"You were always smiling, real friendly like, but the way you smiled was so empty it hurt to watch you."
Here we are at the end of our Paladin Journey, the final step on our holy pilgrimage to the land of not-acting-like-assholes. While the first issue with Paladins is...more or less...shared between the player and the GM, this one lies squarely on the GM's shoulders. Today we discuss a subplot infamous all over the internet, one that's sparked more hatred, debate and nasty stories than any other aspect of the Paladin. I've even met people that feel this is a required part of paladin, something the GM must include in his game due to the Paladin's oath.
Very often in games, the GM will craft personal subplots. I don't think this is necessarily a required part of GMing, since it can get really tedious to do a personal plot for every person in a 6-man party, but they can add a lot of flavor to a game. Some systems like 5E even standardize coming up with a background so the GM has an easier time of it. However, often GMs will look at the Paladin and decide his personal plot should be a moral struggle. Yes, today we're talking about The Fall.
It starts innocent enough. The Paladin's class is all about morals and ethics, so making him question his through hard choices or grey areas sounds like a good fit. It might even sound fun to tempt him toward Evil. Basically, to a GM this could all sound really awesome and frequently they forget to consider the player.
First, let me say, it's pretty shitty to design a subplot where you threaten to take something mechanical away from the player. What're you gonna do next, you sick asshole, make the Fighter deal with Muscular Dystrophy? Is the rogue going to find out he has Parkinsons Disease? What's your next trick, is the Cleric gonna to find out his God is fucking dead? Pardon my fucking French but I can't believe this is 2016 and people still think that a Fall subplot is an acceptable thing to run. Even just based on this fact I can't recommend you ever run this shit.
Ahem. I feel better getting that out of my system. I feel I've properly expressed that negative reinforcement is a stupid thing to bring into a subplot, but there's more than one problem with this. Fallen paladins are a very compelling subject, but there are so many issues with getting there that this is best left to NPCs , Villains, and subplots requested by the player himself.
First, by its very nature, a Fall subplot requires hard moral choices and moral grey areas. These kinds of things work best in games as a 'spice'. Use them sparingly and they create good memories, but use them very often and it turns into a bad thing. People experience something I call Grey Fatigue with this kind of thing, where constantly being faced with hard choices slowly erodes a player's drive to think fairly about them. Some more than others(obviously) will start to hate that every decision is hard, feel that everything will come back and bite them on the ass later, and simply want to move on. They WILL start to pine for a situation where the decision is refreshingly obvious. They might even start to make the "tough" decisions randomly and without thought just to get them over with.
The next problem is related a little. Remember our pal Agency? The problem is that you, as the GM, can take it away at any moment. You absolutely can present him with a situation where every response is interpreted as the wrong one. This is as easy as giving the player a conundrum similar to The Trolley Problem. The Trolley Problem is a philosophical question with no intended "right" answer, it's meant to provoke discussion. However, the GM can easily turn a subjective discussion of morality into an objective scenario, and reason that every outcome leads to a violation of either the Paladin's Oath or Alignment. He is, of course, the final arbiter. Moral ambiguity can absolutely be thrown away at the last second to create an unwinnable situation.
This isn't even hard to do. It's loathsome and despicable, and even if you're an amazing GM who starkly refuses to do this, the Paladin's player will be thinking of it the entire time, I promise you. The moment he makes the 'wrong' decision, he'll be wondering if there even was a right answer at all. This can even lead to some pretty negative philosophical debate in real life as the Paladin(or others) defend what they felt really was the right decision. They'll have their own opinions on the moral grey area you created, and suddenly it's not good enough to simply declare one decision 'good' and one 'evil', if you did that at all. They might even find out you created an unwinnable state, a riddle with no answer, and get angry. I'm assuming philosophical debate is definitely not what most of the group showed up for.
And that's kind of the problem here, isn't it? The GM is metaphorically holding a gun to the Paladin's head, and at some point the Paladin's player will grow fatigued and say "Shoot me or don't, just get it over with." and "just get it over with" is definitely not a sentiment you EVER want someone thinking about your subplots.
This is all because the subplot began with negativity. It started with antagonism and the threat that a player's build can be changed or ruined unless they make the "right" choices, and a vague feeling that there aren't going to be any "right" choices. A lot of the time, a player chooses Paladin because they want something refreshing. Blunt. Obvious. He's a true champion of good, and an assault of grey areas and moral philosophy is very often the last thing he wants. He's a fighting class, and despite the fact that he has moral and ethical restrictions, a whole subplot dedicated to questioning them is about as welcome as offering the same to a Barbarian or Monk.
Sometimes, going for the obvious in a subplot is nice. That's not what makes something boring. Give the Paladin an evil demon to thwart and destroy, a sister to save, a cause to champion. Do something that makes him really feel like the Crusader he is, not something that tears down the very idea of one.
Sunday, December 25, 2016
Sunday, December 18, 2016
The Paladin, Part Two: The Player Problem
"Don't blame us. Blame yourself or God."
Last week I dumped a bunch of info on you regarding the Paladin and where he came from...starting with Dungeons and Dragons, of course, and not with stories of the Crusades. I hope you can already see the seeds of the problem. The Paladin player expects everyone else to play along with his restrictions to allow him to play this "badass" class that way better than anything else he could play. Hell, he even dumped a 17 into Charisma, which was almost universally worthless until two editions later. Yes, despite the fact that the class requires such a hefty stat, it doesn't actually DO anything with it. But I digress. Later editions would carry this feeling without justifying it, the Paladin in 3.X still having a hefty restriction but now being a middling class at best, easily beat out in terms of effectiveness by Wizards or the dreaded monsters Cleric and Druid.
We discussed the Paladin's oath, but it's worth it to say the class fluff information builds the player up further and gives him a strong sense that the Paladin is a crusader for justice and right. This is where the Paladin gets his reputation, and serves as another seed of the Paladin problem. What we have at the start of a game is a player who feels everyone else has an obligation to play within his character's rules along with someone who's been told his character is a proactive opponent of all evil. Yes, in fact, the idea that the paladin is proactive versus reactive is where some of the problem lies too. Let me explain.
I'm going to try and gloss over this a little bit since a whole post on Evil PCs is coming later, but in general, most PCs are reactive. The GM sets the scene, and the players react to it. Tone is set and the GM lays out an implied feeling or course of action, even if he doesn't realize it. While part of the fun of these games is seeing how players break expectations, doing so repeatedly can potentially have a negative impact. Don't believe me? Find someone with the Cleverness bug I discussed previously and watch him disrupt the game in an effort to subvert the expectations of every fucking scene he's in. The Paladin player is very proactive because he's been told he has a duty, and in some editions of the game, continuing to enjoy his class mechanically relies on it. Nobody wants to be told to switch out his build or class if it's not their idea(more on that next week) so the Paladin player has an additional Sword of Damocles hanging over his head.
So he ends up subverting expectations by acting when even a normal Good aligned character wouldn't. He may feel obligated to ping Detect Evil on every semi-important NPC he meets, and deliver punishments based solely on that information, up to and including death. He'll swing on a villain in the worst circumstances, throwing away his own life, or the lives of others. He'll deliberately ruin attempts of stealth or deception because he's been told he hates those. He'll incessantly lecture PC or NPC on their conduct because, depending on how harsh the GM is, he may feel it's part of his duty.
He's also been told that maintaining his alignment is important. Even in 3.X where alignment restrictions are proliferated, he's the only one who is restricted to a single alignment out of the nine alignments in the Alignment Axis system: Lawful Good. This is where the GM having a heavy hand can come into play a lot, but in general the Paladin can grow very worried that he may break his alignment. His restriction is tighter than Bard or Barbarian(who are restricted to six) or even monk which can choose from three. It also comes with the loss of his class abilities. So now he's got his oath AND his alignment to uphold, lest he lose his class. This often results in overthinking each part of the alignment and trying to take both Lawful and Good actions. Basically, it grows artificial.
In other words, the Paladin acts like an asshole because he's worried he'll be told he can't play his class anymore.
At least, that's true in many circumstances. In others, he's been given an incredibly strong idea on how he's 'supposed' to act and is just trying to be a good player. This is where the word of mouth reputation I mentioned last week comes in. He, more than any other class, has to look to the GM to give his actions the silent nod, and frequently defaults to things that are obvious like destroying everything that's evil without question. I don't think I have to tell you how disruptive killing so much crap can be.
So the solution should be obvious by now. As a GM, you may feel obligated to watch the Paladin like a hawk, because the Oath and his restricted alignment are an intended part of the class's balance. You may not even realize you're doing it. Step back, and analyze the letter of his oath. Cut him some slack, and treat his alignment like anyone else's. Cut back the pressure, and often the Paladin Problem goes away. Use in-character scenarios or NPCs to try and illustrate that he ISN'T under constant, crushing pressure to act a certain way. Cut him slack if he doesn't act against a player, because the rogue doesn't want someone breathing down his neck, and the neutrally aligned necromancer really doesn't want to argue every time he raises a few skeletons. Don't force the Paladin to be that guy.
Overall, don't blow his obligations up into more than what the book says they are. Don't watch his actions too closely and constantly judge him but refuse to do so to any other person. I can tell you that changing alignment happens very rarely in PNP games, and the paladin having a severe restriction doesn't mean it's more likely to happen. If anything, it's way less likely since his alignment is on his mind more than any other player. Watch him, obviously, for upholding his oath, but don't treat this like a game of GOTCHA! where you're trying to find a way to take his class away. Even the 1E oath is pretty easy to uphold and isn't as restrictive as people seem to think: it carries far more nostalgic and emotional weight than real restriction.
As a player, realize that there's a lot of ways to solve a problem. Nearly every version of Dungeons and Dragons would agree that redemption or mercy are better than violence and destruction. You absolutely can suffer Evil to live if it's someone or something that may one day do Good, or if people would suffer from your violent actions against him. You are a champion of Good, but that does not mean you are a psychopathic murderer for God. You are a Crusader, but that does not mean there is absolutely no grey area to morals. You must uphold your alignment, but seriously consider how often you've REALLY seen someone's alignment change in a game: chances are it's seldom. Uphold your Oath, but consider not ruining another player's fun unless it's a really obviously evil act. Consider the letter of your oath: BEING Evil and DOING Evil are two different things, and the oath often doesn't say the punishment must be murder.
So, I didn't mention the GM introducing deliberate moral quandary or constant grey areas. That's because next week, we discuss the other side of this coin: The Fall subplot problem.
Just to be clear, I am declaring it's a fucking problem.
Last week I dumped a bunch of info on you regarding the Paladin and where he came from...starting with Dungeons and Dragons, of course, and not with stories of the Crusades. I hope you can already see the seeds of the problem. The Paladin player expects everyone else to play along with his restrictions to allow him to play this "badass" class that way better than anything else he could play. Hell, he even dumped a 17 into Charisma, which was almost universally worthless until two editions later. Yes, despite the fact that the class requires such a hefty stat, it doesn't actually DO anything with it. But I digress. Later editions would carry this feeling without justifying it, the Paladin in 3.X still having a hefty restriction but now being a middling class at best, easily beat out in terms of effectiveness by Wizards or the dreaded monsters Cleric and Druid.
We discussed the Paladin's oath, but it's worth it to say the class fluff information builds the player up further and gives him a strong sense that the Paladin is a crusader for justice and right. This is where the Paladin gets his reputation, and serves as another seed of the Paladin problem. What we have at the start of a game is a player who feels everyone else has an obligation to play within his character's rules along with someone who's been told his character is a proactive opponent of all evil. Yes, in fact, the idea that the paladin is proactive versus reactive is where some of the problem lies too. Let me explain.
I'm going to try and gloss over this a little bit since a whole post on Evil PCs is coming later, but in general, most PCs are reactive. The GM sets the scene, and the players react to it. Tone is set and the GM lays out an implied feeling or course of action, even if he doesn't realize it. While part of the fun of these games is seeing how players break expectations, doing so repeatedly can potentially have a negative impact. Don't believe me? Find someone with the Cleverness bug I discussed previously and watch him disrupt the game in an effort to subvert the expectations of every fucking scene he's in. The Paladin player is very proactive because he's been told he has a duty, and in some editions of the game, continuing to enjoy his class mechanically relies on it. Nobody wants to be told to switch out his build or class if it's not their idea(more on that next week) so the Paladin player has an additional Sword of Damocles hanging over his head.
So he ends up subverting expectations by acting when even a normal Good aligned character wouldn't. He may feel obligated to ping Detect Evil on every semi-important NPC he meets, and deliver punishments based solely on that information, up to and including death. He'll swing on a villain in the worst circumstances, throwing away his own life, or the lives of others. He'll deliberately ruin attempts of stealth or deception because he's been told he hates those. He'll incessantly lecture PC or NPC on their conduct because, depending on how harsh the GM is, he may feel it's part of his duty.
He's also been told that maintaining his alignment is important. Even in 3.X where alignment restrictions are proliferated, he's the only one who is restricted to a single alignment out of the nine alignments in the Alignment Axis system: Lawful Good. This is where the GM having a heavy hand can come into play a lot, but in general the Paladin can grow very worried that he may break his alignment. His restriction is tighter than Bard or Barbarian(who are restricted to six) or even monk which can choose from three. It also comes with the loss of his class abilities. So now he's got his oath AND his alignment to uphold, lest he lose his class. This often results in overthinking each part of the alignment and trying to take both Lawful and Good actions. Basically, it grows artificial.
In other words, the Paladin acts like an asshole because he's worried he'll be told he can't play his class anymore.
At least, that's true in many circumstances. In others, he's been given an incredibly strong idea on how he's 'supposed' to act and is just trying to be a good player. This is where the word of mouth reputation I mentioned last week comes in. He, more than any other class, has to look to the GM to give his actions the silent nod, and frequently defaults to things that are obvious like destroying everything that's evil without question. I don't think I have to tell you how disruptive killing so much crap can be.
So the solution should be obvious by now. As a GM, you may feel obligated to watch the Paladin like a hawk, because the Oath and his restricted alignment are an intended part of the class's balance. You may not even realize you're doing it. Step back, and analyze the letter of his oath. Cut him some slack, and treat his alignment like anyone else's. Cut back the pressure, and often the Paladin Problem goes away. Use in-character scenarios or NPCs to try and illustrate that he ISN'T under constant, crushing pressure to act a certain way. Cut him slack if he doesn't act against a player, because the rogue doesn't want someone breathing down his neck, and the neutrally aligned necromancer really doesn't want to argue every time he raises a few skeletons. Don't force the Paladin to be that guy.
Overall, don't blow his obligations up into more than what the book says they are. Don't watch his actions too closely and constantly judge him but refuse to do so to any other person. I can tell you that changing alignment happens very rarely in PNP games, and the paladin having a severe restriction doesn't mean it's more likely to happen. If anything, it's way less likely since his alignment is on his mind more than any other player. Watch him, obviously, for upholding his oath, but don't treat this like a game of GOTCHA! where you're trying to find a way to take his class away. Even the 1E oath is pretty easy to uphold and isn't as restrictive as people seem to think: it carries far more nostalgic and emotional weight than real restriction.
As a player, realize that there's a lot of ways to solve a problem. Nearly every version of Dungeons and Dragons would agree that redemption or mercy are better than violence and destruction. You absolutely can suffer Evil to live if it's someone or something that may one day do Good, or if people would suffer from your violent actions against him. You are a champion of Good, but that does not mean you are a psychopathic murderer for God. You are a Crusader, but that does not mean there is absolutely no grey area to morals. You must uphold your alignment, but seriously consider how often you've REALLY seen someone's alignment change in a game: chances are it's seldom. Uphold your Oath, but consider not ruining another player's fun unless it's a really obviously evil act. Consider the letter of your oath: BEING Evil and DOING Evil are two different things, and the oath often doesn't say the punishment must be murder.
So, I didn't mention the GM introducing deliberate moral quandary or constant grey areas. That's because next week, we discuss the other side of this coin: The Fall subplot problem.
Just to be clear, I am declaring it's a fucking problem.
Sunday, December 11, 2016
The Paladin, Part One: History
"Remember, heroes, fear is your greatest enemy in these befouled halls. Steel your heart and your soul will shine brighter than a thousand suns. The enemy will falter at the sight of you. They will fall as the light of righteousness envelops them!"
This is a three-shot topic. I don't drink, but I really considered going upstairs and having a bit of that Whipped Cream Vodka stuffed in the fridge. I'll admit to writing down the word "Paladin" and just staring at it for a while. Every so often I'd say "Fuck" out loud. No other class, in any game, has such a weight to it. No other class carries so much reputation as baggage, and no other class has this many horror stories. Today, we talk about the Paladin.
For those of you who don't know what a paladin is, first of all I'd like to welcome you to Earth and I hope that your alien race is a benevolent one. I'm honored you would choose to read my blog. Anyway, to give a system-agnostic explanation, the paladin is a holy warrior. He is a crusader and a champion of truth, justice, and good. He is a warrior with the ability to call upon holy magic and smite the wicked. He also has a strict code of ethics he must adhere to, in addition to upholding a strict alignment of Lawful Good.
He also has a reputation. He's an arrogant one man police force. He destroys any hope of the party being varied or eclectic...or even just differing from his world view. His constant crusading and unwavering 'all evil must die' mentality serves as an ever-present game disruptor. He has a complete inability to compromise, and delivers morally justified murder every single time his evil radar pings. Worst of all, if he doesn't act like this, he has to worry about his "sworn code" being compromised and his class being taken away.
That's the reputation, anyway. You can find constant arguments on this on the Internet, probably more than all other classes combined. If it's not paladins heavily disrupting games with their actions, it's GMs who think that trying to force the paladin to "fall", to break his listed code, is something that he needs to include in the game. This conflict likely started back in first edition, so we're going to take a look at Paladin's history, starting with what the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons book says about Paladins.
First off, they're a subclass of fighter. They share many things with the parent class, but require higher attributes to play. Where Fighter only requires a Strength of 9 and a Constitution of 7, the Paladin requires a Strength of 12, an Intelligence of 9, a Wisdom of 13, a Constitution of 9, and a Charisma of a staggering 17. The most generous of the suggested rolling mechanics is to let the player roll 4D6 dice and drop the lowest. They'd do this six times, then arrange your scores the way you want. Even in this method, your chance of rolling a 17 or 18 on a single roll of 4D6, drop lowest is 5.78%(Thank you, Mike). Now, you've got six of those chances, but it's not looking very likely. The harshest suggested rolling method is to simply roll 3D6 for each stat, no rearranging. Pen and Paper games were different back then, and this meant your chances of playing a paladin were less than two percent.
So Paladin players would really feel like they won the lottery, here. It was reflected in the class's abilities too: In addition to the fighter's melee combat abilities, they got a short list of spells, and several special abilities like detecting evil, a free once-a-day heal, a warhorse Pokemon and Turn Undead like a cleric. In first edition, the subclasses(Paladin, Druid, Assassin, and Illusionist) were harder to get into, but they were better than their associated core class.
But there WAS a catch. They didn't get the fighter's men-at-arms, but they ALSO had several restrictions.
They needed to stay Lawful Good in alignment. In addition to that, if they ever performed a chaotic act, they needed to atone for it by finding a high(7+) level cleric and performing the penance they stated. If they ever willingly and knowingly performed an evil act? You're done, son. Do not pass Go, do not collect 100 dollars. You're a plain-ass fighter now.
They had restrictions on the magic items they could carry. They could only have one magic set of armor, one magic shield, four magic weapons, and four other magic items. Period. In a game where magic items were very important, this was pretty big.
You could never amass wealth. You could only keep enough treasure to live in a modest manner, pay your henchmen, and to construct or maintain a small castle. I have to admit, this one's not so bad considering the nature of first edition(You couldn't buy magic items) but...on the other hand, I'm not gonna cry for the guy who owns a castle.
Tithe. In addition to being unable to amass wealth, ten percent of everything you got had to go right to the church. So even after your party split loot, ten percent of it went away. And no, you couldn't give it to a cleric PC: The book even mentions this specifically.
All of your henchmen needed to be Lawful Good. In a game where henchmen were more important, this was a heavy restriction to the types of followers available. You were basically going to be rolling with a lot of expensive clerics unless you did a lot of footwork. In addition to that, you can't associate with evil people at all, and EVEN NEUTRAL PEOPLE had to be on a "single expedition" basis, and ONLY if it forwarded a Lawful Good cause. Not a GOOD cause, a LAWFUL GOOD cause.
So yeah. You're starting to see where the problem began, right? Nobody's ever said "You can't play a Paladin, my guy's a Necromancer". The paladin player feels like he won the lottery(see above) and doesn't want to let go of playing one. He asks(or forces, or begs) everyone to conform to his restrictions so he can play. This wasn't always a terrible thing because games were generally focused on heroics back then, but you still felt it. This meant no neutral characters, meaning no druids, no assassins, and probably no thieves, since they were "only rarely" neutral good in alignment.
But here's something interesting about AD&D. It had another class that was just as hard to get into and had just as many, if not more restrictions. The book claims Monk to be HARDER to attain due to requiring a Strength, Wisdom AND Dexterity of 15 in addition to a Constitution of 11. I'm going to spare my math friend the numbers on that and call it roughly as hard to get into. So why doesn't Monk have a legendary amount of baggage to it?
Well, for one, Paladin is present in every core edition of Dungeons and Dragons, where Monk was left out of the PHB in 2E and 4E. Both 2E and 4E added the Monk later in supplementary materials. In fact, in 4E, the Monk is a twist on the original idea and psychic in nature. In addition to that, Monk's immense amount of restrictions had nothing to do with his conduct or friends beyond requiring a Lawful alignment. The monk doesn't care who he adventures with, where the Paladin class requires the player to act like a police force. Overall, this paints a picture of an easygoing but personally restricted person, one unconcerned with group composition or actions.
Second edition Dungeons and Dragons actually tries to lift the problem oath restriction from the paladin, saying that he understands not everyone can maintain his high standards, and that he will tolerate people of any alignment so long as they are not committing evil or unrighteous acts. However, it also adds that thieves are tolerated if they are "sincerely trying to reform" and that stealth in the name of good is acceptable, but "only as a last resort".
And thus, "Paladins Hate Thieves" is born. God bless them they tried to lift the heaviest(and most unfair) restriction of the Paladin, but it's too little, too late. Most 2E players were 1E players, and even if they weren't, every group probably had one or two. Often we have an idea in our head of how something is 'supposed' to go, how a class is 'meant' to be played or how a passage is meant to be interpreted, and everyone who played 1E is bringing that emotional baggage along with them.
You'll see in coming posts how that baggage is the Paladin's biggest problem.
Third Edition shook up how Dungeons and Dragons was fundamentally played. Previous editions were far from fair or just. Balance was all over the place because it was MEANT to be. The fighter was powerful early and weak later because he was powerful exactly when the Wizard needed him to be: their roles switch with time. There were official modules designed solely to viciously kill the whole party. Most of that is gone. Now the classes were easy to attain and meant to be fairly balanced. You could decide what you wanted to be BEFORE you rolled stats. EVERYONE had special abilities, and classes like 1E's Monk, Druid or Paladin or 2E's Bard were no longer a special lottery win. There were more classes with alignment restrictions, but breaking them wasn't the ridiculous loss it was before: in most situations, you just can't level or use class abilities until you atone, which was a Cleric spell. You could be a paladin, and all you needed was a half-decent Wisdom for spells and Charisma for your special class abilities.
Everything's equal, so there's a heavy argument for the code of honor being superfluous as a balancing factor now. It's still included, but in a somewhat more subdued manner. In 3.X the code is simply to never commit an evil act, respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who threaten innocents. Yet...he still can't exist alongside an evil player character, or even someone who "consistently offends his moral code". The restriction on henchmen, followers and cohorts remains.
"Trimming down" the code of honor sets the theme for future game editions. Pathfinder adds a clause that a paladin may associate with an evil person if he feels it's for the greater good. 4th edition paladins are champions of a particular god, and don't even need to be good! They simply have to follow the tenets set by their deity. Hell, the only reason they can't be evil is that none of the PCs in 4E can be evil. Fifth edition allows paladins to choose from between three oaths in the core book, which also further customize your character with special abilities. More are sure to come with supplements, widening the definition of a Paladin even further.
Well, what am I getting at? We're going to discuss why the paladin has such baggage behind him, and why he can bring so, so many disruptive things with him. To do that, you needed to know where they began, and where they are now. Paladin began as a very specific thing that...incidentally caused a very specific problem. Further editions slowly tried to fix the issue(as you saw), and coming up I'm going to discuss where they went right, and what was too little, too late.
This is a three-shot topic. I don't drink, but I really considered going upstairs and having a bit of that Whipped Cream Vodka stuffed in the fridge. I'll admit to writing down the word "Paladin" and just staring at it for a while. Every so often I'd say "Fuck" out loud. No other class, in any game, has such a weight to it. No other class carries so much reputation as baggage, and no other class has this many horror stories. Today, we talk about the Paladin.
For those of you who don't know what a paladin is, first of all I'd like to welcome you to Earth and I hope that your alien race is a benevolent one. I'm honored you would choose to read my blog. Anyway, to give a system-agnostic explanation, the paladin is a holy warrior. He is a crusader and a champion of truth, justice, and good. He is a warrior with the ability to call upon holy magic and smite the wicked. He also has a strict code of ethics he must adhere to, in addition to upholding a strict alignment of Lawful Good.
He also has a reputation. He's an arrogant one man police force. He destroys any hope of the party being varied or eclectic...or even just differing from his world view. His constant crusading and unwavering 'all evil must die' mentality serves as an ever-present game disruptor. He has a complete inability to compromise, and delivers morally justified murder every single time his evil radar pings. Worst of all, if he doesn't act like this, he has to worry about his "sworn code" being compromised and his class being taken away.
That's the reputation, anyway. You can find constant arguments on this on the Internet, probably more than all other classes combined. If it's not paladins heavily disrupting games with their actions, it's GMs who think that trying to force the paladin to "fall", to break his listed code, is something that he needs to include in the game. This conflict likely started back in first edition, so we're going to take a look at Paladin's history, starting with what the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons book says about Paladins.
First off, they're a subclass of fighter. They share many things with the parent class, but require higher attributes to play. Where Fighter only requires a Strength of 9 and a Constitution of 7, the Paladin requires a Strength of 12, an Intelligence of 9, a Wisdom of 13, a Constitution of 9, and a Charisma of a staggering 17. The most generous of the suggested rolling mechanics is to let the player roll 4D6 dice and drop the lowest. They'd do this six times, then arrange your scores the way you want. Even in this method, your chance of rolling a 17 or 18 on a single roll of 4D6, drop lowest is 5.78%(Thank you, Mike). Now, you've got six of those chances, but it's not looking very likely. The harshest suggested rolling method is to simply roll 3D6 for each stat, no rearranging. Pen and Paper games were different back then, and this meant your chances of playing a paladin were less than two percent.
So Paladin players would really feel like they won the lottery, here. It was reflected in the class's abilities too: In addition to the fighter's melee combat abilities, they got a short list of spells, and several special abilities like detecting evil, a free once-a-day heal, a warhorse Pokemon and Turn Undead like a cleric. In first edition, the subclasses(Paladin, Druid, Assassin, and Illusionist) were harder to get into, but they were better than their associated core class.
But there WAS a catch. They didn't get the fighter's men-at-arms, but they ALSO had several restrictions.
They needed to stay Lawful Good in alignment. In addition to that, if they ever performed a chaotic act, they needed to atone for it by finding a high(7+) level cleric and performing the penance they stated. If they ever willingly and knowingly performed an evil act? You're done, son. Do not pass Go, do not collect 100 dollars. You're a plain-ass fighter now.
They had restrictions on the magic items they could carry. They could only have one magic set of armor, one magic shield, four magic weapons, and four other magic items. Period. In a game where magic items were very important, this was pretty big.
You could never amass wealth. You could only keep enough treasure to live in a modest manner, pay your henchmen, and to construct or maintain a small castle. I have to admit, this one's not so bad considering the nature of first edition(You couldn't buy magic items) but...on the other hand, I'm not gonna cry for the guy who owns a castle.
Tithe. In addition to being unable to amass wealth, ten percent of everything you got had to go right to the church. So even after your party split loot, ten percent of it went away. And no, you couldn't give it to a cleric PC: The book even mentions this specifically.
All of your henchmen needed to be Lawful Good. In a game where henchmen were more important, this was a heavy restriction to the types of followers available. You were basically going to be rolling with a lot of expensive clerics unless you did a lot of footwork. In addition to that, you can't associate with evil people at all, and EVEN NEUTRAL PEOPLE had to be on a "single expedition" basis, and ONLY if it forwarded a Lawful Good cause. Not a GOOD cause, a LAWFUL GOOD cause.
So yeah. You're starting to see where the problem began, right? Nobody's ever said "You can't play a Paladin, my guy's a Necromancer". The paladin player feels like he won the lottery(see above) and doesn't want to let go of playing one. He asks(or forces, or begs) everyone to conform to his restrictions so he can play. This wasn't always a terrible thing because games were generally focused on heroics back then, but you still felt it. This meant no neutral characters, meaning no druids, no assassins, and probably no thieves, since they were "only rarely" neutral good in alignment.
But here's something interesting about AD&D. It had another class that was just as hard to get into and had just as many, if not more restrictions. The book claims Monk to be HARDER to attain due to requiring a Strength, Wisdom AND Dexterity of 15 in addition to a Constitution of 11. I'm going to spare my math friend the numbers on that and call it roughly as hard to get into. So why doesn't Monk have a legendary amount of baggage to it?
Well, for one, Paladin is present in every core edition of Dungeons and Dragons, where Monk was left out of the PHB in 2E and 4E. Both 2E and 4E added the Monk later in supplementary materials. In fact, in 4E, the Monk is a twist on the original idea and psychic in nature. In addition to that, Monk's immense amount of restrictions had nothing to do with his conduct or friends beyond requiring a Lawful alignment. The monk doesn't care who he adventures with, where the Paladin class requires the player to act like a police force. Overall, this paints a picture of an easygoing but personally restricted person, one unconcerned with group composition or actions.
Second edition Dungeons and Dragons actually tries to lift the problem oath restriction from the paladin, saying that he understands not everyone can maintain his high standards, and that he will tolerate people of any alignment so long as they are not committing evil or unrighteous acts. However, it also adds that thieves are tolerated if they are "sincerely trying to reform" and that stealth in the name of good is acceptable, but "only as a last resort".
And thus, "Paladins Hate Thieves" is born. God bless them they tried to lift the heaviest(and most unfair) restriction of the Paladin, but it's too little, too late. Most 2E players were 1E players, and even if they weren't, every group probably had one or two. Often we have an idea in our head of how something is 'supposed' to go, how a class is 'meant' to be played or how a passage is meant to be interpreted, and everyone who played 1E is bringing that emotional baggage along with them.
You'll see in coming posts how that baggage is the Paladin's biggest problem.
Third Edition shook up how Dungeons and Dragons was fundamentally played. Previous editions were far from fair or just. Balance was all over the place because it was MEANT to be. The fighter was powerful early and weak later because he was powerful exactly when the Wizard needed him to be: their roles switch with time. There were official modules designed solely to viciously kill the whole party. Most of that is gone. Now the classes were easy to attain and meant to be fairly balanced. You could decide what you wanted to be BEFORE you rolled stats. EVERYONE had special abilities, and classes like 1E's Monk, Druid or Paladin or 2E's Bard were no longer a special lottery win. There were more classes with alignment restrictions, but breaking them wasn't the ridiculous loss it was before: in most situations, you just can't level or use class abilities until you atone, which was a Cleric spell. You could be a paladin, and all you needed was a half-decent Wisdom for spells and Charisma for your special class abilities.
Everything's equal, so there's a heavy argument for the code of honor being superfluous as a balancing factor now. It's still included, but in a somewhat more subdued manner. In 3.X the code is simply to never commit an evil act, respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who threaten innocents. Yet...he still can't exist alongside an evil player character, or even someone who "consistently offends his moral code". The restriction on henchmen, followers and cohorts remains.
"Trimming down" the code of honor sets the theme for future game editions. Pathfinder adds a clause that a paladin may associate with an evil person if he feels it's for the greater good. 4th edition paladins are champions of a particular god, and don't even need to be good! They simply have to follow the tenets set by their deity. Hell, the only reason they can't be evil is that none of the PCs in 4E can be evil. Fifth edition allows paladins to choose from between three oaths in the core book, which also further customize your character with special abilities. More are sure to come with supplements, widening the definition of a Paladin even further.
Well, what am I getting at? We're going to discuss why the paladin has such baggage behind him, and why he can bring so, so many disruptive things with him. To do that, you needed to know where they began, and where they are now. Paladin began as a very specific thing that...incidentally caused a very specific problem. Further editions slowly tried to fix the issue(as you saw), and coming up I'm going to discuss where they went right, and what was too little, too late.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Dumb and Wrong: Shadowrun, I
"Voodoo? You mean to tell me all this happened because you were messing with the Shadow Man?"
WELCOME TO DUMB AND WRONG! First off, yes there will be as many named segments as I want. You can't stop me, I'm the one chained to the writing desk, not you. This one I'm going to reserve for pointing out things about games I thought were really stupid, bad, or plain wrong. This kind of thing comes up a lot, even though I always advocate following what the books say. I do that because it eliminates arguing, streamlines the game, and sets an amount of inarguable fairness. A good game is one that has a level playing field. Other times something works the way it does for a reason that sets tone, and tone inherent to a system is something people often seem to overlook.
However, there's always going to be really dumb shit. Sometimes a game is victim of Ivory Tower Design philosophies where things suck on purpose. Other times designers just don't do their research or don't care about the implications of their design. I want to discuss these, but I very often don't have enough to say about something to fill an entire post. So this segment is going to be reserved for me getting 2 to 5 or so concepts off my chest. Most of these are things that always bugged me. So without further adieu, our first official segment of Dumb and Wrong.
Shadowrun's White Noise Generator (and Gadget Sizes).
So this is something that's in pretty much every edition of Shadowrun. At some point I understand completely that this was a depiction of a Cyberpunk future and thus had a pretty strange retro-future feel. As our own world progresses rapidly through technology it gets a little hard for us to "forget" and dive into what Shadowrun expects of us, since the Cyberpunk genre is steeped in heavy cables, bulky terminals and thick, blocky technology. Because of that, Shadowrun 4th edition and beyond start to feel much less like Johnny Mnemonic and much more like Ghost in the Shell. That was PROBABLY a good move on their part.
But I draw the line with some of this dumb shit. When something is larger and bulkier than it is in real life, at the time the book was published, I'd hope that someone somewhere did a little bit of thinking and adjusted that. But no, I'd be wrong.
My prime example is the White Noise Generator. In SR Second Edition, the device is listed as being the size of a briefcase and several kg in weight. It's a device intended to defeat surveillance microphones or even eavesdroppers by creating a continuous "white" noise. Only, here's the problem.
The modern idea of a non-digital white noise generator is a small turbine housed in plastic. Without an on-board battery it's about the size of a baseball. I should know, I use one to help me sleep. The Marpac company first made one of these in 1962 by nailing a dog dish to a piece of wood.
No, really.
Their design has only iterated four times since then, so we essentially own white noise generators more compact than the one that Shadowrun 2E has. And the thing is, you can't even say that this is a case of the Shadowrun version being bulky by necessity because it's got to be better than the super awesome Shadowrun microphones because technology marches on. That can't possibly be true. A White Noise Generator simply has to generate a certain amount of sound at a certain frequency to mask sounds around it. That's just how sound works. The White Noise Generator can't actually do anything better than it does right now. The idea of device rating vs. device rating is even just an attempt to streamline device interaction. I guess that's fine.
That's all just assuming we're using a non-digital white noise generator like mine. If the one in Shadowrun is digital in nature, the size is COMPLETELY unacceptable! A digital white noise generator is only as big as a radio is, and Shadowrun has those fuckers extremely miniaturized. Oh, but it wouldn't be a very good white noise generator, you say. Again, that's literally impossible. All a white noise generator does is generate noise of a specific frequency and volume. It can't be better or worse unless you're talking about volume, which the game book clearly isn't. At least 3rd edition did away with most of this and simply gives weights. 1kg sounds about right for a non-digital white noise generator.
Voodoo
Ohh, boy. I hope you're sitting down. I'm guessing someone at TSR thought that since Voodoo is clearly a stupid fakey religion, they could do whatever they wanted with it. Their version of Voodoo hits all the major beats of pop culture but mostly fits to Haitian Vodou. I'll go from littlest problems to biggest problems, because it'll be funnier that way.
First off I'm gonna be real forgiving here. While I know that everyone would probably be pissed off if more popular religious details were wrong in this book, I get that this is a game and not everything has to be historically accurate. The loa hit their major beats, and honestly Papa Ghede probably wouldn't suffer you to remember all the details anyway. He'd mostly suffer you to get drunk on bourbon. It does rub me the wrong way that the selection of "Loa" are from several different religions. There are one or two(like Shango) who don't feature into Haitian Vodou at all and are only a part of the Yoruba religion. The two share many other details, though, so I guess it could be worse.
No, I don't know why I put off the main event at all. Basically, in Shadowrun, being an evil, corrupt mage gives you something called Potency, which is free dice to roll on all of your magical tests. Thus, most styles of mage have some kind of evil NPC-Only style of corrupted mage. Shamans have Insect Shamans, who trade loyalty to dark, alien spirits. There is also the Twisted Way, who feed of terrible actions and negative emotions. There's also the ecoterrorist Toxic Shamans, or mages who make a spirit pact with free spirits.
So Voodoo had to have one of these. Let's put aside that we totally don't discuss Christian Mages getting an evil "Satanic Rites" at all. In fact modern Satanism is primarily about your own personal freedoms and not infringing upon the personal freedoms of others, so you know what? Maybe I should be glad they didn't fuck that up too. No, the book dedicates a few scant paragraphs to Petro Loa, who, and I quote, "Feed on the hatred and revenge sparked by Voodoo's legacy, born from slavery and oppression.". So what's wrong with that? Well, it's kind of true. In a way. Wanna know what Petro means?
There are many "Nations" of Loa in the Voodoo sects that believe in them. "New Orleans" Voodoo doesn't seem to, by the way. The Rada are generally older, their origin in Africa. They are 'cool' as in patient and non-aggressive. Damballah, Legba, Agwe and Loco are all part of this nation and feature in Shadowrun. The Ghede Loa are spirits of the dead, like, you guessed it, Baron Samedi himself who features in Shadowrun, and his wife Maman Brigitte who doesn't. Kongo Loa are from, say it with me now, the Congo.
Are you seeing a theme here? Petro Loa are aggressive and possessing of fiery tempers because they're associated with the "new world" of America.
That's. It. That's all Petro means.
There ARE Petro aspects for some Loa, such as Erzulie's Petro aspect being a fierce protector of women and children and often associated with lesbians. Fucking. Whoops. Other Petro Loa such as Ezili Dantor, the Black Madonna and Loa of Motherhood or Marinette, one who frees from bondage, are suspiciously not fucking mentioned.
I get it. The Petro Loa's rites include whip-cracking and gunpowder. Pretty much everything in Vodou is soaked in alcohol and sacrifice. The Petro Loa are even referred to as "demon" Loa. But how god damn stupid do you have to be to look at Petro, see "Demon Loa" and not bother to look past that? They're angry because they understand the harsh reality of slavery. They're bad-tempered and aggressive because they saw their people in chains. But no, the Petro rites are EEEEEEEVIIIIILLLL. The fucking wikipedia page(which I am fully aware the writers did not have access to) even mentions that this is a common mistake people make. Rada Loa can absolutely be used for malevolent purposes, and the Petro can, one hundred percent, be used to help. Basically, Damballah doesn't care about you any more than Marinette does. Maybe even less.
If you don't see why I'm irritated, imagine a world where Christianity got a similar treatment. Imagine the book insists that all Christians believe in the Catholic Saints and the "Patron Saints" players choose from are a random collection of the(admittedly long list) of popular Saints. One or two of them are just Jewish people. Like, Moses is on the list. Saint Moses. Later in the book it declares Saint Peter as being wholly evil for denying Christ three times and claims he's the Saint of Denial. I mean, not only is that pretty insulting, it's not even the whole story. It would be as if the writer saw a single thing in his research and latched onto it instead of reading further.
So I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. There will be another Dumb and Wrong coming up, on story, logistics, or even mechanics some time soon. Soon as I get pissed off enough to write it.
WELCOME TO DUMB AND WRONG! First off, yes there will be as many named segments as I want. You can't stop me, I'm the one chained to the writing desk, not you. This one I'm going to reserve for pointing out things about games I thought were really stupid, bad, or plain wrong. This kind of thing comes up a lot, even though I always advocate following what the books say. I do that because it eliminates arguing, streamlines the game, and sets an amount of inarguable fairness. A good game is one that has a level playing field. Other times something works the way it does for a reason that sets tone, and tone inherent to a system is something people often seem to overlook.
However, there's always going to be really dumb shit. Sometimes a game is victim of Ivory Tower Design philosophies where things suck on purpose. Other times designers just don't do their research or don't care about the implications of their design. I want to discuss these, but I very often don't have enough to say about something to fill an entire post. So this segment is going to be reserved for me getting 2 to 5 or so concepts off my chest. Most of these are things that always bugged me. So without further adieu, our first official segment of Dumb and Wrong.
Shadowrun's White Noise Generator (and Gadget Sizes).
So this is something that's in pretty much every edition of Shadowrun. At some point I understand completely that this was a depiction of a Cyberpunk future and thus had a pretty strange retro-future feel. As our own world progresses rapidly through technology it gets a little hard for us to "forget" and dive into what Shadowrun expects of us, since the Cyberpunk genre is steeped in heavy cables, bulky terminals and thick, blocky technology. Because of that, Shadowrun 4th edition and beyond start to feel much less like Johnny Mnemonic and much more like Ghost in the Shell. That was PROBABLY a good move on their part.
But I draw the line with some of this dumb shit. When something is larger and bulkier than it is in real life, at the time the book was published, I'd hope that someone somewhere did a little bit of thinking and adjusted that. But no, I'd be wrong.
My prime example is the White Noise Generator. In SR Second Edition, the device is listed as being the size of a briefcase and several kg in weight. It's a device intended to defeat surveillance microphones or even eavesdroppers by creating a continuous "white" noise. Only, here's the problem.
The modern idea of a non-digital white noise generator is a small turbine housed in plastic. Without an on-board battery it's about the size of a baseball. I should know, I use one to help me sleep. The Marpac company first made one of these in 1962 by nailing a dog dish to a piece of wood.
No, really.
Their design has only iterated four times since then, so we essentially own white noise generators more compact than the one that Shadowrun 2E has. And the thing is, you can't even say that this is a case of the Shadowrun version being bulky by necessity because it's got to be better than the super awesome Shadowrun microphones because technology marches on. That can't possibly be true. A White Noise Generator simply has to generate a certain amount of sound at a certain frequency to mask sounds around it. That's just how sound works. The White Noise Generator can't actually do anything better than it does right now. The idea of device rating vs. device rating is even just an attempt to streamline device interaction. I guess that's fine.
That's all just assuming we're using a non-digital white noise generator like mine. If the one in Shadowrun is digital in nature, the size is COMPLETELY unacceptable! A digital white noise generator is only as big as a radio is, and Shadowrun has those fuckers extremely miniaturized. Oh, but it wouldn't be a very good white noise generator, you say. Again, that's literally impossible. All a white noise generator does is generate noise of a specific frequency and volume. It can't be better or worse unless you're talking about volume, which the game book clearly isn't. At least 3rd edition did away with most of this and simply gives weights. 1kg sounds about right for a non-digital white noise generator.
Voodoo
Ohh, boy. I hope you're sitting down. I'm guessing someone at TSR thought that since Voodoo is clearly a stupid fakey religion, they could do whatever they wanted with it. Their version of Voodoo hits all the major beats of pop culture but mostly fits to Haitian Vodou. I'll go from littlest problems to biggest problems, because it'll be funnier that way.
First off I'm gonna be real forgiving here. While I know that everyone would probably be pissed off if more popular religious details were wrong in this book, I get that this is a game and not everything has to be historically accurate. The loa hit their major beats, and honestly Papa Ghede probably wouldn't suffer you to remember all the details anyway. He'd mostly suffer you to get drunk on bourbon. It does rub me the wrong way that the selection of "Loa" are from several different religions. There are one or two(like Shango) who don't feature into Haitian Vodou at all and are only a part of the Yoruba religion. The two share many other details, though, so I guess it could be worse.
No, I don't know why I put off the main event at all. Basically, in Shadowrun, being an evil, corrupt mage gives you something called Potency, which is free dice to roll on all of your magical tests. Thus, most styles of mage have some kind of evil NPC-Only style of corrupted mage. Shamans have Insect Shamans, who trade loyalty to dark, alien spirits. There is also the Twisted Way, who feed of terrible actions and negative emotions. There's also the ecoterrorist Toxic Shamans, or mages who make a spirit pact with free spirits.
So Voodoo had to have one of these. Let's put aside that we totally don't discuss Christian Mages getting an evil "Satanic Rites" at all. In fact modern Satanism is primarily about your own personal freedoms and not infringing upon the personal freedoms of others, so you know what? Maybe I should be glad they didn't fuck that up too. No, the book dedicates a few scant paragraphs to Petro Loa, who, and I quote, "Feed on the hatred and revenge sparked by Voodoo's legacy, born from slavery and oppression.". So what's wrong with that? Well, it's kind of true. In a way. Wanna know what Petro means?
There are many "Nations" of Loa in the Voodoo sects that believe in them. "New Orleans" Voodoo doesn't seem to, by the way. The Rada are generally older, their origin in Africa. They are 'cool' as in patient and non-aggressive. Damballah, Legba, Agwe and Loco are all part of this nation and feature in Shadowrun. The Ghede Loa are spirits of the dead, like, you guessed it, Baron Samedi himself who features in Shadowrun, and his wife Maman Brigitte who doesn't. Kongo Loa are from, say it with me now, the Congo.
Are you seeing a theme here? Petro Loa are aggressive and possessing of fiery tempers because they're associated with the "new world" of America.
That's. It. That's all Petro means.
There ARE Petro aspects for some Loa, such as Erzulie's Petro aspect being a fierce protector of women and children and often associated with lesbians. Fucking. Whoops. Other Petro Loa such as Ezili Dantor, the Black Madonna and Loa of Motherhood or Marinette, one who frees from bondage, are suspiciously not fucking mentioned.
I get it. The Petro Loa's rites include whip-cracking and gunpowder. Pretty much everything in Vodou is soaked in alcohol and sacrifice. The Petro Loa are even referred to as "demon" Loa. But how god damn stupid do you have to be to look at Petro, see "Demon Loa" and not bother to look past that? They're angry because they understand the harsh reality of slavery. They're bad-tempered and aggressive because they saw their people in chains. But no, the Petro rites are EEEEEEEVIIIIILLLL. The fucking wikipedia page(which I am fully aware the writers did not have access to) even mentions that this is a common mistake people make. Rada Loa can absolutely be used for malevolent purposes, and the Petro can, one hundred percent, be used to help. Basically, Damballah doesn't care about you any more than Marinette does. Maybe even less.
If you don't see why I'm irritated, imagine a world where Christianity got a similar treatment. Imagine the book insists that all Christians believe in the Catholic Saints and the "Patron Saints" players choose from are a random collection of the(admittedly long list) of popular Saints. One or two of them are just Jewish people. Like, Moses is on the list. Saint Moses. Later in the book it declares Saint Peter as being wholly evil for denying Christ three times and claims he's the Saint of Denial. I mean, not only is that pretty insulting, it's not even the whole story. It would be as if the writer saw a single thing in his research and latched onto it instead of reading further.
So I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. There will be another Dumb and Wrong coming up, on story, logistics, or even mechanics some time soon. Soon as I get pissed off enough to write it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)