What to do when I paladin doesnt act LIke a Paladin?

203 posts / 0 new
Last post
OKay so I am running a 4e game and our Lawful Paladin of Bahumat has been actiong fairly evil lately and I am unsure of what to do if he becomes evil. I really need some help on this one. He's level3 or 4.
Start by talking to the player and ask the motive. Prepare for both outcomes.

I prefer not to punish players, so I tend to convert their abilities over and proceed as though they were always evil. This way the player is rewarded for their choice by not being punished. (non-punishment IS the reward).


Ask your player if there is anything in the game which is causing that player to have less fun. There is a chance if the player is bored, provoked or agitated about something, that "insane behavior" is deviance against the "norm".

Is your player happy? Does this player have conflicts with other players? Is there a chance the player made the character in one mood, then after creating it, "realized" the character "is someone other than who he first thought it to be"?

Edit:

Not to be insulting, but is there a chance you did something wrong? Maybe you did something that caused "one thing to lead to another" and "now we are here"?

I would re-examine the situation, talk to the player about expectations, and if the player wants an evil character, I would permit that however there is a difference between evil and insane.

If your player is making "evil choices" instead of "good choices" that is one thing. If the player is just being totally nuts, that is different. Which is it?

Within; Without.

OKay so I am running a 4e game and our Lawful Paladin of Bahumat has been actiong fairly evil lately and I am unsure of what to do if he becomes evil. I really need some help on this one. He's level3 or 4.

You are not obligated to do anything, and anything you try to do in game is very likely not to be taken well. Unless you find his in-game choices personally disturbing, let him roleplay how he wants. If you do find his in-game choices personally disturbing, talk to him about it out-of-game, find out what the deal is and work something out - which might mean not playing together. Or it might mean that he changes his behavior. Or it might mean he helps you come up with ideas to punish his character while still keeping the game interesting for him.

Good luck.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

OKay so I am running a 4e game and our Lawful Paladin of Bahumat has been actiong fairly evil lately and I am unsure of what to do if he becomes evil. I really need some help on this one. He's level3 or 4.

You are not obligated to do anything, and anything you try to do in game is very likely not to be taken well. Unless you find his in-game choices personally disturbing, let him roleplay how he wants. If you do find his in-game choices personally disturbing, talk to him about it out-of-game, find out what the deal is and work something out - which might mean not playing together. Or it might mean that he changes his behavior. Or it might mean he helps you come up with ideas to punish his character while still keeping the game interesting for him.

Good luck.




Ninja beat me to it, it seems!

Within; Without.

agreed that punishing is the wrong way to go, there could always be the possibility of rewards for acting according to Bahamut's virtues, or the story could evolve to have an evil god luring him away to worship Bane or Zehir etc.

you would have to tell us a bit more to illiustrate if it really is a problem for everyone or just a conflict of expectations
Fortunately, alignment is pretty much irrelevant in 4e, and Paladins no longer can be punished with the lost of most of their powers for doing something wrong.

What exactly is he doing that is so evil?

Don't go into it with the mentality that you need to punish or bribe his character to roleplay a certain way.  However, you've got something here which might make for a cool addition to the story.  Maybe next time he does something "evil," ask him what Bahamut might think of that at the next lull in the story (note, make sure you don't do it in a "you're doing it wrong" tone, but a genuinely curious tone), and try to tease out information from him about Bahamut, the church, if there is a Paladin's code, if he might have to something to repent or atone for his sins.  At the very least, you could add something interesting to the tapestry of your world, and it could be something that could be worked into future adventures.
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
This is a pretty common problem. The idea of Paladins is very appealing, while not getting to run rampant in a fantasy world can be a drag. I had a situation like this resolve itself nicely two months back. In our 5E campaign, the house-ruled Paladin was acting a little chaotic. It was part of his backstory, but clearly at odds with the player's expectation of Paladin behavior. We talked about various outcomes but then the next playtest included the official Paladin class and he became a LN Paladin. He's much happier now.

In your case, take away all your player's Paladin powers and have his deity send an aspect to fight him. You may think this is punishing the player, but it's not. You're actually punishing him by not taking away his powers. Paladins are one of the few classes where alignment matters. Your player decided to play a class with extra feats and opportunities, which are paid for by adhering to a strict moral code. By allowing him to break that code without consequence, that character creation decision becomes less meaningful.

You may be thinking this sounds like you're taking all the fun away and being awful to your player. But what you'd actually be doing is responding in-game to his roleplaying decisions, giving weight and meaning to them in a way that reinforces the value of his decisions. Where do you think this player is going with this? Does he want to be more of a Ranger, or a chaotic Warrior? Does he actually want to be evil? See where he's going and help him.

Example: Paladin is in dungeon with opportunity to sacrifice the loot down a volcanic vent in order to save the helpless old sage. Sounds like your Paladin would probably choose the loot, a clear violation of his holy vows. Fine. He gets the loot, suddenly all holy powers drain away and an angel of vengeance shows up to smite him. In the ensuing battle, monsters show up and naturally choose to fight against the angel. Now your ex-Paladin has allies more to his liking, a bunch of loot, and maybe some of his powers come back flipped. Maybe he would enjoy that more.

Before you do any of this, talk to your player away from the table. See if he can explain his thinking. Ask what he sees as his character's goals, get him to describe his character from the perspective of commoners, ask him how his plans have changed since he created the character. Your goal is to enable his wishes in fun and interesting ways, giving him decisions with consequences and great roleplaying opportunities. Don't be afraid to levy consequences for your players that seem at first to be only negative. Every great hero experiences a tragic fall which makes his eventual victory all the sweeter. The same is true for anti-heroes.
We had a 4E Paladin who used theme and background options from the Book of Vile Darkness. He had a demon trapped inside of him. He could draw additional powers from this demon as well. The story we decided was he needed to "feed" the demon on occaision to keep it placated, but not enough to make it too powerful. So in his downtime he would drink and gamble, carrouse and brawl, but he never murdered, tortured or betrayed his friends. It was a lot of fun watching the character "sin within reason."

One of the player's first spotlight scenes was his Paladin bare-knuckle pit fighting with a Goliath while crowds wagered on the fight. He won and took a Flagon of Ale Procurement as a prize. It was pretty cool.
In your case, take away all your player's Paladin powers and have his deity send an aspect to fight him.



You haven't played 4e have? You - all that would get you is a dead paladin, which is no fun for anyone and is a constriction on his roleplay.

You may think this is punishing the player, but it's not. You're actually punishing him by not taking away his powers.



Bull.

Paladins are one of the few classes where alignment matters.



Not true.

Your player decided to play a class with extra feats and opportunities, which are paid for by adhering to a strict moral code. By allowing him to break that code without consequence, that character creation decision becomes less meaningful.



You did read that he's playing 4e, right? Paladins get no more feats or opportunities than any other class so taking away powers and class features for acting in certain ways is just being a jerk (and of course, RAW cannot happen).

You may be thinking this sounds like you're taking all the fun away and being awful to your player. But what you'd actually be doing is responding in-game to his roleplaying decisions, giving weight and meaning to them in a way that reinforces the value of his decisions. Where do you think this player is going with this? Does he want to be more of a Ranger, or a chaotic Warrior? Does he actually want to be evil? See where he's going and help him.



Rubbish. He wants to use paladin powers (hence why he chose that class) and RP as he likes. You should not stop him from doing so.

Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Everything posted above is spot on. (Except 1stLevelSean's advice. It has no basis in 4e.)

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

(edited because I thought it through more and changed my mind)

In 4e, at least the way we play it, alignment and choice of deity are purely mechanical choices.  They don't have to have any effect on how you RP your character.  My only concern would be to not allow players to change their alignment and deity at will just to gain access to different game elements.  Because if you're going to do that, then you might as well just leave the alignment and deity fields blank on your character sheet.

Or you COULD just ignore them completely, which is also a valid option, and in turn ignore any alignment or deity requirements for game elements, like domain powers, for example.

To me, alignment just causes more problems than it solves ... most of the time I play 4e we completely ignore it.  Three cheers for Unaligned!

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

If a player wants to go all Radiant Mafia build to simulate a laser-shooting atheist hero that he wants to call Captain Lightsource but has to choose to worship Pelor to do it mechanically, then he can do it as far as I'm concerned. Mechanics only influence roleplay as much as we allow it to. To my mind, that's up to the player, not the DM.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

My main question is, how long has this been going on?  In my campaign, I've got a Dragonborn fighter who worships Bahamut and he went through a phase of being a little vicious.  We didn't talk about it, and I certainly didn't introduce any in-game mechanics to change his behaviour, and he basically "grew" out of it.  I think that when he was acting vicious, he was basically telling me that he didn't want to deal with the questions of what to do with prisoners of war when he'd rather be moving on to the next day when they'd get back to their adventuring.  Fine with me.
OKay so I am running a 4e game and our Lawful Paladin of Bahumat has been actiong fairly evil lately and I am unsure of what to do if he becomes evil. I really need some help on this one. He's level3 or 4.



I haven't read the whole thread but this is a pretty easy one...


1. Realize it isn't your responsibility to do anything to "punish" the character because it will likely backfire and make the player mad.


2. Talk with the player about it, see if he thinks anything cool could come from his actions and do that! He likes the idea, and will think it's fun as opposed to you punishing him.     

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)

OKay so I am running a 4e game and our Lawful Paladin of Bahumat has been actiong fairly evil lately and I am unsure of what to do if he becomes evil. I really need some help on this one. He's level3 or 4.



IF he gets caught by his superiors in his church, they will likely call him on the carpet about his inappropriate behavior.  Past that, nothing.

He can't lose his powers, changing his alignment will not affect his abilities or character.  Any punishment for such is purely secular; excommunication or arrest.


In your case, take away all your player's Paladin powers




No.  That is EXPRESSLY not how things work in 4e.


In your case, take away all your player's Paladin powers




No.  That is EXPRESSLY not how things work in 4e.



Unless they do in the persons game. (purely devils advocacy)

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

In your case, take away all your player's Paladin powers

No.  That is EXPRESSLY not how things work in 4e.

Because the game should never have worked that way.

Bad stuff can happen to the character of course, if the player thinks that would be interesting.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I haven't played 4E, so if the rules say PCs never lose their powers, that's fine. But no one in 4E ever house-rules? I house-rule all the time. Why would I let the rulebook prevent the DM or players from having fun?

As for anyone who thinks my suggestion about taking the Paladin's powers is cruel, you may have missed the last paragraph of my post:

Before you do any of this, talk to your player away from the table. See if he can explain his thinking. Ask what he sees as his character's goals, get him to describe his character from the perspective of commoners, ask him how his plans have changed since he created the character. Your goal is to enable his wishes in fun and interesting ways, giving him decisions with consequences and great roleplaying opportunities. Don't be afraid to levy consequences for your players that seem at first to be only negative. Every great hero experiences a tragic fall which makes his eventual victory all the sweeter. The same is true for anti-heroes.


EVERYTHING I do as DM is to entertain people at the table. If the Paladin gets turned into a plain fighter, stripped of all his gear, and is cast into a pit from which he has to crawl his way back up, reforming his character along the way, you can rest assured that I will strive to give the player every opportunity to do this in the most fun and creative way possible, and if the player isn't having fun with it, it doesn't happen.
I haven't played 4E, so if the rules say PCs never lose their powers, that's fine. But no one in 4E ever house-rules? I house-rule all the time. Why would I let the rulebook prevent the DM or players from having fun?

It doesn't, but it also doesn't mandate (as much as a rulebook can) that that kind of consequence happen.

As for anyone who thinks my suggestion about taking the Paladin's powers is cruel, you may have missed the last paragraph of my post:

Before you do any of this, talk to your player away from the table. See if he can explain his thinking. Ask what he sees as his character's goals, get him to describe his character from the perspective of commoners, ask him how his plans have changed since he created the character. Your goal is to enable his wishes in fun and interesting ways, giving him decisions with consequences and great roleplaying opportunities. Don't be afraid to levy consequences for your players that seem at first to be only negative. Every great hero experiences a tragic fall which makes his eventual victory all the sweeter. The same is true for anti-heroes.


Don't be afraid, but do be cautious about consequences that seem at first to be only negatives. Going along with something like that takes copious amounts of trust, which are eroded the longer the player goes along with something unpleasant. If there's a terrific payback for all of that, good, but the DM is taking a risk.

EVERYTHING
I do as DM is to entertain people at the table. If the Paladin gets turned into a plain fighter, stripped of all his gear, and is cast into a pit from which he has to crawl his way back up, reforming his character along the way, you can rest assured that I will strive to give the player every opportunity to do this in the most fun and creative way possible, and if the player isn't having fun with it, it doesn't happen.
But something else could happen, something the player would have fun with. That idea can come from the player in the conversation you mention having with them.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I haven't played 4E, so if the rules say PCs never lose their powers, that's fine. But no one in 4E ever house-rules? I house-rule all the time. Why would I let the rulebook prevent the DM or players from having fun?



Players need to buy into house rules. I wouldn't buy into the DM being able to unilaterally strip me of my class features if he perceived I wasn't being paladin-y enough. The player in the OP would probably agree, else he'd have already straightened up and flown right.

EVERYTHING I do as DM is to entertain people at the table. If the Paladin gets turned into a plain fighter, stripped of all his gear, and is cast into a pit from which he has to crawl his way back up, reforming his character along the way, you can rest assured that I will strive to give the player every opportunity to do this in the most fun and creative way possible, and if the player isn't having fun with it, it doesn't happen.



I find the "DM as Entertainer" philosophy to be flawed. I'm probably not best at articulating why, so I'll leave that to others who I know share this view. But basically, it sets up a dynamic that is not sustainable and in some ways conflicts with player agency. You can be an entertaining person, sure, but "entertainer" is not a role of the DM in my view.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

The scenario I describe assumes that something like the following conversation took placey between sessions:

DM: "Man, your Paladin went a little nuts in that last room."
Paladin: "I guess I didn't have to behead ALL the slavegirls."
DM: "Your god is probably a little pissed, don't you think."
Paladin: "I think I'm over all that. I just want to turn this guy into an unholy smiting machine."
DM: "That would be a pretty gruesome makeover."
Paladin: "Yeah, I need to burn all my old bridges and start over. Not as level one, but with new powers and allies."
DM: "I'll see what I can do..." 
 

It's possible to talk about game issues and judge intent without explictly discussing every detail beforehand. Player gets to recreate his character in a dramatic, brutal method that fits his sensibilities. Don't drag it out, and make sure by the end the player has the opportunity to craft a new character just as awesome as the one he got tired of. Big risks lead to big rewards. And what are we actually risking?

DM: "So, that was a crazy session. Now you're an unholy smiting machine."
Paladin: "Yeah, but now I feel all dirty. I think I want to go back to the Paladin, but maybe a little more chaotic than is in the rules."
DM: "I'll see what I can do..." 

Next session Paladin wakes up and discovers he had been targeted by a demon assassin. His friends saved him and he's been healing. Had a crazy dream about turning into an evil knight. Somehow that chaos lingers within him...

As a DM, there's nothing greater than the players trying something crazy and looking at you to fold it into the world in a sensible way.
I find the "DM as Entertainer" philosophy to be flawed. I'm probably not best at articulating why, so I'll leave that to others who I know share this view. But basically, it sets up a dynamic that is not sustainable and in some ways conflicts with player agency. You can be an entertaining person, sure, but "entertainer" is not a role of the DM in my view.


I think you're refering to balancing attention and game time. I have DEFINITELY cringed during a session where the DM was too much of an entertainer. He spent at least 75% of the session talking. I felt like he was reading the first chapters from his novel to us. He was quite entertaining, but the players didn't get time to shine. 

There's nothing about the DM trying to be entertaining that is inherently unsustainable when the players are also expected to be entertaining and get plenty of time to do so. The DM entertains by bringing world and NPCs to life. The player entertains by bringing his character to life. The unsustainable factor comes into play when either DM or player hogs the spotlight.
I haven't played 4E, so if the rules say PCs never lose their powers, that's fine. But no one in 4E ever house-rules? I house-rule all the time. Why would I let the rulebook prevent the DM or players from having fun?



How is "I arbitrarily declare your character useless!" fun?
I haven't played 4E, so if the rules say PCs never lose their powers, that's fine. But no one in 4E ever house-rules? I house-rule all the time. Why would I let the rulebook prevent the DM or players from having fun?



How is "I arbitrarily declare your character useless!" fun?



False situation.

What if there are clear and concise rules by which the person must conduct themselves and they willfully disobey them?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

How is "I arbitrarily declare your character useless!" fun?


I think you are focusing on mechanics and I am talking about character. Characters are never useless. But a character may lose interest in a specific tool and toss it aside. Then he looks helpless until he picks up a tool he likes even more.

The scenario I describe assumes that something like the following conversation took placey between sessions:

DM: "Man, your Paladin went a little nuts in that last room."
Paladin: "I guess I didn't have to behead ALL the slavegirls."
DM: "Your god is probably a little pissed, don't you think."
Paladin: "I think I'm over all that. I just want to turn this guy into an unholy smiting machine."
DM: "That would be a pretty gruesome makeover."
Paladin: "Yeah, I need to burn all my old bridges and start over. Not as level one, but with new powers and allies."
DM: "I'll see what I can do..."

What if it's more like:

DM: "Man, your Paladin went a little nuts in that last room."
Paladin: "Anyone who associates with evil is evil."
DM: "Your god is probably a little pissed, don't you think."
Paladin: "I don't see why...."

Where right away the paladin player sees no reason to behave any differently? The DM doesn't like it, but the player thinks it's in keeping with the character. Maybe a talk about tone is in order, but there's nothing that needs to be done in-game.
 
Big risks lead to big rewards. And what are we actually risking?

Big risks don't necessarily lead to big rewards.

As a DM, there's nothing greater than the players trying something crazy and looking at you to fold it into the world in a sensible way.

Except possibly them trying something crazy and then folding it themselves into the world in a sensible way.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

DM: "Man, your Paladin went a little nuts in that last room."
Paladin: "Anyone who associates with evil is evil."
DM: "Your god is probably a little pissed, don't you think."
Paladin: "I don't see why...."


That would probably lead to a theoretical discussion about the nature of the class. If he could give a clear explanation of his perspective, including how he knew those slavegirls weren't just innocent victims of evil, I would buy it. As for whether anything would happen in-game, that also depends on the other players and the world. If their characters are horrified by this crazy Paladin, and I have already set up a world in which Paladins are expected to behave a certain way, that could lead to some really interesting conflict. 

"Sir Paladin! You are found guilty of abusing your station and embarking on a wild crusade of slavegirl slaughter!"
"Screw you! They were as guilty as sin!"
"It is hereby decreed that you be tested in the Ice Maze of Mind Flayers! If the gods smile on you, you will survive and be set free. But if the gods curse you, your brain is a Mind Flayer's lunch."
"Bring it on!"
"And you can take your unwashed friends in with you." 

Big risks don't necessarily lead to big rewards.


Big rewards without big risks aren't as satisfying. 

Except possibly them trying something crazy and then folding it themselves into the world in a sensible way.

 
That's not the game we're playing. When you go to Vegas, do you sit at the blackjack table, place your bet, then hand the dealer the cards you want him to deal out to you? Of course not. You apply your best strategy and intuition, wish for luck, and see what happens. You could always go home and play blackjack with your friends. They would probably deal whatever cards you want to you. In which case would a big win be more satisfying?
The hell would you kill the SLAVEGIRLS?
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
The hell would you kill the SLAVEGIRLS?



Well...you know what they say about those Paladins...

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

That would probably lead to a theoretical discussion about the nature of the class. If he could give a clear explanation of his perspective, including how he knew those slavegirls weren't just innocent victims of evil, I would buy it.

This is exactly what "Yes, and..." avoids. The DM doesn't have to "buy" anything, and the player doesn't have to try to "sell" anything. What the player chooses to do is accepted and added on to - meaning, not punished in- or out-of-game but built off of in an interesting way.

As for whether anything would happen in-game, that also depends on the other players and the world. If their characters are horrified by this crazy Paladin,

As long as the players aren't horrified, then they too can build off the paladin's actions in an interesting way. But they're not allowed to just passively edge the player out of the game because they don't like the way he chooses to play. As long as it's not offensive, they have no grounds to tell others how to roleplay.

and I have already set up a world in which Paladins are expected to behave a certain way, that could lead to some really interesting conflict.

"Sir Paladin! You are found guilty of abusing your station and embarking on a wild crusade of slavegirl slaughter!"
"Screw you! They were as guilty as sin!"
"It is hereby decreed that you be tested in the Ice Maze of Mind Flayers! If the gods smile on you, you will survive and be set free. But if the gods curse you, your brain is a Mind Flayer's lunch."
"Bring it on!"
"And you can take your unwashed friends in with you."

What if the Ice Maze of the Mind Flayers is boring for the players? Do the players get to say "Ooh, how about if they banish us to the Elemental Chaos?"

Big risks don't necessarily lead to big rewards.


Big rewards without big risks aren't as satisfying.
Interesting take on what I said. I was thinking in terms of big risks leading to boring consequences. They don't necessarily have to, but plenty of DM assume that it's okay if they do.

Except possibly them trying something crazy and then folding it themselves into the world in a sensible way.

  That's not the game we're playing. When you go to Vegas, do you sit at the blackjack table, place your bet, then hand the dealer the cards you want him to deal out to you? Of course not. You apply your best strategy and intuition, wish for luck, and see what happens. You could always go home and play blackjack with your friends. They would probably deal whatever cards you want to you. In which case would a big win be more satisfying?

That's also not the game we're playing. The DM doesn't have to show a profit, and there's nothing to "win" except an interesting experience. But there's no reason everything the players experience in the game can't be interesting, because if it can't be made interesting it can be left out or handwaved.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

The hell would you kill the SLAVEGIRLS?



Well...you know what they say about those Paladins...

Wise words. Gotta say, I'm liking Yagami more than I used to...
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
The hell would you kill the SLAVEGIRLS?



Well...you know what they say about those Paladins...

Wise words. Gotta say, I'm liking Yagami more than I used to...



I'm like poison ivy...itchy & scratchy (fight fight fight, fight fight fight!) at first...but if you keep nibbling on my leaves eventually I'm delicious!

...actually I don't think that's how poison ivy works at all...hmm...gonna have to hit up the simile-store

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

As long as the players aren't horrified, then they too can build off the paladin's actions in an interesting way. But they're not allowed to just passively edge the player out of the game because they don't like the way he chooses to play. As long as it's not offensive, they have no grounds to tell others how to roleplay.


I never said anything about players telling one another how to roleplay. I said it would be interesting if other characters roleplayed their horror at his actions and their characters expressed this. Maybe through evangelizing, maybe through misdirection. There's a long history of sending the Paladin off so the rest of the party can torture the prisoner. Maybe this party sends the Paladin off so they can save the prisoner? Whatever happens, could be interesting.

What if the Ice Maze of the Mind Flayers is boring for the players? Do the players get to say "Ooh, how about if they banish us to the Elemental Chaos?


If the Elemental Chaos has been a prominent part of the mythos and their characters have ties there already, then that's probably where they would get sent to in the first place. But the neither that nor the Ice Maze of the Mind Flayers is going to be boring because I am an awesome DM.

The DM doesn't have to show a profit, and there's nothing to "win" except an interesting experience. But there's no reason everything the players experience in the game can't be interesting, because if it can't be made interesting it can be left out or handwaved.


In my blackjack analogy, the person doing the betting is one of the players, not DM. Which win will be more satisfying to them, the one in which they bet on their skill and luck or the one which was given to them because they asked for it?
What if the Ice Maze of the Mind Flayers is boring for the players? Do the players get to say "Ooh, how about if they banish us to the Elemental Chaos?

If the Elemental Chaos has been a prominent part of the mythos and their characters have ties there already, then that's probably where they would get sent to in the first place. But the neither that nor the Ice Maze of the Mind Flayers is going to be boring because I am an awesome DM.

I'm not talking about you. Or me.

In my blackjack analogy, the person doing the betting is one of the players, not DM. Which win will be more satisfying to them, the one in which they bet on their skill and luck or the one which was given to them because they asked for it?

Ah, I see. That's not the dichotomy. The question is which bet are they going to want to take, the one with only interesting outcomes, the one with some interesting outcomes but a good chance of some very boring ones, or the one with only boring outcomes?

Edit: this is the classic misunderstanding people have. Just because the players choose their challenge doesn't mean there isn't any challenge.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Edit: this is the classic misunderstanding people have. Just because the players choose their challenge doesn't mean there isn't any challenge.



That misunderstanding is almost always willful.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Edit: this is the classic misunderstanding people have. Just because the players choose their challenge doesn't mean there isn't any challenge.



That misunderstanding is almost always willful.



*face palm* Irony overload.

That has never been the issue people have brought up.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Edit: this is the classic misunderstanding people have. Just because the players choose their challenge doesn't mean there isn't any challenge.

That misunderstanding is almost always willful.

Maybe. But the idea of failure being anything more than a dead-end or downer is a subtle one.

I'm thinking maybe someone will say that the second option is the one to pick, because there are actual stakes. But that's because the whole idea of this being a bet is flawed. Players don't have to  wager their free time on whether they'll enjoy their free time or not. The players' enjoyment should never be at stake. That doesn't mean their characters will always enjoy what happens to them, but the players always should.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Maybe. But the idea of failure being anything more than a dead-end or downer is a subtle one.

I'm thinking maybe someone will say that the second option is the one to pick, because there are actual stakes. But that's because the whole idea of this being a bet is flawed. Players don't have to  wager their free time on whether they'll enjoy their free time or not. The players' enjoyment should never be at stake. That doesn't mean their characters will always enjoy what happens to them, but the players always should.



I'll rephrase - That misunderstanding is almost always willful when it's coming from the usual suspects on these forums. Everyone knows who they are.

And yes, the players should never be risking their own enjoyment. That's not a tradeoff anyone should be asked to make. If the DM isn't sure he's actually doing this, he should ask. 

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I have never had an analogy be so misunderstood! I should have been clearer--the gambler is the character and the wager is whether his in-game choices will lead to his prefered result. Will a frontal assault combined with distracting smoke bombs be successful or are there more bad guys in that part of the castle than he thought? If his goal is to get into the castle and he is successful in applying his in-game skills and best attributes, combined with lucky dice rolls, he will have won that wager and achieved his result. 

If the contrasting approach involves the player making it known that he wants his character to perform an epic frontal assault and gain access to the keep, and by mutual accors the players and DM agree, then the character's eventual success is not as satisfying. Because the chance of failure was greatly lessened.

So the player shouldn't be risking his enjoyment, the character should be risking his success, right? And obviously any outcome, from easy victory to a total party wipe should be made interesting and fun by the DM and players.
If the contrasting approach involves the player making it known that he wants his character to perform an epic frontal assault and gain access to the keep, and by mutual accors the players and DM agree, then the character's eventual success is not as satisfying. Because the chance of failure was greatly lessened.



Greatly lessened how? You still have to make take all the actions and make all the rolls.

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Sign In to post comments