When That Guy comes and tries to play a Subjective morality paladin of justice

>When That Guy comes and tries to play a Subjective morality paladin of justice.
>When he bitches that I made him fall for ignoring a mugger in the act of mugging someone.
That Guy thread.

Pitched a cleric of love, worshipping Aphrodite.

Cool, run it.

Is actually about the jealous spiteful aspects of love. Manipulates the rogue into murdering someone for their nice rapier.

Actually worshipped Ishtar, goddess of war, lust and jealously.

>my only request was they play a good character.

They get golden ticket to adventure

Halfling rogue immediately tries to sell his to the shit eating masses gathered to witness their Ascension.

>subjective morality paladin

No such thing.

>made him fall

That GM detected.

You seem like a fun DM who's very reasonable.

Just remember a Paladin only falls if they "willingly commit an Evil act". You can debate that this paladin was being evil by ignoring a mugger though. That's probably what everyone will be arguing about.

However, a paladin doesn't fall if they commit a Neutral (Grey) act less than a handful of times throughout the campaign. Or, in other words, a paladin shouldn't fall if they don't make the most optimally good decision every time. That's not how it works.

They fall when they willingly commit an evil act.

Now with this in mind. Carry on the inevitable debate.

so i have a question Veeky Forums

I made a character that is a champion of justice. He has the whole defender of the weak, protector of the innocent thing going but i'm not sure if i'm being That guy about it. Basically if he thinks you're innocent and an alright person he'll help you out. but if you go around actively hurting people, he's going to hunt you down and mete out punishment based off of your crimes. You're a murdering rapist? Guess what, you're about to get cut in half and burned. You're a bandit that's been kidnapping people? Beat the fuck up and set on fire. Basically, if you're not a horrible monster or a unrepentant criminal he'll treat you fairly. he'd give his life to save someone he thought was good.
We raided a bandit compound, and rescued some missing people, a couple of them may have been rape victims, TL;DR we find the bastards that took'em, he cuts one in half then curb stomps his corpse as part of an intimidation roll, nails 3 guys in one swing (they were low level) then douses their bleeding, semi-conscious bodies with hard liquor, then torches them alive. Because he is a Champion of justice and lawful good. he's just not lawful nice.

Am I that guy /teeg/?

No? That's fine. It's even Gygax approved. Some people have it in their heads that a Paladin needs to be the goodiest two shoes messiah* and borderline pacifist* sort of Lawful Good. But they forgot this If your actions still lie within the spectrum of Lawful Good at the end of the day then you're fine. Did your group have a problem with it?

*Arguably Neutral Good

one guy in my group said outloud "the fuck is wrong with you!" but everyone else was onboard. Hell, the DM loved my antics, he thought it was fucking awesome that i basically doom guy'd everything.

>Lawful Good
I've always thought the problem was that people interpret LG by taking "lawful" in a modern sense, where it wasn't meant that way.

That too. Some folks squirm at the idea of paladins being a judge and executioner instead of acting like a real life policeman in knight cosplay. Lawful seems to be Order. It can be justice, literal laws, any sort of consistent code (social mores, behaviors, actions) which can mean you follow a personal code to the letter but not the law of the land. The way I see it is whether your actions leave chaos or order in your wake. Of course your intentions do matter (sometimes you fuck up and your actions create chaos despite your wishes) and prefering one over the other is a factor too.

For instance, enslaving the surviving populace after a raid is a lawful evil action while raping, murdering, and pillaging them and then moving on is chaotic evil. The initial action is the same but they strived for a different kind of outcome.

Inaction is just as evil as doing it yourself.

That's the meme, it's used to start That DM or That guy threads.

This goes for you as well.

Huh. Double faggot actually tried a new way of trolling. Still a very obvious, shitty one, but still! Bravo for at least trying.

Oh hey there tumblr

No tumbles logic is you rights end where my feelings begin

Well, burning people alive when you didn't have to wasn't very good.

But I'd make it an opportunity to realize he went a bit too far into cruelty and try to focus his righteous anger in the future, not some sort of fallbait.

>playing a game with an alignment system

Why do people still do this? Alignment is fucking retarded.

...okay fellas, let's try something new.

It sucks when Paladins are required to act as the moral guardians of the party, and when they fall and lose most of their powers if a That GM rules they've failed in this task. So, for experiment's sake, let's come up with some other moral precepts and roles that other classes must enforce, and lose their abilities if they fail. Gives us some good examples if we come across a That GM; 'why is it fair for my Paladin to fall for this happening, when a Barbarian wouldn't 'fall' for this.'

I'll start.
>Barbarian; an agent of fury, a Barbarian betrays their rage whenever they fail to attack someone who insults or challenges them.
>Sorcerer; subject to the powers of their blood, they may not refuse a request or urge that comes from it. Dragon-blooded Sorcerers are bound to obey either dragons or dragon-hunters, etc.

Something a little similar. I'm currently playing in a party where the GM runs a pretty morally subjective world... until it comes to my character. He's pretty happy to accept anything morally questionable the other PC's do.
For example.
>Other PC's murder soldiers to protect an npc they like (an npc who just proved himself to be dangerous and volatile).
>GM accepts this as a morally permissible course of action for a Lawful Good Inquisitor and Neutral Good Cavalier.
>I capture a terrorist who just tried to kill me and I torture him for information that can lead to preventing the rise of not!Cthulu and thus saving the world.
>GM declares this to be an 'objectively' evil thing to do and tells me to change my alignment to neutral evil.

Apparently murdering soldiers for doing their job is fine, but torturing a guy who's trying to end the world is crossing the line.

Divine casters and demi-casters would obviously be required to uphold the precepts of their deities/"natural law (for druids etc).

Wizards could have some kind of alchemical rules stuff (equivalent exchange)?

And people wonder why chaotic neutral is so prevalent...

Is it weird that the only time I played Chaotic Neutral I wound up being the group's straight man?

Have a That Guy in a group that I help run. There's a main DM, then a couple others. Mostly to balance the load, round out the system. We play online and basically, little stuff can always be running. Inter-party or whatever. DMs can come and go. It
>Mostly works

The system is one that's kind of broken as hell, but no one but me knows this or acknowledges it. I've got actual experience with it. It's the sort of system where high level combat turns into a massive ro-sham-bo. And it's based in Fallout. AP and thus Agility are some of the most important stats. As well as having damage dice.

We have a number of players. One of them is a fucktard out of character. Like, legit issues if I remember correctly. Socially he's pretty inept.
This manifests itself both in and out of character.
He's fucked up a good number of things. I want him gone. Several other people would too...
But the main DM doesn't want to kick him out just because he's an asshole. Because he feels sorry for him.
And other people don't want to anger the main dm by saying they want him gone.


This that guy has pissed off just about every single member of the party. He acts like a moral justicar about things like drug use (drugs giving a benefit to skill rolls, in one case needed by my character to save someone's life) and acts like he's this venerable sagely dude. Old as fuck, refers to others as 'boy.'

Likes to boast his character has average intelligence while never acting like it.


The origins of the party are supposed to be kept a secret. To the party alone.

We get to a new town? First thing out of his mouth is to talk about where we came from.

>Once again, I let my ooc mercy overwhelm my character and didn't kill him right then and there


Basically everyone involved including me is awful, right?

Long running homebrew which is passed inside local gaming club.
New group of people, first discussing general ideas about the homebrew, limitations of it and what to expect from the setting, then given time to prepare character ideas and fill in sheets upon next meeting.
Players were explicitly told they are going to play in human-only setting.
Players were explicitly told they are going to play in no magic setting.
Players were explicitly told not to fill their character sheet at all.
Players were explicitly told starting gear will be given lottery-style, with each of them drawing lots from pre-existing pool.
Players were explicitly told to bring their own cups, or there will be no way to pour them tea.

Next week, That Guy rolls in as orc shaman with dog companion and starting gear taken from the ass. Then starts bitching why everyone is angry (never mind we had to wait for him to fill the card with ad-hoc created character). He ended up with murder-hobo character.
Then he starts bitching he's not provided cup and why the fuck nobody prepared anything else than tea. Meanwhile he brought nothing with him. Ever.
Bonus points for never splitting the bill when something was ordered/cooked, even if it was always stated in advance and always being absurdly small sum of money. While geefully eating.

Luckily he thrown a massive tantrum after 4th game, which was enough to simply kick him out. Apparently he couldn't wrap his head around the fact none of the character is obligated to stand for other party members by anything at all, so he was in utter shock when the rest of the team didn't even bothered to bail him out of another murder-hobo situation he pulled.

Then every paladin would fall sooner or later the moment they fail a spot check that they could theoretically have handled.

>>When he bitches that I made him fall for ignoring a mugger in the act of mugging someone.

But you're the one who's being That Guy, since paladins don't fall for inaction and ignoring something is the very definition of a NEUTRAL act?