A Paladin and an evil devil summoning skeleton raising wizard found a kingdom together.


Advice


In my Kingmaker campaign I have retired my druid, Ten'oio Van'e'naur "Sha'Quessir," the gnomish illusionist I brought in afterwards died gloriously, and so I intend to bring in the LE Half-Drow-Paragon Half-Elf whose build revolves around summoning devils (and later creatures with Truesight) and cloaking them in Deeper Darkness.

The build is simple enough: the summoning line (Spell Focus: Conjuration, Augment Summons, Superior Summons, Acadamae Graduate) along with the Half-Elf Drow Paragon line and SR (Half-Drow Paragon, Drow Nobility, Improved Drow Nobility, Greater Drow Nobility, Drow Noble spell resistance).

In order to do this the bonus wizard feats are used to gain Acadamae Graduate at 5th level and Improved Drow Nobility at 10th level. D20PFSRD states that these bonus feats do not have to be in the recommended slots (Item Creation, Metamagic or spell perfection) and so I am going with that.

The only real problem here is that the Paladin (A gnoll) is Lawful Good and, well, a Paladin. The only major way I can think it will work is if he believes he can redeem this character since Istme'a Mith'Quessir (The Half-Elf I'm bringing in) is only raising the dead and summoning devils or demons for the power. Perhaps the Paladin can attempt to show him that being a good person can be powerful as well.

Who knows. I just remember that one of the most memorable games I played in had a party of 1 LG, CG, LE and CE character each.


Depending on your level/available funds, you could try lying to the paladin about yourself. An amulet of undetectable alignment to protect against his detect evil and a good bluff skill about why you summon devils.

That has plenty of role playing opportunities right there.


There;s also alignment-hiding damnation feats


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since you're the guy deliberately bringing a diabolist into a campaign with a paladin, I'd say the burden's on you to make it work.

(And yes, I'd take a similar stance if someone brought a paladin into an established party with evil characters. It's up to the player to show he's acting in good faith and not just trying to stir stuff up.)

Honestly? Talk to the gnoll's player and pitch your idea to him. He's who you need to convince.

Edit: In character - I'd suggest going for complete transparency. You need to convince the paladin (and probably the rest of the party!) that he needs you, and that ultimately he can trust you.

You're essentially a supervillian asking to join the provisional government. You need to be able to present a more compelling reason than "I can bog the game down by flooding the battlefield with minions and that's really mechanically powerful!"


Check with the player and the GM first. You're bringing in a new character part way through the game, so it's on you to make sure you're not stepping on any feet. This seems like egregious feet-stepping to me if you don't run it by the involved parties first.

Grand Lodge

Probably need to sit down with the person running the Paladin and work it out if you're dedicated to this character concept (does the character HAVE to be evil?) It seems like you're going to have to set ground rules and expectation of character developments and behavior.

Random ideas off the top of my head:
Perhaps the "noble" Paladin is secretly waiting to lull you into letting down your guard before striking out a rising evil in the name of his/her god.

Maybe one of your characters really will shift alignments towards the other. The Paladin goes nutty and becomes an antipaladin. You have a change of heart and start summoning celestial beings and retraining away from necromancy.

You hide your true nature as much as possible from the Paladin. A lot of bluffing and smoke and mirrors.

There is a greater evil in the world and the Paladin just deals with having you in the party.

Your group hand waves the issue.

You combined some of these ideas. You hide your nature for awhile. The Paladin discovers the truth and plans on eliminating you. Instead a greater evil shows up and the paladin focuses on using you to help defeat it. Ultimately one of you breaks and shifts alignments. There's a possibility for really good story telling here.


This seems like an overly bad idea to me.

As mentioned before, YOU are the one bringing a bad guy into a preexisting party with a paladin. Especially as Kingmaker does not have an overwhelming evil to team up against (at least through book 3, where my party TPKed), the Paladin has ZERO reason why he shouldn't smite you at the first opportunity. Merely being in the presence of you would violate his paladin code.

There are THOUSANDS of other character options available to you that WON'T conflict with the preexisting party. Bite the bullet and play something else.

Honestly, you are being that guy.

Don't be that guy.


Thanatos95 wrote:

Depending on your level/available funds, you could try lying to the paladin about yourself. An amulet of undetectable alignment to protect against his detect evil and a good bluff skill about why you summon devils.

That has plenty of role playing opportunities right there.

We're currently level 5, so I'm thinking of buying a Ring of Mind Shielding. I'm not concerned about the Paladin, I just don't want him to auto-fall just because he is willingly working with an evil character. He'll figure it out sooner or later, but either way it should be a lot of fun.

So far Istme'a Mith'Quessir has the in-world nickname of "The Black Wizard of Balhatir." Balhatir is a formerly well populated part of Daggermark that the assassin's and poisoner's guilds wanted cleaned out due to issues with the people in them. So, they hired Istme'a, who proceeded to ask them for bodies. He raised these bodies as normal skeletons via Animate Dead, Lesser, and after animating around 100 of them and stuffing them into barrels before losing control of them he unleashed them onto the population as he had been hired to do.

He collected his coin, guilty and innocent people alike died trying to hold back the horde of skeletons and he traveled to the Stolen Lands, learning of powers there that he might one day exploit to conquer the River Kingdoms, one by one—except for fort inevitable, hellknights are scary.

BennActive wrote:

[. . .]Maybe one of your characters really will shift alignments towards the other. The Paladin goes nutty and becomes an antipaladin. You have a change of heart and start summoning celestial beings and retraining away from necromancy.

You hide your true nature as much as possible from the Paladin. A lot of bluffing and smoke and mirrors.
[. . .]
You combined some of these ideas. You hide your nature for awhile. The Paladin discovers the truth and plans on eliminating you. Instead a greater evil shows up and the paladin focuses on using you to help defeat it. Ultimately one of you breaks and shifts alignments. There's a possibility for really good story telling here.

This is pretty much it. The guy playing the Paladin is actually pretty decent at roleplaying. In all honesty, Istme'a is evil because he is from Cheliax (I originally decided to clone one of the Iconics for the hell of it, but decided otherwise), he only really cares about money (he'll probably end up as the treasurer) and being evil based on your upbringing is something that can be changed over time.

I'm expecting the Paladin to try and show him the light, and my group isn't one that is overly fond of the ludicrous axioms some people use when it comes to alignment. It almost feels as though some people think if a Paladin kicks a dog by accident that he falls. I also like the idea of knowing someone is bat-s&@#e evil, yet using them to fight other potential evils. On top of that if you know you can at least trust someone to not betray you when they are invested in the same mutual investments you are. Maybe if the kingdom dissolves Istme'a and the paladin will duke it how, but that isn't particularly important to him. I think of Istme'a as the party's new heroic psychopath, but one that is intelligent enough to understand that being BFFs with a paladin is a good idea so long as he never catches on.


The alignment concerns are kinda silly; I would definitely talk to your party first, so long as you recognize the burden is on you to make it work.

My bigger concern is your tactical plan. Casting deeper darkness and summoning creatures with truesight might be very annoying to your party unless they all have easy ways of seeing through deeper darkness. If you're going to play games with lighting, it's going be on you to make sure they can all easily participate in combat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No matter how much you bluff and lie, the shambling skeletons rising around you is pretty much going to tell the tale.

Yeah, you are being that guy, and it's clear you want to be, so it's on your GM's head if he permits it.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

[. . .]you recognize the burden is on you to make it work.

My bigger concern is your tactical plan. Casting deeper darkness and summoning creatures with truesight might be very annoying to your party unless they all have easy ways of seeing through deeper darkness. If you're going to play games with lighting, it's going be on you to make sure they can all easily participate in combat.

I'm fully aware of the former. I intend to be the guy running the graveyard city if we build one. I might also have a "gauntlet" or "hero training ground" filled with bloody skeletons. I do intend to create an evil lair under the city. To be honest he is fairly overt in the red-right hand department (Black cloak, raven mask) so while the PCs might not be in on it, the players definitely will be.

The tactics will be fun. I'm fully aware that everyone will end up being blind aside from the Devils, and really this translates to he will either be the initial attacker or the guy that protects the party when they route.

LazarX wrote:

No matter how much you bluff and lie, the shambling skeletons rising around you is pretty much going to tell the tale.

Yeah, you are being that guy, and it's clear you want to be, so it's on your GM's head if he permits it.

Oh now, the bloody skeletons will probably have their own dedicated bag of holding. Who would walk around with a small army of the undead when there is a Paladin about?

I love the idea of difficult to pull off or in some way interesting (even if it is only to me) characters. I think this character is going to be powerful mechanically, but challenging roleplay wise. He'll probably be seeing how much nicer things are when people are good characters, but be torn between happiness and power.

At the end of the day, however, most summoned outsiders end up with truesight, and so his alignment becomes immaterial the higher level the party goes.

But-yes, I am dead-set on being "that guy" mostly because I think it will lead to challenging RP. Most of my characters are NG, so LE should be a fun change. I considered NE, but at least you can trust a LE character to not stab you in the back when he says he wont.


A paladin would be quite justified in killing anyone who is animating undead as this is an inheretnly evil act. Associating with an Evil necromancer would require a lot of justification, I can see none which you are providing.
So playing this character is deliberatly provoking a PVP incident with an existing character. This is something as a GM I would ban.

Nothing wrong with the character in isolation it is because you are adding it to a campaign with an existing paladin. Play another character and keep this one in reserve for a campaign without a pre existing paladin player


JohnHawkins wrote:

A paladin would be quite justified in killing anyone who is animating undead as this is an inheretnly evil act. Associating with an Evil necromancer would require a lot of justification, I can see none which you are providing.

So playing this character is deliberatly provoking a PVP incident with an existing character. This is something as a GM I would ban.

Nothing wrong with the character in isolation it is because you are adding it to a campaign with an existing paladin. Play another character and keep this one in reserve for a campaign without a pre existing paladin player

He isn't going to be raising the undead in front of the paladin. He is more of a summoner than a necromancer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm trying to imagine the DM bringing in a character like yours as a NPC and getting the paladin to go with it. No that wouldn't really work would it.

Sounds like you want to be evil, lie to the party, and even eventually betray them, honestly that doesn't sound fun to me, especially if I were playing the paladin, you seem to be asking for the paladin to become lawful stupid so you can get away with being evil.

It all depends on your group and their play style ( some people like a little party conflict), if everyone is okay with it then go for it, but I see a bunch of problems with it myself.


Trimalchio wrote:

I'm trying to imagine the DM bringing in a character like yours as a NPC and getting the paladin to go with it. No that wouldn't really work would it.

Sounds like you want to be evil, lie to the party, and even eventually betray them, honestly that doesn't sound fun to me, especially if I were playing the paladin, you seem to be asking for the paladin to become lawful stupid so you can get away with being evil.

It all depends on your group and their play style ( some people like a little party conflict), if everyone is okay with it then go for it, but I see a bunch of problems with it myself.

TBH him starting at LG is entierly possible as well, and then allowing the GM to change his alignment over time as he summons devils/demons due to casting evil spells. I'm just jumping over that hurtle to save time.

You reference "Lawful Stupid" but that would actually, for a LG character, mean he couldn't suffer evil or law breaking at all, full stop. So, in the words of Princess Bride, "I don't think you know what that [phrase] means."

A LE character can still do good things, he can actually be a benevolent person who just does evil things regularly. In Pathfinder there is debate as to what constitutes making someone evil, there is even more debate when it comes to casting any spell with the evil descriptor: half the crowd say it is evil, but the other half says it is not. Take your pick.

Istme'a revolves around the axiom of long-term structured gains coupled with short-term opportunistic gains. This means raising a secret army of burning bloody skeletons is great when they're protecting his secret assets (long term), but it also means that he isn't going to use his diabolical powers to murder the party since they're far superior to practically everyone else he has met so far (level 5 adventurers as opposed to level 1 NPCs).
Working for the Kingdom makes him money, gives him protection and allows him to amass power far faster than he would be able to do so on his own, and these are all long term gains. Summoning devils is a short-term gain in power, as they only exist for a brief period of time, then vanish.

He is LE and not LN because casting evil spells is a cornerstone of his character. The whole bit in Balhatir was "just business."


You are, however, asking the Paladin to be really stupid and fail to notice that your character is mustache-twirling peasant-murdering demon-summoning evil. That, or asking him to put up with it. If you talk with the player and it's all cool, go for it. Otherwise, take Summon Neutral Monster and make a character that isn't mustache-twirling-peasant-murdering demon-summoning evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, so let's do this exercise. I'm a GM, now justify your character to me.

1. Why do you want to play a LE character in this game so badly?

2. Why will you not play a different character, one who will not have significant conflicts with pre existing characters?

3. Why not save this concept for a later campaign where evil is more acceptable (Your concept fits PERFECTLY in Way of the Wicked)?

4. How can you justify the paladin's association with you, knowing of the paladin code?

paladin code:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies 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.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.


This is the sticking point for me as a DM, because this isn't some LG fighter, this is a PALADIN. He has a code of conduct that you are breaching by asking him to ally with you.

Quote:
You reference "Lawful Stupid" but that would actually, for a LG character, mean he couldn't suffer evil or law breaking at all, full stop

That's EXACTLLY how paladins work, as per their code of conduct. Again, this is a paladin not a LG fighter.


Parties hate when one character's tactics automatically narrow or remove all of their options. Honestly, playing games with darkness as a standard practice should only be done rarely or if your character has the means to provide all the other characters a way to see in the dark.

I think this is a far bigger problem than the alignment nonsense, although it's indicative of a similar issue. Your goal needs to be to build a character with tactics and personality that will work well with the team. I don't know the people you're playing with well enough to know if the alignment issue will be fun or a drag. But casting deeper darkness almost every combat and using summoned creatures, setting up a scenario where the entire party cannot contribute in combat will annoy the crap out of everyone at the table.


What will you do if the kingdom passes a law against creating or using undead?
How does your group handle PVP?
Are you going to talk to the party about your character, or are you going to surprise them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

Since you're the guy deliberately bringing a diabolist into a campaign with a paladin, I'd say the burden's on you to make it work.

(And yes, I'd take a similar stance if someone brought a paladin into an established party with evil characters. It's up to the player to show he's acting in good faith and not just trying to stir stuff up.)

Honestly? Talk to the gnoll's player and pitch your idea to him. He's who you need to convince.

Edit: In character - I'd suggest going for complete transparency. You need to convince the paladin (and probably the rest of the party!) that he needs you, and that ultimately he can trust you.

You're essentially a supervillian asking to join the provisional government. You need to be able to present a more compelling reason than "I can bog the game down by flooding the battlefield with minions and that's really mechanically powerful!"

This, mostly.

I'd talk it over with the other players (especially, but not exclusively, the Paladin), besides, as part of making it work.

"Hey, guys, I've got this character concept I've been wanting to try out. Would it be too jarring for your characters? Any objections from you guys as players? What concessions/compromises can we make so that these characters work together effectively as a team? I've got no special plans to role-play the friction between these characters, but I can do so if you really want to - is that something you'd really rather explore, and if so, how would you like to do so?"

Somehow, I can easily imagine a Gnoll Paladin being a bit more tolerant - or even approving - of a Lawful demon-summoning character, especially one that plays toward the more neutral end of the Evil spectrum, and (if I were the Paladin's player) I'd have a lot of fun with grey-area moral interaction between the two characters, where the Paladin can see a world where it's morally alright to bind and subjugate demons, in the name of preventing them from running loose and untamed upon the world to do as they please. After all, how far off from the concept of an exorcist would either character really be? Would someone who commands devils to do as they're told, and a Paladin protecting the weak from devils really be that incompatible as team members? But, the Paladin's player (and the rest of the group) may have other ideas, so it's really something that you'd want to include the group on while making a decision.


Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

Ok, so let's do this exercise. I'm a GM, now justify your character to me.

1. Why do you want to play a LE character in this game so badly?

2. Why will you not play a different character, one who will not have significant conflicts with pre existing characters?

3. Why not save this concept for a later campaign where evil is more acceptable (Your concept fits PERFECTLY in Way of the Wicked)?

4. How can you justify the paladin's association with you, knowing of the paladin code?

...

I think these are all fair questions not only for the GM to ask, but for the other players, and even (especially) for the player considering an evil character to ask.

I've skimmed a couple of the Original Poster's replies, but I'm not really clear on what the goal is.

* Is it just to play a LE character, with being LE being the end in and of itself, and any race/class combination would do to achieve that end?

* Is it to take advantage of a mechanical effect and wargaming style that appeals to the player in some special way, and being LE is incidental to that, only because the race/class combination demands it?

* Is it because the player has a very specific character concept in mind based on a character he/she saw in a movie or book, and this particular race/class/alignment combination was the only way within the usual rules to simulate that character? (Sounds fair - that's not far off from what I'd seen of the main character from the Constantine TV series, for example.)

In other words, what is really most important to the player in choosing this character? Is it the alignment? Is it the race and class abilities? Is it the idea of having a character that can control evil creatures that is important?

If it's the abilities or the summon-and-command-devils concept that is appealing, then I think alignment can be hand-waved, moving the character more towards a neutral or good character concept that works better with a Paladin.

If it's the alignment alone that's the draw, then that might be more problematic, depending on how well the group handles the conflict.

And then there's the matter of the GM: every now and then, you'll find a GM who likes to "Punish the Paladin" on the shortest of excuses, and players who slip evil characters into a good party enable these GMs to disrupt the game by stripping Paladin powers and splitting the party and so on. Definitely include the GM in the conversation, and consider whether the GM is capable of handling such a party very well - if you have any reason to suspect the GM will use this opportunity to beat the group over the head with alignment stereotypes and mess with the characters, I'd pick a more conventional character instead.

Edited to Add:

Thanatos95 wrote:
...An amulet of undetectable alignment to protect against his detect evil and a good bluff skill about why you summon devils...
Sumutherguy wrote:
There;s also alignment-hiding damnation feats
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
...I'm thinking of buying a Ring of Mind Shielding...

...and probably a couple others I missed:

As a GM, I would not let players use these magical items, skills, or feats against each other as a routine part of the game.

It's a bad precedent.

Find another way, one which involves cooperation between the group...

...As opposed to trying to twist rules that were meant to be applied towards monsters and other NPC enemies, into tools to force your character on the rest of the group, whether they like it or not.

If you can't think of any other way for your character to participate in the game than to use game mechanics against the other players, then it's time to take your character back to the drawing board.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:

I'm trying to imagine the DM bringing in a character like yours as a NPC and getting the paladin to go with it. No that wouldn't really work would it.

...

You reference "Lawful Stupid" but that would actually, for a LG character, mean he couldn't suffer evil or law breaking at all, full stop. So, in the words of Princess Bride, "I don't think you know what that [phrase] means."

...

Although Trimalchio isn't using "Lawful Stupid" in the usual sense, I think his or her wording cleverly appropriate.


Per the Paladin's Code:
"Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good."

Is there a danger to the kingdom which the DM and perhaps an in game leader of the Paladin's faith would be willing to declare an "exceptional circumstance"? Maybe the High Priest could give Holy Hyena a pep talk and promise to offer Atonement along the way to wash away any Evil which might rub off on the Paladin.

On the other hand, there are probably some other ways to play a caster who makes it so enemies can't see and allies can. Kingmaker is also one of the few campaigns where you'd likely have enough downtime to get really into constructs rather than undead. If you're the crazy tinker always building wacky new robots and sending them into Stinking Clouds to beat up nauseated enemies that might be easier for the Paladin to accept (especially if you provide some Delay Poison to make it easier for the other PCs to get in on the killing)


Sounds like you and the paladin are trying to play different games.

This is going to cause problems. Talk to the other player and the gm. You might want to come up with a more suitable character for this particular party. Save your diabolist for a game that suits that theme better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's probably better posted as a new topic, but...

Exactly what is it about having a Paladin in the group that seems to always send one or more other players running for the nearest explicitly evil PC?

Is it an ancient D&D tradition that must be honored?

Is it something the Paladin's player is doing?

Is it something the DM does that seems to direct all the interesting plots toward the most extreme alignments?

Is there something else I haven't yet considered?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Convince your group to play way of the wicked after this kingmaker campaign then you can deal with the forces of hell all you want.

You can possibly play as LN diabolist, but stay there. Imps can hide themselves, they just need to drop the invis and get undetectable alignment, or a ring of mind shielding.

You might be able be able to planar bind some hellcats (they are invisible, no one would notice them anyway) and summon some fire elementals but that's about it.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / A Paladin and an evil devil summoning skeleton raising wizard found a kingdom together. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice