In about a week and a half, the D&D game I play at Comics and Collectibles is going to start a new campaign. (The campaign with Krusk Bloodfist is over, and that character is now officially retired.) In that first session of the new campaign, we are going to make characters, and I will have an important decision to make: Should I make my character a Paladin or not?
At first, it seems like this shouldn't even be a question. Of course I should make this character a Paladin! I should play a Paladin (or any other Lawful/Good character) as often as I can! However, this specific campaign gives me a bit of pause.
From what I've heard about the new campaign, it may turn out to be pretty silly. It will be an Acquisitions Incorporated game, which I've been told means that we'll be running an adventuring company, with a stronger emphasis on running the company than on actually adventuring. The DM also told me that the game will strongly involve what the characters do in their "downtime," the time they spend between adventures.
I suppose it's possible for a Paladin to get into an adventuring company that does more company management than actual adventuring. Any strongly Lawful character could see the value in order, including the order of a corporate structure, and everyone needs to earn a living somehow, so working for an adventuring company could work for a Paladin. However, in my mind, a Paladin spends most of his downtime looking for more people to help. When a Paladin isn't adventuring, he is looking for an adventure, or at least a side quest, in which he can do some good. I suppose we could call that "advertising," to keep the corporate theme, but I worry that I may be taking this game too seriously.
Acquisitions Incorporated seems to be a silly concept that's barely more than a shallow gimmick. If I played a Paladin who takes all his actions seriously (as every Paladin should), then I would want to take the game seriously, and I don't think that will match the tone of the game. So, I'm considering playing a sillier character instead, one that's not a Paladin, one that can go with the flow. Or maybe I could play a Paladin who doesn't take things too seriously or who is ridiculously serious, so his seriousness can be played off as a joke.
I don't know. I want to play a serious character and take the game seriously, but maybe that's not the kind of game the others want to play. I want to develop my character's story, not just play a game. But maybe I'm being too serious. After all, games are supposed to be fun, and the last thing I'd want is to make the game less fun for the others. Can I keep the game fun and light-hearted, perhaps even silly, while still playing a dead-serious Paladin? Maybe. Or maybe it'd be easier to just make a different character.
I'm not sure what to do. I want to make a Paladin and play the game for the story, but it may be wiser to make my character another class and just play the game for fun, as the others likely will. Maybe I can find a compromise between the two approaches, or maybe I can somehow find a way to satisfy both. It's not unthinkable that a Paladin could end up in the mire of corporate structure and perhaps be a little less serious than Paladins normally are.
It's worth a chance. I'll play a Paladin, and if he doesn't fit in that campaign, I'll tweak him slightly until he does.
No comments:
Post a Comment