Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
^^ That can be done with any traditional game.
In any case, the entire power of the above concept is tied to the act of falling from Paladinhood. If there was no mechanic for the Fall, no punishment for that deviation, the sentiment expressed in that picture would be worthless. It's the wilful sacrifice that is the empowering factor, and that's why it's a great example of tying mechanics and narrative together, and a great example of why it should be done.
^ Then the issue of the lesser evil is subjective again. I consider laconism an acceptable sacrifice. This is also one of those topics that's a matter of personal study, so it's no wonder why I naturally gravitate towards long posts -- exactly the same way Malk can write at length concerning a beloved comic book character.
Not really. It's the sacrifice, yes, but what is the cause of the sacrifice? The cause of the sacrifice is a betrayal of the ideals that one stands for.
This is not something that is tied to being Lawful Good. It is to do with the core concept of the Paladin; a divine warrior who dedicates himself to a cause.
In this case, the Paladin is someone who has dedicated himself to helping people. The betrayal of his ideals comes when he kills the child to ensure that many others live happily. The tragedy is that he is aware of his betrayal, but he does it anyway, because that is how he lives up to his ideals; helping as many people as possible, no matter the cost. The sacrifice is himself; his powers, his reputation, his good name, his conscience, his immortal soul, and ultimately, his life. But he does it anyway, because that is what he is; someone who has dedicated himself to a single ideal and will see that through, no matter the cost to himself.
That entire kind of concept is why the alignment chart exists, though. It's meant to be a mechanical measure of a character's moral standing. [Whatever] Good expresses that concept amongst others. For some, changing alignment is a betrayal, and that's what a Paladin's adherence to Lawful Good is supposed to represent. Other character types can change as they see fit, because they have nothing to betray.
Yes. But you see, in tying it to that, the mechanics have made it so that that is the only type of Paladin you can play. The Paladin cannot be a Chaotic Neutral guy who is out for himself.
Lemme share with you another story about a Paladin.
I wouldn't say that the mechanic as it stood in 3.5 was particularly clever or well-thought out. As I posted above, it would have been even better if it rewarded a Good alignment with bonuses, ignored the Lawful-Chaotic axis and had no Fall (or perhaps had a Fall at X amount of points in Evil alignment). All the same, it's an example of how one can tie narrative and mechanics together for positive effect -- its biggest flaw was that dickwad DMs could abuse it and force a Paladin into a Fall by giving them a choice of evils.
The biggest flaw is in how restrictive it is, at least in my opinion. It ties you into playing a certain type of character if you want a certain set of abilities, and goes from there.
The biggest single thing that D&D has to offer, though, is that its' mechanics are not intrinsically tied to the fluff. There are so many settings that that would be unfeasable. So, instead, they have provided you with mechanics, and they have provided you with fluff; and you can get rid of any of it you want, replace it, modify it, or whatever, without really changing anything.
A simple "A Paladin devotes themselves to an ideal" would have sufficed. There are ways you can tie it to the mechanics- but honestly, why? Does it add anything to the game? I would argue that it doesn't.
And lastly, here's another Paladin I have. This is the embodiment of D&D Paladins as they stand; righteous warriors of justice and peace and whatnot.
All of the Paladins I have posted are valid ways to play a Paladin, but only this one is actually supported by the mechanics of the game.
And man, I wish I had the story of the half-orc Chaotic Good barbarian-Paladin. That would support my argument so well.
I agree that the all-or-nothing element of the Fall is too restrictive, which is why I proposed a potential alteration. It could even be adapted to a particular part of the alignment chart, such as the player electing whether bonuses come from Good, Evil, Chaotic, Lawful or Neutral. The point, though, is to have some mechanic that ties the character concept and the game together. Restrictions are important because they're restrictions. For instance, you can't defeat a dragon at level 1 -- a narrative restriction. Level 1 doesn't represent the level of skill or power that goes with being able to defeat that kind of monster. We'd both agree that allowing a level 1 character to defeat a dragon in an up-front battle would be a violation of the narrative and make the whole thing pretty silly.
Restrictions are what inform choices, after all. Closing off some tools necessitates using others. For instance, a level 5 character in Skyrim will have had 40 skill point progressions, divided amongst the skills they had been using. Ergo, any given skill can only be so high and some skills will be very low. That's an example of a restriction that frames a scenario in narrative. Your practise in archery means that you've sacrificed, say, conjuring magic. You'll get no help from anyone else, which is going to be a bitch when you're outnumbered by powerful enemies. So you choose an inherently different way of solving that kind of engagement.
Mind you, I'm not arguing in favour of locking off certain choices or ideas, but reinforcing some things more than others through tying narrative and mechanics together. For instance, the concept of a Paladin comes from a combination of Charlemagne's honour guard and King Arthur's knights of the Round Table -- it seems only right that there should be some mechanical enforcement of good deeds. So while locking off Paladin abilities might be going too far, giving a Paladin a bonus to their Armour Class for every so-and-so points in Good alignment seems only reasonable.
See, that I agree with.
However, you seem to have missed my point. I'm not arguing that mechanical restrictions like that are bad, because a new player with no combat experience under their belt should probably not be able to slay the centuries-old dragon with immeasurable arcane power.
I'm not talking about that sort of restriction, though. I am talking about narrative restriction and the way mechanical restrictions tie therein.
Restricting Paladins to only be Good, for example, precludes Lawful and Evil Paladins from existing. But why should players not be able to play an Evil Paladin, if that is what they want? The concept of a Paladin may come from Arthur's Knights, yes, but why should that restrict the player from playing what they want to play?
Because ultimately, the game is all about the player (and the GM, to an extent). If the player wants to play a Lawful Neutral Paladin who is dedicated to upholding all laws, whether they be just or unjust, I see no reason to restrict his powers for that, just because the rulebook says that a player must follow a code of conduct that precludes them not being Lawful Good.
Really I think the problem here Alex, is that you are approaching D&D and other tabletop games like they are single player video games, where the mechanics and the narrative come prepackaged and intertwined from the get go. You're overlooking the human aspect of these social games. All the narrative mechanics won't bring anything to the table if it isn't what the players want. And rules and stats will only carry the story so far. Most of the narrative, like 90% of it is going to be conveyed by the group. The stage the GM sets, how the characters interact with it, how the characters interact with each other and how the player acts with her characters, the entity she plopped down to experience this collaborative story.
Like that story Nova linked earlier about the Paladin going through a fall. It isn't powerful because of mechanics backing it up. It is powerful because of the emotion behind it. That whatever it takes, the justifications to ease their own consciousness (even while pretending it is immaterial), the choice right there. How the player decided that was what their character would do. It all matters and speaks to us because of these things here, not because of some alteration of game abstractions that may be overruled for the sake of this collaborative story.
Well, no alignment in D&D is singular; having a bias towards Good would not punish the player for making Lawful or Chaotic actions.
Although I would argue that a character should adhere to its concept within reasonable bounds. An Evil Paladin isn't really a Paladin at all. A Lawful, Chaotic or Good Paladin can exist, but an Evil one is an antithesis to the whole concept of a Paladin. It would have to be a different class -- "Black Knight", perhaps. If we're talking narrative, adherence to constructive behaviour is what defines a Paladin, and there's no point in playing one if you're not going to do that. So that should be mechanically enforced; one can have an Evil Paladin, but one would never get bonuses for it.
Hell, that could even support the character concept. So what if you can't have an Evil Paladin? Your Lawful Paladin might also be Evil (given that all characters exist on both axis), and therefore you would still benefit from being in character -- the additional benefit would come from being Lawful rather than Evil, but would be a benefit nonetheless.
In fact, from that perspective, perhaps Paladins should only benefit from Lawful or Good points (but only one of those alignments). That way, you could have a Lawful, Chaotic or Neutral Good Paladin -- all well within the theme. You could have a Lawful Evil Paladin -- one that puts on the face but abuses their position for their own ends -- but a Chaotic Evil Paladin would get no additional benefits.
I suppose I ran away with the mechanical concept there, but a restriction can be constructive to narrative. In this case, the character has to behave like a Paladin, but not adhere to every restriction. This is positive reinforcement. This is pretty much rewarding a behaviour you want the player to display without punishing a different one, and just as applicable to game mechanics as it is psychology.
I think the answer here is obvious. If you choose a concept, but then choose not to play that concept, why choose it in the first place? In this case, mechanics that support particular aspects of characterisation are the easiest to implement, because they reinforce a character type without any downside. If you want to play a knight of the Round Table gone wrong, then, given the idea proposed above, it would be pertinent to base your Paladin rewards off Lawful, begin the game Lawful Good and descend into Lawful Evil (or even just start Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil).
It's not. Just because something has a concept does not mean it needs to be tied down to this concept. The original idea behind it came from Arthur's Knight's, yes; but if a player wants to play someone with the same set of abilities but take it in a different direction, then why shouldn't I let him? After all, that is the story he wants to experience.
And that is what this is about; making a story that is enjoyable to all the players, without restricting yourself in what you can play because of mechanical ideas enforcing a restrictive type of play.
Ultimately, when you play a game like D&D, you're aiming to create a narrative that will enthrall/excite your players. The mechanics take second place to that, and I would not have it any other way.
Then do what traditional games are so good at -- homebrew it.
In any case, this is exactly what I dislike about class-based systems. The Paladin class of D&D is a heavily-armoured knight with divine powers, but is that what a Paladin really is? I'd say it isn't -- a Paladin is defined by their service to a cause. A free build system could create a character with exactly the same theme of duty, but with vastly different abilities. Or a character with the abilities expected of a Paladin in D&D, but a vastly different perspective.
This is one place where D&D lets the mechanics get in the way of the narrative rather than having those elements exist in mutual support.
I consider that a false dichotomy. Narrative and mechanics needn't be in conflict. They should support one another, and the best games do this brilliantly. One good video game example is Monster Hunter, because "hunter" is the narrative theme. So it gives you game mechanics that allow you to familiarise yourself with an environment, monster behaviour and use things like traps, distractions and other hunting tools. Mechanics support the narrative, and the narrative validates the mechanics.
Dammit, now I owe Alkthash five Desu dollars. You completely ignored his post last page, didn't you.
Let me phrase it another way then, Alex. You have successfully turned Dungeons and Dragons' morality system into a videogame morality system. You are not punished for not following your ideals, but you miss out on getting perks and bonuses.
So, let me posit you a situation.
We have a character concept here. His player wants to play a Paladin who thinks he is doing Good; when in reality, he is doing Evil.
Unfortunately, the GM scraps that idea. The player shrugs and builds up a different character.
You know why this happened?
Because there is no possible way that the Paladin could ignore the fact that he is missing all these abilities that Good Paladins have but he doesn't.
Yes, there are workarounds, but they are unnecessary.
There is no room for moral complexity here without- gasp- doing exactly what I've been talking about and saying "Fuck you" to the mechanics, ignoring them, and making your own anyway.
You are viewing this through the eyes of a video game player, but that's not how you should be looking at this. Ultimately, a tabletop RPG is defined not by its' mechanics, or by what is written down in a book about it; it is defined by how the Players want to Play and how the Storyteller wants to tell the Story.
Imposing restrictions like you are talking about means that the Storyteller now cannot tell the Story he wanted to.
All games are the same, when you get down to it. The difference between a video game, a tabletop game, a playground game and any other kind of game is in expression and medium rather than the theory that informs them. There are some exceptions, but many game designers from many disciplines fail to take into account the lessons they can learn from other mediums.
As I often think to myself, there is no lesson in fencing that cannot be taught by chess.
I've expressed many times that I think video games should scrap morality systems -- but D&D already has that, so if it's to be used mechanically (as is reasonable for the case of a Paladin, or any character who commits themselves to a moral cause), it should be reinforced positively rather than negatively. After all, you were arguing against restriction in the first place, and negative reinforcement is just that. Rewarding characterful choices rather than punishing bad ones is a much better philosophy, as a character can choose to strive for something or, if they don't, there is no punishment for doing as they please.
In any case, this is very different from the standard video game morality scenario. A Paladin is rewarded by divine beings for following a code -- if the alignment represents that code, then it's only narratively correct to reward the Paladin for that. Standard video game morality systems seldom choose to justify their morality systems with any kind of narrative explanation, simply having them there. Incidentally, the lack of a morality system while having moral choices in the game is one more thing I like about The Witcher.
Edit: Concerning Alkthash's post, I was replying to you when he posted, so the forum shot me directly to this page. I've since read it, but I disagree on the grounds that mechanics and narrative are not a dichotomy. And that Paladin example is still powerful because of the mechanic -- the mechanic informs the meaning of a Paladin's fall. Without the mechanic, "that is how I fall" would be meaningless, but it's our knowledge that the average Paladin would make a different choice, that this one would choose to fall, that empowers that emotionally.
That's why it's an excellent example of mechanics and narrative meeting.
look, we've been doing this for a page now
it's approaching three hours since we started this
goddammit
no
whatever
I don't care. You continue to think what you want to, I will continue to think what I want to, and we won't stay up until two AM boring the shit out of everyone with pointless arguments.
Deal?
If you like.
Because otherwise I'm going to be up at 2AM going on about this. It happens every damned time. Every. Damned. Time.
And I have a sleep schedule, dammit.
It's probably a good place to wrap up, anyway -- I should probably go to sleep at a reasonable hour more often, too. Lord knows how many paragraphs I'd end up writing before the sun rises. Many lots, I expect.
And if I keep going, I end up too jittery to go to sleep for another hour afterwards, so I don't end up going to bed until three or four AM, which makes getting up at seven hell.
I'm back! Rome is a very beautiful city,but I'm quite tired from the trip,I don't think I've walked as much any other time in my life. Did anything interesting happen while I was gone?
The first mission involves you blowing a hole in the roof of a bank and airlifting the vault whilst shooting helicopters. The second mission has you fighting through a plane, freefalling surrounded by crates, cars, and people trying to kill you, then shooting through the windscreen of another plane and going through it.
...I stand corrected.
Also, my only opinion in the two page derail happening here is,
>Playing RPGs
>Not playing card games
Needs more RPG card games. An entire game based on the ROE level-up mechanic.
I'd actually approve. Especially cuz Zendikar's the most D&D setting Magic has had in quite a while.
I remember someone sugesting in /tg/ an RP based around Magic planeswalkers and basically treating levelling up as deckbuilding. It sounded like a nice idea, but it needed more development, yeah
Munchkin?
I am really looking forward to the XCOM remake by Firaxis, also it is fun to watch purists cry as unwieldy mechanics (imo) have been changed.
Okay, so I missed 54 posts while I was sleeping. If no one minds, I think I'll make my points now before I respectfully agree to disagree, because if my own megapost can't change any minds, I don't think I'll have the patience to continue. And I know that Alex is probably asleep now, but I can wait; in fact, I'd much rather wait and get some other stuff done.
WARNING: More D&Dwank incoming; there's more stuff to my post, so if you want to read that, skip down to below the big empty space.
But you're the one who made the comparison in the first place. I was just addressing that comparison.
But mechanics make up the overall experience; if the mechanics don't make at least some sense, you don't have a good experience, or you have one that's too comical to support whatever type of game you were going for (unless you were going for a comical game or something; then maybe perceived silliness in mechanics suits the game).
Won't disagree with you there; in fact, I addressed that point in my previous post.
I'd actually argue that the core mechanics of D&D support a theme. The (core/standard) theme, in this case, is the inevitability of combat as a means of greater advancement in a world full of wild, strange, and dangerous creatures. But the mechanics can also support a different theme, with or without adjustment. The theme depends on the setting; the mechanics are simply tailored to that setting and theme (or at least, they are if the DM is responsible). Judging D&D by the Greyhawk setting is closed-minded.
And that's why, as you said, there's homebrew. Consider this: there's literally an entire splatbook, Unearthed Arcana, filled with houserule ideas from the makers of the game that players might or might not find interesting. So many, in fact, that the makers of the book didn't think any one group would ever use all of those rules. They were aware of the strengths of homebrew, because it's an objective advantage that TTRPG's have over video games: it's waaaay easier for a single DM to change the rules of an RPG around to support whatever he wants--narrative, adjusted or unadjusted, mechanics (because narrative can force a change in mechanics, and vice-versa), a specific plot or setting, etc.--than it is for a group of people to develop a mod for a game that they were dissatisfied with, to the point where the latter group probably ought to find a different game or give TTRPG's a shot.
D&D can do that, too.
This is a subjective argument, though, and it still varies from group to group. Some players might rather be rewarded for adhering to their beliefs; some might prefer the challenge inherent in the existence of punishment for transgressions, and the nonexistence of rewards for their moral victories. And isn't it generally considered virtuous to do good because it's its own reward?
If I may, I think I'll just point out that there has been a number of games where a DM DM'ed for a single player who was having their own campaign. D&D can even support single-player, with a little more coordination.
So, I was up until 3 in the morning earlier today because I was finishing The Shining. It took much longer than it should have; it was a great read. It wasn't really that scary, but then I don't consider that to be a mark against it because I don't consider any work of fiction that I've read so far to be scary.
And I remembered something . . . interesting that happened on Wednesday.
>talking with some friends about Reddit memes
>we get onto the topic of how much Reddit sucks now, and how their new policy on child porn isn't sufficient
>I mention that it was bad enough that I reported the site to the FBI
>a friend accuses me of White Knighting
Uhh . . . what?
Aaaaaand, I'm still gettin' all these emails from political groups. That's the last time I help a good cause! >:C
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, I was gonna try to find this great song by this band I like that too few people have heard of, but it's not on YouTube, and I don't really feel like uploading it myself. I'll probably put it on Mumu at some point.
Parliamentary, presidential, local and mayoral elections have been scheduled for the 6th of May. Got to figure out whom to vote for in the meantime, which will be difficult because everyone sucks hard.