If there is one thing I don't like about 4e, it's the handling of the alignment system, and the reason I don't like it is because it's a crap compromise - I can understand having a 'real' alignment system, with actual game effects and consequences for changing alignment; and I can understand getting rid of alignment altogether. What I can't understand is why have a 'toothless' alignment system - one where characters have to declare an alignment (or Unaligned), but might as well not. That's like insisting they specify their character's hair colour (or bald) but not otherwise referencing it in the system.
Associated with my dislike of 4e's alignment is a similar dislike of 4e's Paladin. Now, I know there has long been an argument amongst D&D players that "there should be paladins for every god". But I don't agree. In fact, I'll go further than this - the Paladin should not, by default, be associated with the gods at all. The Paladin is a warrior infused with the powers of Law and Goodness to do their will in the world, quite aside from the petty whims of creatures as paltry as the gods. (Of course, it's worth bearing in mind that D&D's gods are not God as understood by Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. They're much closer to the Greek or Norse gods - powerful, yes, but not all-powerful, and with equally epic character flaws.)
So, for me, the Paladin is inherently bound up with the Lawful Good alignment, and the Paladin's Code. Without those, the Paladin is nothing... and if you don't want to play that character, then that's fine - the game has plenty of other classes; perhaps you would prefer one of them?
(It's worth noting that 4e does not, of course, preclude a player from playing that sort of a Paladin. Of course it doesn't! It's just that nobody ever does, because the moment the behavioural restrictions have their teeth pulled, it becomes a Code of "what I would have done anyway". The moment, the very instant, the Code conflicts with what's convenient for the player or the character, the Code is discarded in favour of expediency. And that's fine... but it's not a Paladin.)
Meanwhile, I've been toying with removing the alignment restrictions from 3e classes for my next campaign. Which is fine from a game-balance perspective, but it has a rather obvious weakness: what to do about the Paladin? Surely, after the rant I've just gone on, there's no way to square the two?
Well...
Over on another blog, I read a series of posts about removing alignment from Pathfinder entirely. And in those posts, the author tackled the same issue in a surprising, and yet obvious, way: he removed the alignment restriction but not the Paladin's Code.
Which got me thinking about the possibilities inherent in that option. Because if you also replace the code with something high-minded but inherently vague, and allow the Paladin to determine how to interpret it, suddenly you have a class that is a chosen, holy order... but with very significant variation in behaviours and outlooks.
The Paladin's Code, per the 3e PHB, is as follows:
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
My proposed revision of the Code is much more concise, and yet says almost exactly the same thing. And yes, I did steal it from "Dragonheart":
"A paladin is sworn to valour. His heart knows only virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the wicked."
(Additionally, such a Paladin would still be expected to associate only with those who do not consistently offend his moral code. However, just what that means would be left undefined - the character could take a Pharisee-like interpretation, and associate only with those with "the right stuff", or he could instead associate with "tax collectors and sinners". The only thing he couldn't do is associate with those who are truly wicked, since then the clause about wrath would apply.)
And What About Judges?
Well, I've also been musing on the matter of transgressions against the Code, and I'm now leaning towards the notion that the 3e books are far too binary in their interpretation - a character is either following the Code or he is not, and if he is not then he is an ex-Paladin. Instead, I'm inclined to look more to Samson for guidance.
Now, the Biblical story of Samson is pretty well-known - he's the guy who lost his great strength when he had his hair cut. But of course, that's a simplification: Samson actually had three parts to his code (don't drink alcohol, don't touch corpses, don't get your hair cut), and by that point in the story had already violated the other two - the haircut was merely the last part of his code to go.
So, for the Paladin, I'm inclined to have both Infractions and Violations - an Infraction is a fairly minor break of a part of the Code, perhaps motivated by circumstances, while a Violation is an outright rejection of part (or all) of the Code.
As the Paladin adventures, then, the DM should keep track of Infractions against the Code, but not take immediate action. So, if the Paladin acts with dishonour in a duel, perhaps by using poison, that would be an Infraction against Valour... but there's no particular issue with that.
However, if the Paladin reaches a point where he has committed an Infraction against every part of the Code (that is, six different Infractions), then he is no longer following the Code, and so ceases to be a Paladin. However, at this stage there still exists the possibility of atonement, and a recovery of status.
On the other hand, if the Paladin intentionally commits a gross Violation of the Code (murdering innocents, torturing a helpless prisoner, etc), then this represents a far more fundamental issue. The character ceases to be a Paladin, and cannot benefit from atonement - he is evermore an ex-Paladin.
(There remains the possibility of becoming an Anti-Paladin, of course. But that's another topic for another day.)
Two Other Changes
I'm inclined to make two more change to the Paladin class, which is to adjust the Detect Evil and Smite powers. Instead of targeting all Evil creatures, I'm inclined to have them affect the 'supernatural' evils - dragons, undead, demons, devils, and the like. (And to affect them regardless of their actual alignment...)
The Net Effect
I think the effect of this will be that the core concept of the Paladin will remain intact - he'll still be the champion, the "knight in shining armour", and he'll still be bound to a Code. However, the class will be just a bit more open - now you get the ultra-legalistic Paladin who treats the code as a strict body of laws to be followed to the letter (complete with Dredd-like 'justice'), but you also get the good-hearted Paladin who treats the Code more as guidelines while helping others.
Of course, ultimately, this is actually a first step to removing alignment from the game entirely. In the course of my reading of the 1st Edition books, I found that it has actually morphed quite strongly away from its original conception in the game, which was much more about team-shirt alignment... and I really don't care for team-shirt alignment. That being the case, I'm inclined to see it go. The Paladin was pretty much the only reason I wanted to see alignment retained, but if we can retain the class (and the Code) while losing alignment, then that's all to the good.
(And next up, I'm going to have a go at the Cleric class, and other priest-like PCs. Because the game has gotten them wrong, too...)
No comments:
Post a Comment