|
Post by Kainguru on May 28, 2013 18:26:47 GMT -8
It was the interesting aspect that I hoped to explore - a way of breaking the trend lawful good so often suffers leading to the common (bad) trope of lawful stupid. Aaron
|
|
merryprankster
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 243
Favorite Species of Monkey: Howler
|
Post by merryprankster on May 28, 2013 18:36:17 GMT -8
Yeah, though I bet having "for the greater good" govern all your actions might be tough to play. Though I did recently play in a Cthulu game where that was the slant my character seemed to take. I'm not sure I would do it again since it seemed a bit...unpopular with some of the other players some of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 28, 2013 18:44:57 GMT -8
It often is in RPG's because events tend to occur on a much smaller scale . . . Your actions can affect the world but at the end of the day the other players/PC's just want to know "have you got my back?" Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 28, 2013 18:53:52 GMT -8
In the scenario: "You know for a fact (doesnt matter how, lets assume you do) that the infant before you though innocent now will cause the destruction of the world as it will become the vessel for Tanaari and Baatezu to split into the Prime Material plane. You know this clearly and you also now that in time the child will grow to become a powerful and uttetly evil Prince that will bring the above apocalypse knowingly and willingly. You have one chance to stop the death of billions by killing the child now. What do you do?" You dickpunch your GM for dragging out the lameass baby-killing contrivance. The Deed of Paksenarrion is basically the perfect example of paladins done right. (And it's a really good trilogy besides.) Not to say that all paladins must think and act the same; but it's the antidote to decades of morally-challenged neckbeard shenanigans. I'd dick punch myself for not seeing it coming and being suckered into that dilemma. It's the old time travel ethics Hitler conundrum - if you travel back in time and kill a young Hitler he never commits the atrocities so a) why travel back and kill him if no atrocities have occurred b) as no atrocities have occurred he's an innocent so it's murder. My response to the baby conundrum? After dick punching myself I have to let it live as its innocent and try to fight the future as best I can. Like the Doctor in genesis of the Daleks - he refuses to kill them, choosing instead to delay their development so that the future has a better chance against them. Aaron
|
|
merryprankster
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 243
Favorite Species of Monkey: Howler
|
Post by merryprankster on May 28, 2013 19:05:54 GMT -8
It often is in RPG's because events tend to occur on a much smaller scale . . . Your actions can affect the world but at the end of the day the other players/PC's just want to know "have you got my back?" Aaron Well it came down to my characters willingness to allow 3 kids to sacrifice themselves to save the remnants of humanity vs. another character's (and I'm pretty sure it didn't sit well with the player) unwavering reluctance to do so. It led to a rather uncomfortable moment and fortunately one of the other players was able to roleplay out a solution that kept things moving well enough. All's well that ends well, but for a moment it was pretty damned awkward, I was even working out a way to RP a way for my character to backpedal from his stance once I realized the other player was getting a bit uncomfortable. I know it's a meta reason, but I wouldn't want to play a character who was forced to take those kinds of stances that could lead to other players being uncomfortable.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 28, 2013 19:15:04 GMT -8
I sorta see that not bring your fault but the GM's for not taking the players into account re: comfort zones. It's ok to push boundaries but not cross them. I'm pretty lucky I currently game with a very broad minded group that reveals in taking the game into dark places and dicking with each other with precisely these sorts of conundrums. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on May 29, 2013 7:28:30 GMT -8
My contention, I suppose, in creating this topic is that the trope tends to draw players to the class that shouldn't actually play that class - and it keeps getting reinforced by its repetition. I've never actually seen the Lawful Stupid paladin at the table. I think it's an image that perhaps used to be more true a couple of decades ago and that stays in circulation now because it's funny rather than because it's all that common any more. But that's just speculation, and I wouldn't mind hearing anecdotes of Lawful Stupid paladins in board members' experience. Since I know nothing about Judge Dredd, I cannot comment on whether he fits the class or not. But I'm not sure giving paladins a "harder edge" is going to fix the problem, if there really is one; you might risk attracting a different wrong sort of player. (On the other hand, that could be refreshing, I guess!) That, plus the paladin archetype is out of fashion. Lancelot? Puh-leeze, that hanky-panky with Guinevere would disqualify him for paladin status if nothing else did. Galahad, now, there's a paladin for you! Possibly still yawn-inducing, but let's get our yawn-inducers right, at least!
|
|