"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.
No comments:
Post a Comment