part ahead of the good part.  The way of interpreting the paladin's alignment that makes the most sense to me is that they are a capital G good person who obeys a strict personal code and occasionally is forced to show why Good is Not Nice.  Given the option they'll try to talk things out and reason with the opposition, but when push comes to shove they'll fight with exactly as much force as necessary.

Then again, I rather dislike D&D alignment with a passion.  It's simultaneously too broad and too strict, and forces a black & white world view into the game.  I much prefer systems where your 'alignment' is codified only in personal beliefs.  In my games, I have the players choose three beliefs for their characters.  Conflicting beliefs are even better.  If you believe that all children are Innocent, and all goblins are Evil, what happens when you encounter a goblin child?  Clerics would have one enforced belief based on their god, and the paladin would have their god's belief plus one entitled "Protect people from evil."

 

[Cozzer]

Also, a big problem is when people assume that there is one and only way to play an alignment, and think you are not "playing your alignment right" if your character is not the exaggerated stereotype they have in mind when they think of your alignment.

Stuff like "Hey, you had the opportunity of killing that random complete stranger and you didn't! Weren't you Evil?", or "Hey, you are actually asking to be paid for risking your life for a random complete stranger, weren't you Good?".

And it's even worse if you get in a "lawful means following a personal code" vs "lawful means following the rules of society" problem...

So yeah, alignment as a whole could theoretically have a purpose, but creates way more problems than it solves.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@Cozzer: Yeah, what use is there to create a different character if alignment determines the way you act?

I think the strongest purpose of alignment in my game is the PCs interaction with magical items as in "yes, you are the only one who can wield that Neutral weapon" or "sorry, that awesome looking chaotic evil mace is beyond your alignment".

 

[monkeynohito]

In most D&D/Pathfinder campaigns, alignments don't even come close to what the characters really care about. They just want to kill some ****, grab some loot, gain a level and kill more ****. I think if you're going to mess with alignment you need to make it really matter like in Ravenloft, where entire realms are designed to torment and reward evil powers and paladins shine like lighthouse beacons and the Dark Powers behind the scenes are pretty much cynical GMs messing with their characters.

As it stands, the only rules support for alignment is metagaming and spells or abilities that have had any logical intentions litigated into overwrought nonsense. For Frosty's magic weapon example, magic weapons are magic, so you can asspull whatever nonsense you want to keep certain characters from using it regardless of alignment.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@monkeynohito: Ravenloft is awesome! Some of the best adventures I ran for my players were in that setting. I recently reviewed "Heroes of Horror" which does a pretty decent job if you want to run a modified Pathfinder version of Ravenloft, but I can't wait to review a few of the ol' AD&D Ravenloft modules.

 

[monkeynohito]

Here's Ravenloft in an anecdotal nutshell and it is good:




Those old books are probably the most adaptable D&D books. Monsters can easily be switched out with the same monsters and beyond that, the crunch tends to veer into broader, more general territory. The fluff, especially in the Van Richten guides, also rival the sort of stuff White Wolf puts out without getting out of hand.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@monkeynohito: Great video! Haha: "Don't kill your players...unless they have it coming...which oftentimes they do..." 

 

[Omega Weapon]

Good suggestions, all of you.

As I'm working on a one-shot in GURPS now, I have some stuff to share:

The world we're playing in is actually 15th Century Europe/Earth, with a twist: ALL mythology is part of reality. The living can enter the plane of the dead, and vice versa, dragons exist, there are elves who have left Alfheim out of curiosity and so on.

Gods can interact with the world, directly or not, though they can only interact at shrines, temples or statues devoted to them, often manifesting as a disembodied voice.

They just REFUSE to talk about "Capital G", if not killing you outright for asking. And you just DON'T defy a god, even if he/she is not your own.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@Laura Yeah Right: I thought you said it had a twist, all of that sounds pretty everyday life to me

Cool setting, I bet you can create some pretty unique player characters with mysterious backgrounds related to each god.