What would you do? (Paladin vs. evil-PC)


Advice

51 to 100 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Note that working with evil is only in "exceptional circumstances". You have to justify why evil PC and only evil PC can help you get the job done.


Point 1:
How is what is going on in the Reign of Winter AP not an exceptional circumstance in favor of working with an evil associate?? Just curious ...

Point 2:
This is a game, not a real life simulation. A gaming group should be able to handle a mix of alignments if the players are having fun, which is why this exception exists in the Paladin's mechanic.

Scenario:
My Paladin of Sarenrae is currently about to enter Xin-Shalast. If an evil associate wanted to join the fray to taking down Karzoug, and they were powerful enough to help, then I would have to consider it. If I didn't allow that person to join the group and we failed, then I am potentially at fault for all evils that Karzoug would bring upon the world.
After all, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.


justaworm wrote:


Point 2:
This is a game, not a real life simulation. A gaming group should be able to handle a mix of alignments if the players are having fun, which is why this exception exists in the Paladin's mechanic

It's almost like people forget there are other Gods you can be a Paladin of other than Iomedae. I mean, people DO realize their deity is more important than the vanilla Paladin rules right?

What Paladin of Sarenrae or Abadar is going to behave like the PC in this case?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
justaworm wrote:

Point 1:

How is what is going on in the Reign of Winter AP not an exceptional circumstance in favor of working with an evil associate?? Just curious ...

I'm also running Reign of Winter at the moment (I'm not related to the OP's group in any way), and I'd have to say that whatever evil the PC did is likely nothing compared to what the PCs are trying to prevent happening. Not to mention the plot itself should make a Paladin seek atonement for the whole associating with evil thing even if there weren't any evil PCs whatsoever (not going to get any more into it than that in order to avoid spoilers).

While none of my players are capital-E Evil, I do have a CN player who tends more towards the evil end of the spectrum than the good end (but not to the point of an alignment switch... yet at any rate). Most of the rest of the party is Good in some description, and the players are great at handling and roleplaying that tension in a civil manner in-game. Don't discount a mixture of alignments in a party if you think the players in the party are up for handling it like responsible adults. If you don't think that, then that's where the GM should step in and say "hey, maybe not do this."

As for advice for the OP, I don't think there's anything I can say that Shadowlord's excellent post hasn't already said, besides possibly this: The GM mentioned that the hut had a room where you can switch between your current character and deceased characters (?), so possibly try to convince the evil character in-game to switch back with his twin as another option for how to resolve things. That said, it seems the twin has a vendetta against the paladin too so rerolling a fresh character unrelated to the dead one would probably be best from a party cohesion standpoint.

Oh, and the GM should have likely warned the paladin killing the evil character about the Chaotic act (like saying "hey, you know what you're about to try to do is likely in violation of the laws of the land, right? Sure you still want to go through with this?"). Way too late to cross that bridge now, but in the future may want to keep stuff like that in mind. It's quite possible the paladin wasn't even focusing on the Lawful part of his oath as he was trying to deal with the evil person in front of him at the time. Giving people warnings when they may do something contrary to their alignment I find makes happier PCs than telling them their alignment suddenly changes out from under them (often in combination with utter confusion as to why).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Exceptional circumstance doesn't just mean because it's convenient to do so.

It's more like, Asmodeus had the key to lock away Rovagug in the center of Golarion and without his help the other gods weren't going to be able to contain him. So they worked with Asmodeus, because there was no other option.

Accepting an evil persons help because they're conveniently there isn't good reason. Unless you think for some reason that this evil person is the only way you're going to succeed in your mission to *redacted*, it's really not justifiable. Not just, "this guy will help us on the way" but seriously a problem of "if we don't have this guy, no matter what we do we lose".

That's an exceptional circumstance.

But I'm willing to bet the party can find someone else of about the right level to join in on their reindeer games that isn't playing for team evil. And that would pretty much be enough reason to not take along the evil guy.

You can't accept evil because it's convenient, because that's how evil works. Oh, I'll just take this guy along and make sure he doesn't do anything becomes a slippery slope of complacency along the walk to evil yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
You can't accept evil because it's convenient, because that's how evil works. Oh, I'll just take this guy along and make sure he doesn't do anything becomes a slippery slope of complacency along the walk to evil yourself.

Uh, no. B&+!@%@$.

Hello Paladin of Iomadea who can't tolerate even associating with evil, meet Paladin of Sarenrae, who sympathizes with evil and wishes to redeem them - who will surely work with evil at the drop of the hat if it means working toward a good cause and an opprotunity to turn evil to good. Meet Paladin of Abadar, who believes in the righteousness of law and sees evil as distasteful, but is willing to tolerate the precense of a Helknight to fight the Worldwound.

Also, that isn't how evil works. That's how GOOD works. You give someone forgiveness and try to help them on the right path, you work with someone distasteful because you're trying to do right by the world and if he's doing right with you maybe they change - or maybe they don't, but at least you kept an eye on them for any nefarious acts.

This whole post is the typical Lawful Stupid archetype.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Also, that isn't how evil works. That's how GOOD works."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. While the term lawful stupid is funny and all it does not change what a paladin is. They are an embodiment of good and law, and while they do take their chosen deity’s teachings to heart, there are limitations under the code paladins abide by.

The paladin of Saerenrae is not going to simply allow the evil character into the party in hopes of them becoming good; they are going to be hounding that character at all times to make sure they do. If the evil character objects, then no, they are out. After all, if you are so petty to refuse Saerenrae's forgiveness, you’re on your own. You don't have to smite the character on the spot, as they have not done anything wrong in your presence, (granted a slight against your god may count depending how you play the character) but they sure as heck are not going with you. If they do say yes, that evil character should be constantly be under watch and feel unwelcome at all times until their alignment changes on their sheet.

If that’s too much or you feel that is unfair, then don't play an evil character with a group of paladins in the group. Simple as that. You could also not allow Paladins, as players tend to be in this state of denial about the whole lawful stupid thing. Paladins are not naive idiots that allow evil to pass. They exist to destroy evil and keep the world safe, no matter the cost. They are not just "good guys" like superman who does what they think is right to save the day, they do what they must under their strict code. They are an embodiment of holy law, often considering their law above that of the laws of the land.

Heck the book straight up states that they will likely come into conflict with the people they intend to help due to the path they tread. They will let many die to save the world if needed. Needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many and all that.

Playing a paladin is not meant to be easy, in a good group or otherwise, thus the alignment restriction. The paladin should and likely will bring as much drama as an evil character due to their code. Slaves would be attempted to be freed depending on the god, thieves stopped and brought to the authorities, the authorities shamed for either abusing their law given powers and/or not doing a good enough job to prevent the thief to exist, and if a fight should occur because of that? They better hope it’s a paladin of Sarenrae.

Is the above example an extreme? Yes. Is it unlikely to happen in a campaign? Depends on role-play for sure, but it is easier to happen than you may like.

Unlike many classes that can be whatever they want to be, Paladins have to adhere to their alignment. They have to balance the class somehow. And this restriction is what makes them hard to play. If you don't want to be a moral zealot who wears their faith on their sleeves and attempts to right every wrong they see under their beliefs, don't play them or allow them in a group. Play a cleric or something, they don't have to be as adamant or extreme. If you allow a paladin to not care about the alignment, you have missed the point of the restriction in the first place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CommandoDude wrote:

Hello Paladin of Iomadea who can't tolerate even associating with evil, meet Paladin of Sarenrae, who sympathizes with evil and wishes to redeem them - who will surely work with evil at the drop of the hat if it means working toward a good cause and an opprotunity to turn evil to good. Meet Paladin of Abadar, who believes in the righteousness of law and sees evil as distasteful, but is willing to tolerate the precense of a Helknight to fight the Worldwound.

Also, that isn't how evil works. That's how GOOD works. You give someone forgiveness and try to help them on the right path, you work with someone distasteful because you're trying to do right by the world and if he's doing right with you maybe they change - or maybe they don't, but at least you kept an eye on them for any nefarious acts.

This whole post is the typical Lawful Stupid archetype.

Paladin's don't "sympathize" with evil, though they might have compassion for creatures that are evil and seek redemption. But redemption and compassion for a creature are different than adventuring with that creature.

By the rules, a paladin of Sarenrae is no less limited by the generic paladin code than anyone else. They cannot work with evil "at the drop of a hot". Arguably, someone who is truly sincere about repenting from evil has probably stepped from evil to neutral (but tracking alignment changes has no real mechanics so that's a difficult discussion). Regardless, the generic paladin code applies to paladins of Sarenrae as well as her specific paladin code. A paladin must uphold both (the path of a paladin is not easy).

As far as hellknights...you do know that hellknights have LG members right (including even paladins)? That the majority are lawful neutral. The organization as a whole is LN, not LE. Though there are definitely LE members. So it's probably that the organization of Hellknights would avoid sending evil members to the worldwound to work with hellknights to avoid potential sources of conflict.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladin or no paladin, I cannot get my head around any possible way to ROLEPLAY a good character who chooses to go anywhere, especially adventuring in the most dangerous places in a very dangerous world (infested with monsters and magic) with an evil character.

Nobody would ever do it.

Adventuring is risky. The most risky thing anybody could ever imagine doing. In the most dangerous world we can imagine, some crazy fools decide to get rich quick by going to the most dangerous parts of it, facing nasty monsters and evil villains on a daily basis, risking death by combat, death by disease, death by poison, death by combat, death by traps, death my magic, death by curses, and death by combat. Facing a million kinds of death many times every day. Insane.

But you know what's more insane?

Having an ally you cannot trust. An ally who *might be* only thinking of himself and who *might be* willing to backstab you at his most opportune time for his own profit.

The only way anyone can ever face adventuring in that dangerous world, facing all those deaths, and hope to come out of it alive, is by having a group of trusted friends facing it with you, watching your back while you watch theirs, all working together for the common good.

That all goes right out the door when you bring along some evil guy. Or (in many cases) even an unpredictable neutral guy.

If you can't trust him, then don't adventure with him, and definitely don't put your life in his hands, and especially definitely don't put your life in his hands repeatedly, over and over, day after day.

Click this link for a real life example.

No adventurer should ever travel with an evil d-bag. Paladins just have an extra excuse to enforce that.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I recently had the honor and privilege to play a paladin in PFS play(and first paladin *ever* since starting roleplay a very long time ago). My paladin follows Andoletta (Grandmother Crow) and was working with the GM to get a 'gauge' for *how* evil folks were that she was encountering.

ie, do they even have a spark of 'good' in them and have a chance at redemption?

If the sense was 'yes, they do', then she went diplomatic.

If the sense was 'No, and they don't want to listen'... well.

It sounds like there's more table communication needed.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with DM Blake here. "Good characters" adventure with "evil characters" all the time in fiction. Most obvious example to me is Michael Carpenter working with Thomas Raith in Grave Peril (after that, not so much) Charity working with Thomas and (indirectly) Maeve in Proven Guilty, and let's not forget Michael being involved in a heist in Skin Game. Not to mention some of the deals Harry himself has cut.

Lesser examples would include Snow working with Regina and Mr. Gold a lot in Once Upon a Time for a greater good. Spidey working with Sandman or Black Cat, or any hero working with Scott Summers for example.

Now all of those examples had lines they'd not let their 'allies' cross. Michael wouldn't have let Thomas 'snack' on an innocent, nor would Snow let Regina kill peasants for a spell. That's the line the Paladin has to walk, to let evil fight evil, and show a better way by eample. Smiting the baddie when he is fighting a bigger baddie, no. Smiting when he is kicking puppies and not fighting evil? yes.


Matthew Morris wrote:
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with DM Blake here. "Good characters" adventure with "evil characters" all the time in fiction.

How many of these heros risk losing their powers by working with these villans?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zetser_Requiem wrote:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That's a slippery slope fallacy and you know it. Just because you associate with an evil person, doesn't mean you tolerate acts of evil, or that you're going to start hanging out with devil summoners next. Sorry your argument is about as convincing as a DARE presentation of why marijuana is going to make you a meth head someday (read -> scare tactics, lies, and fallacies).

Quote:
The paladin of Saerenrae is not going to simply allow the evil character into the party in hopes of them becoming good; they are going to be hounding that character at all times to make sure they do. If the evil character objects, then no, they are out. After all, if you are so petty to refuse Saerenrae's forgiveness, you’re on your own. You don't have to smite the character on the spot, as they have not done anything wrong in your presence, (granted a slight against your god may count depending how you play the character) but they sure as heck are not going with you. If they do say yes, that evil character should be constantly be under watch and feel unwelcome at all times until their alignment changes on their sheet.

Redemption isn't behaving like a christian camp instructor thumping his bible at you. Hell, you're even worse than a bible thumper because at least those guys are persistent in trying to "save your soul." You on the other hand give up on the first 'no.' I don't think you get what it means to show people there's a better way to do things, since that's certainly what rehabilitation centers don't do. In fact, you kind of sound like Alcoholics Anonymous "If you don't accept Jesus [Sarenrae] into your heart, you can never overcome your addiction to alcohol [evil]."

So no, there are many ways to redemption. People who are evil aren't necessarily petty either, in fact some of the best fictional villains I can remember had a greater sense of honor and dignity than their heroic counterparts.

Quote:

dventuring is risky. The most risky thing anybody could ever imagine doing. In the most dangerous world we can imagine, some crazy fools decide to get rich quick by going to the most dangerous parts of it, facing nasty monsters and evil villains on a daily basis, risking death by combat, death by disease, death by poison, death by combat, death by traps, death my magic, death by curses, and death by combat. Facing a million kinds of death many times every day. Insane.

But you know what's more insane?

Having an ally you cannot trust. An ally who *might be* only thinking of himself and who *might be* willing to backstab you at his most opportune time for his own profit.

Look, I'm sorry you had a bad experience with someone once, but you are generalizing so badly here it makes my head spin. You realize that, just like all Paladins don't need to be Lawful Stupid, all evil people don't need to be Chaotic Stupid? I bet one could trust the word of a LE person much easier than they could CG. Hell, I've even actually seen Chaotic Evil characters be portrayed as trustworthy and a valuable addition to a nearly Lawful Stupid heroes' team.

This guy

Quote:
By the rules, a paladin of Sarenrae is no less limited by the generic paladin code than anyone else. They cannot work with evil "at the drop of a hot". Arguably, someone who is truly sincere about repenting from evil has probably stepped from evil to neutral (but tracking alignment changes has no real mechanics so that's a difficult discussion). Regardless, the generic paladin code applies to paladins of Sarenrae as well as her specific paladin code. A paladin must uphold both (the path of a paladin is not easy).

It's certainly a lot easier than you people seem to think, which if we're being honest - is basically "impossible" in your opinions since to even work with someone evil, they basically have to already be "formerly evil."

You know who's a great example of Paladins without a stick in their ass? Jedi. Yeah, those guys who mind trick the s#@% out of everyone, constantly deal peaceably with probably evil people all the time like the huts, occasionally disobey legitimate authority if it gets in the way of their doing good - and they're just as morally righteous as any vanilla Paladin. Plus, even if they break the rules, they don't "fall" or become Sith automatically.

The way you portray Paladins is as people who only ever deal with absolutes...and well, I'll let Obi Wan speak about what that means to him.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Amiella wrote:
Well, there is no point in changing. The GM is my husband. :)

Get a new husband? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladin alignment/code thing aside, I still think this is an out of game issue to be solved.

If the GM wanted the Paladin to walk the grey line with an evil person in the party, there should have been a warning, if not a fall when he executed the first person. Otherwise, the Paladin's one evil act and you're out/dead policy seems perfectly valid.

For the sake of party cohesion, and to avoid an arms race in a vendetta war among players, it would be wisest for the group to agree no evil characters.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CommandoDude wrote:


That's a slippery slope fallacy and you know it.

Even if it is - that doesn't make it wrong.

Is the slippery slope argument overused? Yes.

Is it often true? Heck yeah!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CommandoDude wrote:
Zetser_Requiem wrote:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That's a slippery slope fallacy and you know it. Just because you associate with an evil person, doesn't mean you tolerate acts of evil, or that you're going to start hanging out with devil summoners next. Sorry your argument is about as convincing as a DARE presentation of why marijuana is going to make you a meth head someday (read -> scare tactics, lies, and fallacies).

Quote:
The paladin of Saerenrae is not going to simply allow the evil character into the party in hopes of them becoming good; they are going to be hounding that character at all times to make sure they do. If the evil character objects, then no, they are out. After all, if you are so petty to refuse Saerenrae's forgiveness, you’re on your own. You don't have to smite the character on the spot, as they have not done anything wrong in your presence, (granted a slight against your god may count depending how you play the character) but they sure as heck are not going with you. If they do say yes, that evil character should be constantly be under watch and feel unwelcome at all times until their alignment changes on their sheet.

Redemption isn't behaving like a christian camp instructor thumping his bible at you. Hell, you're even worse than a bible thumper because at least those guys are persistent in trying to "save your soul." You on the other hand give up on the first 'no.' I don't think you get what it means to show people there's a better way to do things, since that's certainly what rehabilitation centers don't do. In fact, you kind of sound like Alcoholics Anonymous "If you don't accept Jesus [Sarenrae] into your heart, you can never overcome your addiction to alcohol [evil]."

So no, there are many ways to redemption. People who are evil aren't necessarily petty either, in fact some of the best fictional villains I can remember had a greater sense of honor and dignity than their heroic counterparts.

Couple of things.

1. The decision to NOT act(or in this case to allow the evil character knowing the risks), to refrain from acting, is not neutral. It is itself a conscious act freighted with its own set of consequences,legal, social, economic,and moral, e.g., the decision NOT to call the police when a crime is being committed because we don’t want to get involved. The “slippery slope” argument is, quite simply, a moral cop-out.

2. The reason why they can and will hound the evil character is because they literally have the ability to see their alignment. Again, every day they see this is enough to put them into a cautious stance against the evil character. This is not simply due to paladins being moral zealots, this is more to due with the potential wrong doer and/or danger in their midst.

3. I never explicitly stated that they pushed their religions on others in my post, nor did I say they would condone doing so either. They are dealing with someone they know is evil, who brings a risk to themselves and their comrades. By renouncing the evil deeds that they may have done or will do, they are forgiven (in the Saerenrae example at least)and are good to stay under said paladins help in becoming a better person (which again, if you're still evil they can tell). Simply saying "No, deal with it" is the best way to not go with the Paladins' group, who also now know the person is evil. And again, why would you bring someone you cannot trust? It logically and morally makes no sense. The paladins would literally be using the atonement ritual weekly, which is an added bit of unfairness(and cost) to the players of those characters, and another reason why this is a bad idea.

4. While insulting me is nice and all, it does nothing for your arguments. These are fictional characters in a fictional setting. My beliefs in real life do not equal my beliefs in game. Its called role playing for a reason. I will admit however that I have dealt with drug abuse within my family. After several years of insanity we are finally stable again. And yes, it was and is a slippery slope for them. It takes one moment of weakness to set you back for months or even years. It may be a fallacy to you, but it is a very real thing to me.

5. While subjective as a subject this is and will be, I agree that villains can and are often well written, more so than heros. That said, it's because they tend to be easier to write. Less rules and morals to consider and easier to love to hate them, whereas good characters, paladins even more so, have many things that can hinder their choices and a reader's enjoyment, such as being a mary sue so or a boy scout. It fun to write a good villain, it is a challenge to write a good hero.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inb4 appeal to emotion fallacy


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Detect evil does not detect non-divine casters under level 4.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

It's certainly a lot easier than you people seem to think, which if we're being honest - is basically "impossible" in your opinions since to even work with someone evil, they basically have to already be "formerly evil."

You know who's a great example of Paladins without a stick in their ass? Jedi. Yeah, those guys who mind trick the s~$* out of everyone, constantly deal peaceably with probably evil people all the time like the huts, occasionally disobey legitimate authority if it gets in the way of their doing good - and they're just as morally righteous as any vanilla Paladin. Plus, even if they break the rules, they don't "fall" or become Sith automatically.

The way you portray Paladins is as people who only ever deal with absolutes...and well, I'll let Obi Wan speak about what that means to him.

Forgot about this bit. The original jedi order fell exactly due to the way they acted. The Jedi from the Star Wars Prequels followed the Jedi Code, which was meant as a mere guideline, as a set of unbreakable rules and set out to completely repress all emotion in somewhat unfounded fear of those emotions leading to the dark side, when they should have acknowledged that which makes us human and simply taught how to use them positively. Such arbitrarily following of the code leads the Council to turn a blind eye to the various problems Anakin Skywalker was having, thereby unintentionally sealing their own downfall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Detect evil does not detect non-divine casters under level 4.

I believe that is only for aura power. They would still know they are evil. They just wouldn't pick up an aura. You may be right though. I'll have to verify this.

Edit: So just checked. I was correct, you would still know they are evil, just not how evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also the paladin would need a reason to detect evil on the guy. otherwise they wouldn't know.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathan Monson wrote:
Also the paladin would need a reason to detect evil on the guy. otherwise they wouldn't know.

Like... going off to adventure with them for weeks in the wilderness?

Edit: sorry - I reread that and came across as more snarky than I intended


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathan Monson wrote:
Also the paladin would need a reason to detect evil on the guy. otherwise they wouldn't know.

Says who? You meet a guy who is the twin of the other guy that was just off'd and you wouldn't check to see if he may not be on the level?

It is a built in feature that the paladin can use whenever they want, and it is a spell like ability, meaning they can do it without being noticed.

In this situation caution is and should be reason enough, not that you need one to use the ability in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The paladin issue to the side, the rest of the events are just there for drama's sake. I know that if I did this sort of thing to my wife when I GMed, she'd find ways to make my life very uncomfortable.

This is just a problem that doesn't need to be happening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zetser_Requiem wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Detect evil does not detect non-divine casters under level 4.

I believe that is only for aura power. They would still know they are evil. They just wouldn't pick up an aura. You may be right though. I'll have to verify this.

Edit: So just checked. I was correct, you would still know they are evil, just not how evil.

No. It does not. It works like the detect evil spell.

Detect evil does not detect hd under 4 with a few exceptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Zetser_Requiem wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Detect evil does not detect non-divine casters under level 4.

I believe that is only for aura power. They would still know they are evil. They just wouldn't pick up an aura. You may be right though. I'll have to verify this.

Edit: So just checked. I was correct, you would still know they are evil, just not how evil.

No. It does not. It works like the detect evil spell.

Detect evil does not detect hd under 4 with a few exceptions.

I am reading it from the book, it says nothing about not knowing the alignment. First thing detect evil spell does is to detect the presence of evil, with the following 2 steps determining how powerful it is via an aura surrounding the creature, if any.

In other words, you know they are evil, they just don't have an aura that you could gauge them off of. Now if the player had the undetectable alignment spell that would be different.


Zetser_Requiem wrote:


1. The decision to NOT act(or in this case to allow the evil character knowing the risks), to refrain from acting, is not neutral. It is itself a conscious act freighted with its own set of consequences,legal, social, economic,and moral, e.g., the decision NOT to call the police when a crime is being committed because we don’t want to get involved. The “slippery slope” argument is, quite simply, a moral cop-out.

Again, there is a difference between tolerating the presence of someone evil and turning a blind eye to a crime. They are not two in the same thing. The Paladin Code does not state you must destroy evil, only to protect the innocent and help those in need (the fact can be argued a Paladin is actually obligated to help an evil doer in distress, so long as that help can reasonably be known not to be used to commit evil). Nowhere does it state that a Paladin may summarily pass judgement on anyone they see and harass people over 'detecting' them as evil, and straight up killing someone without any cause other than "they were evil" is actually in of itself an unlawful act and grounds for falling itself.

Aside from that, slippery slope is not a "cop out" it is merely the factual observation of flawed logic. Saying "If X happens then Y and Z will happen next" without reasonably demonstrating how or why that would happen is a leap in logic and the argumentative equivalent of "because I said so." Associating with an evil person, even casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, does not demonstratively lead to committing or condoning evil acts.

Quote:
2. The reason why they can and will hound the evil character is because they literally have the ability to see their alignment. Again, every day they see this is enough to put them into a cautious stance against the evil character. This is not simply due to paladins being moral zealots, this is more to due with the potential wrong doer and/or danger in their midst.

Morally righteous high horse holier than thou judgement is not a very convincing tactic for making people see your way. I am literally studying in my Communications degree how this line of thinking is actually more likely to cause somebody evil to become even less likely to stop being evil.

This kind of attitude basically just strengthens evil. So it is of no help whatsoever.

Quote:
3. I never explicitly stated that they pushed their religions on others in my post, nor did I say they would condone doing so either. They are dealing with someone they know is evil, who brings a risk to themselves and their comrades. By renouncing the evil deeds that they may have done or will do, they are forgiven (in the Saerenrae example at least)and are good to stay under said paladins help in becoming a better person (which again, if you're still evil they can tell). Simply saying "No, deal with it" is the best way to not go with the Paladins' group, who also now know the person is evil. And again, why would you bring someone you cannot trust? It logically and morally makes no sense. The paladins would literally be using the atonement ritual weekly, which is an added bit of unfairness(and cost) to the players of those characters, and another reason why this is a bad idea.

Being evil doesn't mean someone is untrustworthy. Being chaotic means they're untrustworthy. It's like people forget there is even an alignment scale aside from good and evil. Just because someone is evil, does not make them necessarily a risk to you, that is just stereotyping - is a devil (obviously evil creature) who swears to fight by your side against a host of demons 'a danger' to you? Even devils have pride and honor, loathsome as they are. Frankly that kind of thinking is EXACTLY the reason why people associate evil with untrustworthiness, because GM's like you ban the evil alignment, so people who want to play evil characters get cajoled into CN and CN characters get a bad rep about being pseudo evil. A LE character and CN character are almost polar opposites yet are summarily lumped together.

Also atonement doesn't have a GP cost unless you have fallen - additionally the Code only states that you should seek the use of atonement spells, not that you must, and is really vague about the whole thing.

Quote:
I will admit however that I have dealt with drug abuse within my family. After several years of insanity we are finally stable again. And yes, it was and is a slippery slope for them. It takes one moment of weakness to set you back for months or even years. It may be a fallacy to you, but it is a very real thing to me.

There are several factors that lead toward drug abuse (including the fact that some drugs are actually addictive). I say "fallacy" because such things are not so simple.

Quote:
5. While subjective as a subject this is and will be, I agree that villains can and are often well written, more so than heros. That said, it's because they tend to be easier to write. Less rules and morals to consider and easier to love to hate them, whereas good characters, paladins even more so, have many things that can hinder their choices and a reader's enjoyment, such as being a mary sue so or a boy scout. It fun to write a good villain, it is a challenge to write a good hero.

Compelling villains are not easy to write, they are hard to write. As someone who studied fiction writing, it is easy to write a bland and forgettable villain, because they often lack their own motivation or characterization, they have no justification and are evil for the sake of evil. All of the BEST villains are those who are heroes of their own story, which is no easy feat. Actually compelling villains are hard to write because they need to have compelling, internally consistent reasons to act the way they do - in a way that makes sense to themselves, that means they need to operate on a set of rules and morals totally foreign to what most people understand.

Villains do not have less rules and morals to consider. They have different rules and morals to consider - the less rules and morals a character has, the more they become bland and generic props (which can EASILY happen to heroes).

Quote:
Forgot about this bit. The original jedi order fell exactly due to the way they acted. The Jedi from the Star Wars Prequels followed the Jedi Code, which was meant as a mere guideline, as a set of unbreakable rules and set out to completely repress all emotion in somewhat unfounded fear of those emotions leading to the dark side, when they should have acknowledged that which makes us human and simply taught how to use them positively. Such arbitrarily following of the code leads the Council to turn a blind eye to the various problems Anakin Skywalker was having, thereby unintentionally sealing their own downfall.

The Jedi order fell because it was defeated by evil that engineered a grand betrayal to wipe them out in a bloody coup. Honestly Anakin Skywalker was a small fry, he never did a one important thing that couldn't have been carried out by someone else. Add to the fact that the Jedi had no idea Anakin was so compromised because he kept his private life very secret and you see the Jedi were not particularly at fault for their failure, except in the ability to be clairvoyant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zetser_Requiem wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Zetser_Requiem wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Detect evil does not detect non-divine casters under level 4.

I believe that is only for aura power. They would still know they are evil. They just wouldn't pick up an aura. You may be right though. I'll have to verify this.

Edit: So just checked. I was correct, you would still know they are evil, just not how evil.

No. It does not. It works like the detect evil spell.

Detect evil does not detect hd under 4 with a few exceptions.

I am reading it from the book, it says nothing about not knowing the alignment. First thing detect evil spell does is to detect the presence of evil, with the following 2 steps determining how powerful it is via an aura surrounding the creature, if any.

In other words, you know they are evil, they just don't have an aura that you could gauge them off of. Now if the player had the undetectable alignment spell that would be different.

that is not correct

This forum discussion explains it more than i care to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
justaworm wrote:


This is pretty much the case in every single Adventure Path, Module, and likely Scenario, at least once your character sees the full picture of what is going on. Now, if your Paladin doesn't yet know the full scope of what is going on, then there is certainly the argument that "associating with an evil character X just to perform small task Y" is probably not a good thing.
This only makes sense if the evil PC is somehow integral to defeating the greater evil. Once you are back in town why not drop that evil guy from your group and pick up pretty much any non-evil adventurer to replace him? How is that one evil guy what helps you defeat the greater evil?

Luckily, he's one of the people with the Mantle of the Dark Rider, which means he IS in fact integral to the plot. So this is a non-issue.

DM_Blake wrote:

Paladin or no paladin, I cannot get my head around any possible way to ROLEPLAY a good character who chooses to go anywhere, especially adventuring in the most dangerous places in a very dangerous world (infested with monsters and magic) with an evil character.

Nobody would ever do it.

Adventuring is risky. The most risky thing anybody could ever imagine doing. In the most dangerous world we can imagine, some crazy fools decide to get rich quick by going to the most dangerous parts of it, facing nasty monsters and evil villains on a daily basis, risking death by combat, death by disease, death by poison, death by combat, death by traps, death my magic, death by curses, and death by combat. Facing a million kinds of death many times every day. Insane.

But you know what's more insane?

Having an ally you cannot trust. An ally who *might be* only thinking of himself and who *might be* willing to backstab you at his most opportune time for his own profit.

The only way anyone can ever face adventuring in that dangerous world, facing all those deaths, and hope to come out of it alive, is by having a group of trusted friends facing it with you, watching your back while you watch theirs, all working together for the common good.

That all goes right out the door when you bring along some evil guy. Or (in many cases) even an unpredictable neutral guy.

If you can't trust him, then don't adventure with him, and definitely don't put your life in his hands, and especially definitely don't put your life in his hands repeatedly, over and over, day after day.

Click this link for a real life example.

No adventurer should ever travel with an evil d-bag. Paladins just have an extra excuse to enforce that.

There's roughly a thousand things wrong with this post but I'll focus on the most glaringly obviously wrong.

"Traveling with someone you can't trust."

You can trust an Evil person as much as you can trust a Good person, because following your word and being loyal are Lawful qualities, not Good qualities.

You can have a treacherous Good or Neutral character, and a trustworthy Evil character...it's kind of the whole point of Chaotic Good/Neutral and Lawful Evil respectively.

I agree you should never travel with a douchebag, but again this isn't an Evil quality. It's a universal quality. Paladins are very capable of being (and almost mechanically ENCOURAGED TO BE) douchebags themselves. That doesn't make them evil, just douchey.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This isn't the first time Blake has brought in the "evil people are inherently bad party members" argument. As Rynjin said, it doesn't hold water. Evil might motivate you to betray based on self-interest, but Good will motivate you to betray based on your own strange moral code.

Chaotic Good PCs are seriously terrible partymembers in any pragmatic adventuring party. The only edge they have over Chaotic Evil teammates is they generally won't try to eat your arm or something.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zetser_Requiem wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with DM Blake here. "Good characters" adventure with "evil characters" all the time in fiction.
How many of these heros risk losing their powers by working with these villans?

Well one not only would lose his powers, but would have alos caused an archangel to fall... so WWMCD is still the go to example. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well I'll be damned. James Jacobs himself to confirm it. (here for reference http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=414?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu %20estions-Here#20660)

I humbly recant my denials. I must say that I am confused to why they give detect evil to you at level 1 then, and not until level 4 when you get all your spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Hey, Bob, stop fighting that dire rat and look at that enormous devil-like thing blocking our path. Is it evil?"
Bob collapses, screaming and clutching his eyes.
"I told you we shouldn't have stiffed the GM on the pizza bill last week."


Matthew Morris wrote:
Zetser_Requiem wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with DM Blake here. "Good characters" adventure with "evil characters" all the time in fiction.
How many of these heros risk losing their powers by working with these villans?
Well one not only would lose his powers, but would have alos caused an archangel to fall... so WWMCD is still the go to example. :-)

Touche sir/Madame.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

"Hey, Bob, stop fighting that dire rat and look at that enormous devil-like thing blocking our path. Is it evil?"

Bob collapses, screaming and clutching his eyes.
"I told you we shouldn't have stiffed the GM on the pizza bill last week."

Nearly had a spit take on that one. But if your running into monsters that powerful I think being stunned for a round is the least of your concerns


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zetser_Requiem wrote:

Well I'll be damned. James Jacobs himself to confirm it. (here for reference http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=414?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu %20estions-Here#20660)

I humbly recant my denials. I must say that I am confused to why they give detect evil to you at level 1 then, and not until level 4 when you get all your spells.

Well it will pick up clerics and outsiders that do evil things. But usually at that level they knock you out.

I think going through a town of peasants and using detect evil would pick up good/neutral thinking about doing evil on such small levels it is not enough to pick up.


coldvictim wrote:


In my own opinion, I have always found it difficult to bring together being in a party and any evil alignment. If you are evil, altruism isn't normally on the horizon, so a party is normally made of frightened underlings too scared to disobey and psychotic bosses who rule with an iron hand.

It's not a common trope, but there are many evil characters in media who have love, friends, and even morals.

Chaotic Evil, yeah I can see not working out to well in a group for long periods of time. Those are the kinds of weird villains who make awkward relationships of the "Ohh you're interesting. I'll save you for another day!" variety commonly.

Then you have Lawful Evil people who have professional relationships and likely a strong moral compass, just not pointed in the same direction as a good character.

Then neutral evil has a lot of variability. In Way of the Wicked I'm playing a very bad man who wants nothing more than to see the society of Talingarde crumble and be devoured by the woods. He also is falling in love with another party member and they moved into the same living quarters.

In real life we have people like Adolf Hitler, who was undoubtedly evil, but still managed to supposedly find love. Andrew Jackson is another example of a highly immoral and evil person who found a lot of success in his relationships.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
coldvictim wrote:


In my own opinion, I have always found it difficult to bring together being in a party and any evil alignment. If you are evil, altruism isn't normally on the horizon, so a party is normally made of frightened underlings too scared to disobey and psychotic bosses who rule with an iron hand.

It's not a common trope, but there are many evil characters in media who have love, friends, and even morals.

Chaotic Evil, yeah I can see not working out to well in a group for long periods of time. Those are the kinds of weird villains who make awkward relationships of the "Ohh you're interesting. I'll save you for another day!" variety commonly.

Then you have Lawful Evil people who have professional relationships and likely a strong moral compass, just not pointed in the same direction as a good character.

Then neutral evil has a lot of variability. In Way of the Wicked I'm playing a very bad man who wants nothing more than to see the society of Talingarde crumble and be devoured by the woods. He also is falling in love with another party member and they moved into the same living quarters.

In real life we have people like Adolf Hitler, who was undoubtedly evil, but still managed to supposedly find love. Andrew Jackson is another example of a highly immoral and evil person who found a lot of success in his relationships.

What Andrew Jackson are you talking about? i think there is more then one.


The guy who got the Indian Removal Act passed, abused it to cause the Treaty of New Enchola fiasco, and the guy who set the precedent for openly corrupt U.S. Leaders.


CommandoDude wrote:
Zetser_Requiem wrote:

Again, there is a difference between tolerating the presence of someone evil and turning a blind eye to a crime. They are not two in the same thing. The Paladin Code does not state you must destroy evil, only to protect the innocent and help those in need (the fact can be argued a Paladin is actually obligated to help an evil doer in distress, so long as that help can reasonably be known not to be used to commit evil). Nowhere does it state that a Paladin may summarily pass judgement on anyone they see and harass people over 'detecting' them as evil, and straight up killing someone without any cause other than "they were evil" is actually in of itself an unlawful act and grounds for falling itself.

Aside from that, slippery slope is not a "cop out" it is merely the factual observation of flawed logic...

I never said they would or should straight up kill anyone they detected evil on. The person may be evil, yes, but Paladins must adhere to their code of honor first and foremost. A warning to the evil one at the least. Other wise just detect then kill would be a pretty quick revoking of their powers to most DMs. My example stated that if the Paladin took offense to a negative reaction of their deities forgiveness. A duel in her honor could easily be challenged, and again, no need to kill. Lawful good is not Judge Dredd. That's more akin to Lawful neutral.

The whole evil vs. chaotic thing is mute here. In real life evil and good are subjective to a larger extent. Not many people wake up and say "What sort of evil shall I commit this day!?". In pathfinder and Golarion as a whole, there is in fact absolutes of people who are Evil for evil's sake, or are evil because they were created that way. The lawful/Neutral/chaotic tends to show what degree they will go out of their ways to do it. They are all for self gain, all wicked, and only trust themselves. Evil is in this case the unknown. Something that has no guarantees to be a hindrance or a boon. That's gambling. Not a good position to consider from the Paladins point of view.

As for the Fallacy issue, taking a step back, it does not even matter. As you pointed out with your DARE example, this occurs often in reality. People will have their conceptions and beliefs and this is no different in game and role-playing. As I stated earlier, I separate my beliefs from those of the characters I play, and I expect it is much the same for others who are big into role-play. These fallacies, tropes, and stereotypes are all fair game, whether people like it or not, because just like in real life, your gonna run into people who disagree with you and your opinions(or facts even). Some nicely, and some... well less so.

So you can say that the Paladin is being unreasonable and that its a fallacy. The Paladin can still think otherwise. The problem is settled in this scenario via role-play as it should be. Granted again, an evil character in a two pali party was just asking for trouble.


Unfortunately, just having an evil alignment is not punishable. However, a paladin will not group with someone of evil alignment. The paladin should give the group an ultimatum. Ditch the evil pc, or he will walk. If the paladin whitneses the evil aligned PC comit a crime though, he needs to open a can of justice


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

Paladin or no paladin, I cannot get my head around any possible way to ROLEPLAY a good character who chooses to go anywhere, especially adventuring in the most dangerous places in a very dangerous world (infested with monsters and magic) with an evil character.

Nobody would ever do it.

Adventuring is risky. The most risky thing anybody could ever imagine doing. In the most dangerous world we can imagine, some crazy fools decide to get rich quick by going to the most dangerous parts of it, facing nasty monsters and evil villains on a daily basis, risking death by combat, death by disease, death by poison, death by combat, death by traps, death my magic, death by curses, and death by combat. Facing a million kinds of death many times every day. Insane.

But you know what's more insane?

Having an ally you cannot trust. An ally who *might be* only thinking of himself and who *might be* willing to backstab you at his most opportune time for his own profit.

I have to disagree. I read your RL experience. There's no doubt that's a crazy situation, and unfortunate, but it's not a depiction of what every single Chaotic character is, nor every single Evil character. There are plenty of examples of Chaotic and Evil characters who are extremely selfless, loyal, and trustworthy. It just depends which side of their weapons you find yourself on. Not all Chaotic characters are untrustworthy, selfish, backstabbers, nor are all Evil characters.

A few examples:

1. Waylander, The Gray Man: The most famous assassin in this story universe, saves the world in Hero in the Shadows. Probably NE.

2. Joel: This guy is at least NE. In the opening scene he kills like 15 people just to get to a guy who stole an illegal shipment of weapons from him. Then he dispassionately watches as his partner executes the guy. He references a time when he was a raider, possibly CE at this point in his life. Even his mission to escort Elle started as a pay check. But it evolves, and by the end he goes through a LOT to safely escort her and protect her. He had an extremely high degree of loyalty to those he was close to.

3. Jason Bourne: Perfect Assassin archetype; seriously he even had to kill someone for no other reason than to join the program. High degree of loyalty, high degree of self sacrifice, and a high degree of discipline. LE, until he get's pulled out of the ocean, then probably LN.

4. John Wick: Mass murdering assassin. High degree of loyalty, high degree of discipline, inspires loyalty in friends. LE.

5. Bryan Mills: A CIA operative who prevented bad things from happening; presumably by doing bad things to others. This guy tortures a guy with nails in the legs and electrocution, then kills him via slow electrocution. He shoots a former associate's innocent wife in front of him and threatens to kill them both for information. Extreme loyalty and dedication, viciously protective, high degree of self sacrifice. LE.

6. John Creasy: Ex-military Special Operations guy. For starters, he cuts a guy's fingers off, one by one, and cauterizes them with a cigarette lighter for some information. Then he kills the guy by sending him over a cliff. He puts a small bomb up a guys butt and interrogates him until it's time to walk away and let him explode. High degree of discipline. He also gives his life to ensure the safety and survival of his friend. There is no higher degree of loyalty or self sacrifice. LE.

7. The Operative, from Serenity: At last we come to one of my favorite examples. This quote sums it up nicely.

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: "So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?"
The Operative: "I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done."

Where his government is concerned, there are few who would be more trusted to complete a task. Extremely high degree of loyalty and discipline. Now imagine if this guy were on your team, shared your cause, and considered you a friend. There is no limit to what he would do to protect his own and ensure their success.

8. For an example of a Chaotic guy who is extremely trustworthy I refer to Sherlock Holmes. The only disciplined part of his life seems to be his logic. He used drugs, he was unpredictable, at times unreliable, and has a low regard for the law. I would call him Chaotic, yet he was also very trustworthy, if not always reliable. He also showed an extreme level of self sacrifice.

9. Or how about Batman for a trustworthy Chaotic guy?

10. Just saw a commercial for Specter and thought, wow, now there's a Chaotic guy who's probably on the darker side of Neutral. Yet, James Bond is highly loyaly and highly trustworthy.

...

I feel like the way most people play Paladins, they are the kind of righteous soldiers of god who would kill their own children for breaking the law. If you couldn't stone your own wife or child to death Old Testament style, you probably shouldn't play a Paladin. I'd much rather have any of the character types listed above in my party. Any one of the characters I listed can be just as loyal and trustworthy as a Paladin. I tend not to play a lawful character, and I'm usually Neutral in some form or fashion and I'd rather not be worried about some Paladin smiting me for executing a douchebag rather than question him. Which, don't forget, is the situation that lead to this thread. A Paladin executed a fellow PC for executing a slaver.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zetser_Requiem wrote:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”


Nimor wrote:

I'm the GM (and her husband^^).

The whole story:

We are playing Reign of Winter, Part III actually, arrived at Khasak, the Hut in possession.
It's a group of five/six players and until now with far to many deaths'. But dying is very common in our campaigns (one of the least campaigns was Rappan Athuk), mostly out of dump decisions.
The players are knowing each other for many years and drama between the characters was ever a leading motivation for some players, if not all.

I altered some aspects of the campaign. If a character dies the mantle of the black rider "travels" to a new suspect and offers him the mission (a way to hook new characters; people who know the campaign, will understand).
Baba Yaga's hut has this special throne room where you can watch whole Irrisen. In our game the room exists in every configuration with the appropriate sorroundings. Sitting on the throne's: the characters deceased during the campaign. If a follow-up character touches a "dead" one freely minded, he can switch back. The geas is not lifted from the death, baba yaga posseses them until there end (like her daughters).

Factual you could not kill a character if the player didn't want so (because the follow up is under his control).
I like the situation. The paladins (there are three in the group, not just two...) have acepted a "grey" mission, helping a greater evil for a good purpose.

The "evil" character beheaded a slaver and oppressor of poor people in Irrisen (for bounty! but he was never asked about this). One of the paladin gave him the option to die by his sword or to surrender to the justice of Irrisen (the witches...). His options where die or die...
The paladin killed him. There was no real diplomacy interaction about his motives.

The some paladin watched (concealed, with the whole group) some ingame minutes later the slaugthering of dozen civilians by the witches who came to investigate (a situation called forth by a paladin beheading someone...) because he knowed they would kill him in no
...

Okay, I am going to step in.

"No. You are doing it wrong."

A Paladin isn't going to work with someone like that, let alone three Paladins.

That is unreasonable. Knowing you had three Paladins in the group you willingly allowed a character that they shouldn't be traveling with and then disallowed the Paladins any choice in who they travel with.

No.

In Pathfinder there is no "greater good" that is a myth bad people use to justify when they do bad things. In Pathfinder there is objective good and objective evil and neither should the twain meet.

A Paladin loses their Paladin-hood if they do something evil. It doesn't matter if they do it for the "greater good" it isn't how it works.

Were I one of your Paladins, on realizing that I can't kill the evil person who is forcing himself on us, I would cripple it. I would remove a limb, lame it for life, then go on without it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you pay attention to the formatting, you'll notice that the associates section isn't actually part of the code of conduct. Good thing too, or else a paladin of Torag could fall for hanging around someone who was too merciful and thus consistently offended his moral code.


Zetser_Requiem wrote:
Quote:

It's certainly a lot easier than you people seem to think, which if we're being honest - is basically "impossible" in your opinions since to even work with someone evil, they basically have to already be "formerly evil."

You know who's a great example of Paladins without a stick in their ass? Jedi. Yeah, those guys who mind trick the s~$* out of everyone, constantly deal peaceably with probably evil people all the time like the huts, occasionally disobey legitimate authority if it gets in the way of their doing good - and they're just as morally righteous as any vanilla Paladin. Plus, even if they break the rules, they don't "fall" or become Sith automatically.

The way you portray Paladins is as people who only ever deal with absolutes...and well, I'll let Obi Wan speak about what that means to him.

Forgot about this bit. The original jedi order fell exactly due to the way they acted. The Jedi from the Star Wars Prequels followed the Jedi Code, which was meant as a mere guideline, as a set of unbreakable rules and set out to completely repress all emotion in somewhat unfounded fear of those emotions leading to the dark side, when they should have acknowledged that which makes us human and simply taught how to use them positively. Such arbitrarily following of the code leads the Council to turn a blind eye to the various problems Anakin Skywalker was having, thereby unintentionally sealing their own downfall.

There is a really good example of a Paladin-like Jedi, in that he viciously and relentlessly hunted Evil... Reven. Perhaps one of my favorite Paladin like characters. Of course he did eventually become the monster he was hunting... but then he, like Anakin, was redeemed. Good thing the Jedi who were hunting him weren't so Paladin like, or they would have just executed him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

This isn't the first time Blake has brought in the "evil people are inherently bad party members" argument. As Rynjin said, it doesn't hold water. Evil might motivate you to betray based on self-interest, but Good will motivate you to betray based on your own strange moral code.

Chaotic Good PCs are seriously terrible partymembers in any pragmatic adventuring party. The only edge they have over Chaotic Evil teammates is they generally won't try to eat your arm or something.

Is Pragmatic the new Chaotic Neutral?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those of you who think you can trust a LE character - there's a word for that.

Sucker.

A LE character may be absolutely honest. Devils always are, when they bargain you out of your soul.


No, I'm using "pragmatic" to refer to Blake's attitude on accepting new teammates. His "pragmatic" rules also apply to anybody with a disability (apparently, a blind summoner's monsters just go berserk and start killing civilians since he can't see them).

I'm not a fan of that sort of "pragmatism", but if we're going to exaggerate things, paladins and clerics should not be left out. "Uh, you expect me to travel with some crazy zealot who might betray us at any moment just because his god told him to? Yeah, I'm sticking with the bard for healing, thanks."

51 to 100 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / What would you do? (Paladin vs. evil-PC) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.