PDA

View Full Version : Paladin are selfish



Pages : 1 [2]

Diamondeye
2008-02-11, 01:43 PM
So now having starving people in a city without any saints who would agree to help feed them all for free is railroading? because if so RL God is a horrible DM.

I don't think this comment was really necessary.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-11, 05:58 PM
While I agree that perhaps selling your equipment for food is foolish, a Paladin that avoids doing so *kills* a bunch of innocents by inaction - you keep ignoring this - the fact that the Paladin should/not fall for this is not the point of debate (or at least not my point) how ethic is sacrificing innocents for the greater good is what I am asking (and none beside VanBuren has answered)
And what all the people the paladin kills because he's not there, like the victims of a village halfway through the country, because he's busy here? Same thing. He must do his best to save as much people as he can.
The paladin is killing innocents by inaction when he chooses to do nothing. "Orcs attacking the village? Not my problem).
When he is actively doing something important, then he is doing anything by inaction. (The villages are raiding the village! But I need to stop the ritual summoning demons into this dimension, or the whole world will be destroyed). It doesn't mean he's being selfish. He's doing a tough choice. In roleplaying heavy games, he could constantly lament the fact that he's not good enough.

Roderick_BR
2008-02-11, 06:14 PM
bloody double post...

Sir Iguejo
2008-02-11, 06:39 PM
Death is not the end, roll up a new character. A TPK is not the end, everybody roll up new characters. Nothing *forces* you to stop playing, but a great many things might convince you that playing with a particular DM is kind of pointless.

So you expect to get over to lvl 20 without dying once. I say you are used to games set to the "very easy" difficulty. Just walk and smite, walk and smite. If you fall dead you just cry that its pointless to play with that DM.

I agree that dying too many times is boring. But not dying even once makes the game too easy. Theres no fun in an encounter if there's no chance of losing. Players need to realize that their characters will die if they just walk and smite without thinking. Paladin death is not "a great many things". Just wait 4 or 5 gameplay minutes that the party's cleric will raise you again.


Ah yes, the good old "ability to put up with crap from their DM" definition of a "good player".

We're not talking about "dying in glory". We're talking about dying totally ignominiously because the DM was a **** and insisted that your Paladin's "code" required him to screw himself over in order to "help innocents" in exactly the way the DM wants him to.


You seem to be that kind of player that wants everything done your way. You're invincible. When put in a difficult situation, just say that your DM is **** because he tottaly screwed your ignominious paladin because tha pally did not save innocents.

you say "ability to put up with crap from their DM" is not a definition of a "good player".
I say the ability to put up with crap from their players is not a definition af a good DM.


So what you're saying is that if a Paladin makes a choice you don't agree with, you would set up an adventure where he "learns" that he should have made the choice you wanted him to make.


Yes.

I think that senseless killing is wrong. If a player thinks that senseless killing is right, either the PC is Evil or the player needs to learn whats right and whats wrong.
If the player does not agree with my ethical or moral definitions, i recommend him NOT to do a paladin in my campaign world or to look for another DM. My players seem to like my game so far, and I have a paladin in my group who is Roleplaying very well the code. He is not going to fall. But I cant assure he is not going to die in the course of the adventures.


A depressing number of DMs seem to think that arbitrarily punishing the player for doing stuff they don't like constitutes a "roleplaying opportunity". The "opportunity" to "learn" that the DM was right to make you lose your powers for not being an idiot isn't a roleplaying opportunity, and it certainly isn't a sign of "maturity".


A depressing number of players seem to think that everytime his PC gets screwed, the DM is punishing him. Hell, no. Players think that characters only die when doing stupid things, like charging the BBEG, and every other way to die is a form of deliberate punishment.


DMs are fallible, they can, in fact, do things wrong. It is not the mark of a good player to just go along with whatever the DM says.


Im not saying that im God or Im always right. I can make some mistakes here and there, and if some player is not happy with my game, he can just tell me whats annoying him and I will surely fix things up. Ultimate goal in RPG is to have fun.
I warned my players in the first session: You are not going to win everytime. I will DM a hard game, and occasional PC deaths are going to happen. Is this okay? They agreed.
also
It is not the mark of a good player to fight with the DM everytime.


There's also the fact that Iguejo basically tried to portray the criticism people were leveling at his DMing style with criticism of an immersive game which draws on characters' backstories and/or tries to make them feel involved and significant in the world... which is a bit cheap.

Nah, You got it wrong. I was answering another post when i said that. English is not my native language so I may have expressed it wrong.

And my DMing style is not like that, I would never screw my players to this point. They would eventually get bored and leave. What Im saying is that dying or falling is not a big deal, nor its definitive in D&D. There are several ways to get over death. When Im playing other games (as player, not DM) I always keep in mind that my char can die every encounter, and very easy games just make me feel bored.



If Orcs are raiding your homeland, and the only way your DM gives you to keep your Paladin powers is to rush them head-on and die by the endless hordes, sneak around and destroy the miscreants' supply chains, take as many weapons from their cache as possible, and then rally the local militia to aid him in destroying the now poorly armed and supplied horde! There's nothing in there that would violate the Paladin Code of Honor, just the Idiot Paladin's Code of Bad Tactics...

I was expecting this COA for an unequiped paladin, and I would reward him greatly for doing that (giving back his gears and handling huge XP) instead of complaining about the paladin code. He saved the entire city, for the initial gold he give was enough to buy supplies for the peasants and he stopped the orc horde of doing any more ravage.



EDIT: Yeah other thing, my DM style is not the subject of this thread. it is named "Paladins are selfish" not "Criticizing Iguejo's DM style". I've talking to my players about your opinions and they said my style is alright. Back to discussing the paladin's code of conduct

horseboy
2008-02-11, 07:09 PM
So you expect to get over to lvl 20 without dying once. That's why there's so few 20's.
I say you are used to games set to the "very easy" difficulty. Just walk and smite, walk and smite. If you fall dead you just cry that its pointless to play with that DM.Or to games where death means more than just waiting for a respawn. I mean spaming the priest for a rez. Er, dang it, well, inserting diamonds into the healbot.


I agree that dying too many times is boring. But not dying even once makes the game too easy. Theres no fun in an encounter if there's no chance of losing. Players need to realize that their characters will die if they just walk and smite without thinking. Paladin death is not "a great many things". Just wait 4 or 5 gameplay minutes that the party's cleric will raise you again. Just because nobody died doesn't mean the game is too easy. It means the players just figured out how to escape death just one more day.


You seem to be that kind of player that wants everything done your way. You're invincible. When put in a difficult situation, just say that your DM is **** because he totally screwed your ignominious paladin because the pally did not save innocents. He did save the innocents, just not how you wanted them to do it.


Yes.


Kevin: I am serious and I am dangerous for I am second assistant manager of the ninth floor in charge of requisitions and supplies and I have gone MAD with POWER! Hey, (in Dave's direction) aren't I in charge of all the paper on the floor?

Dave: (nods and gives Kevin a funny look)

Kevin: Quick! Get me 4000 pounds of paper, and I want it now. Think of it. All that *paper*.

Dave: (gives Kevin another funny look)

Kevin: What are you all staring at? Do you think I've gone mad, mad with power? Well you're RIGHT. Perkins, from now on you work under your desk. (hits desk) I said under your desk, man.

Man: (goes under his desk)

Dave: Hey! What the hell gives you the right to order us around, huh?

Kevin: Don't bother me, worm. I would have you fired if I had a little *more* power. I've gone mad with my *moderate* amount of power.

Dave: Well, great. Why don't you just go to hell.

Kevin: Oh, I'll go to hell (grabs Dave by the collar) but I swear I'll bring you along for the ride. (lets go of Dave) I have an announcement to make. I'm in charge of the water cooler. From now on, nobody gets any water without my permission and nobody get my permission! Are you thirsty under there, Perkins? Well you can't have any! (takes some water from the cooler with his hand) I can have as much as I want! Ah hah hah hah! I'm not even thirsty!You are not in charge of your player's characters. Your players are. That's why they're players.


I think that senseless killing is wrong. If a player thinks that senseless killing is right, either the PC is Evil or the player needs to learn whats right and whats wrong.
If the player does not agree with my ethical or moral definitions, i recommend him NOT to do a paladin in my campaign world or to look for another DM. My players seem to like my game so far, and I have a paladin in my group who is Roleplaying very well the code. He is not going to fall. But I cant assure he is not going to die in the course of the adventures.What senseless killing? Did the paladin go through and wipe out the village in a massive mercy CDG that I missed?

Demented
2008-02-11, 07:21 PM
But is a doctor refusing to treat a victim dieing from a disease which he could have easily cured innocent?

That's akin to asking the dentist to sell off his office so that one patient can afford a root canal before a life-threatening infection takes hold.

That's not being selfless... Well, maybe it is. It's also being irresponsible! Especially when the dentist could just as easily take out a loan, save the patient, and KEEP his office.


how ethic is sacrificing innocents for the greater good is what I am asking
It's never ethical. You can only sacrifice those who volunteer. (Thus, soldiers are always fair game, as they volunteered to fight.) Denying to sell your weapon, however, should be the last thing to do. In a violent setting, your weapon is your life, just as a spellbook is to a wizard. Once you're at the point where you're selling your weapon, the only benificient action you should have left in you is to cut off your arm and feed it to the peasants.

BEFORE you sell your sword, you should flee for help, because AFTER you've sold your sword, you're in just as dire straits as the peasants are.

VanBuren
2008-02-11, 09:05 PM
Isn't that kinda redundant? :smallwink:

I'm using gimped as relative to the class. As in, a gimped Monk is a monk that other monks beat on to make themselves feel superior.

Because he's that bad.

Fawsto
2008-02-11, 09:39 PM
Well, situations where you have suck or suck options are not funny either.

Moderation is the key. If you give the players a situation where they can't succeed even by using good ideas... That's just not good.

There are hard situations, indeed. Without them the game is not funny. Everytime we face anything that is "apropriate" for the party, or even achieveble for the group, I know my character may die in the process. But I always like to think that if the chalenge is there, my character has at least a plausible chance to face the situation.

Unbeateble "you are screwed" situations have never happened to me. But I know they are not funny.

Now, they are saying that the Paladin would fall because someone is dying from hunger while he is trying to solve the problem in a smart and effective way? Well them, why he has not fallen yet for all those people that died from hunger while he traveled from town A to Hungry Town?

Damn people... Everyone has limitations.

kamikasei
2008-02-12, 04:50 AM
Paladin death is not "a great many things". Just wait 4 or 5 gameplay minutes that the party's cleric will raise you again.

What kind of selfish paladin would allow thousands of gold's worth of diamonds to be wasted raising him? Think how many peasants those could feed!


Nah, You got it wrong. I was answering another post when i said that. English is not my native language so I may have expressed it wrong.

I must have missed that, but given your comments in the rest of this post I can't feel too bad about it, because you're more or less doing exactly what I said. If people tell you they think it's poor form to put paladins in lose-lose situations where they will either a) fall for not doing what you want or b) die because they cripple themselves before facing overwhelming odds, you accuse those people of playing on easy mode, never wanting to be challenged, and being poor players with poor DMs. Here's a thought: maybe they just want a fun game where they're challenged and might, in fact, lose a combat or even their lives - and don't feel being told "damned if you do, damned if you don't" is conducive to that?