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


Advice

1 to 50 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Dear all,

We have quite a situation here:

A member of our group just decided to play an evil character after the unfortunate death of his last one. His first action was to kill an enemy which the group intended to question and who lay unconscious/helpless on the ground. The group's paladin sentenced him to death and killed him after he was not reasonable. Then his twin brother appears (really looking the same like the dead one) - not evil.

The GM allowed this guy to switch back to be evil brother. No one really realizes until my Fighter/ Paladin (1 level) detects evil and see that the evil twin is back in the game. The group's paladin (who is now the lover of my character) does not know about his yet.

What would you do?


13 people marked this as a favorite.

I would talk to your GM first. Playing an evil character with a well established Paladin in the party isn't being conducive to any one's fun and is actively causing drama.

Once you've spoken to your GM, hopefully they will speak to the player, or call everyone to speak and collaborate on a more harmonious party.

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree, this is a talking situation. Now while I normally would say Evil doesnt necessarily mean disruptive, this particular character seems to be doing so solely for that reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

State point blank this sort of thing isn't fun for you, and ask the other player not to play an evil character since you have an already established paladin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think he created this character to create drama. Just because he likes it. The GM gave his approval to play the evil twin again.

What would you do in my position? Killing him?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well if the character's purpose is conflict with the paladin(s), then play it out. Though I would inform the other paladin character first and figure out together what is the best course of action. If that happens to be smiting, smite, I guess.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

So, character dies, it happens and can suck.

Player makes an evil character who causes conflict and is killed, so the non-evil twin brother shows up to take the dead evil twin brothers place, but it turns out the dead evil twin was actually the not-evil twin who is now dead and the evil twin is masquerading as the non-evil twin in a group that thinks it already killed the evil twin...

Personally, I play for the stories. If this was a TV show I would have changed the channel after the non-evil twin showed up, and canceled my cable after the evil twin was found to be alive in place of the non-evil...

So yea, I agree with the above. The player is intentionally being disruptive and the story has become a trope filled soap opera joke. If it were my group I would sit down with the entire table and suggest we start fresh with a new campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd still talk to your GM, but first maybe talk to the other players. If you can provide a unified front that says ''hey, we do not like this and it's not fun,'' it may be effective. In my opinion, it is always better to talk out situations like these than try and solve them in game.

It's far to easy for this to turn into repeated evil characters, now with the agenda they must kill the party. Eventually they will succeed.

If after speaking with the GM and if he/she isn't willing to reel in the intentionally disruptive player, you may wish to consider if this is the kind of game you want to play in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Smite him! :P

P.S.

Seriously: talk to your GM and to the evil PC player. The purpose of the game is building a tale and have fun but not at the expense of other players. Besides that if things went exactly as you said then this person seems to be very childish and to desperately want to call attention to himself. Try to reason with him but be firm and don't cave in to any unreasonable requests.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, this player is insisting on playing an evil character in a party with not one but TWO paladins?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly! He's a drama queen!

Silver Crusade

Well I had a similar situation happen though the player wasnt evil, just disruptive. I told him with no terms afterward that if he did X. My character would challenge him and swiftly deal with him.. every single time. I did not bat an eye killing him once.


I now followed your advise and started talking to him by asking what he really wants but he refused.

So...I think I then try by smiting, what do you think?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did you speak to the problem player or the GM.

If the problem player, speak to the GM.

If you spoke to the GM and he refused to do anything, consider if you wish to stay in a game with a player/GM like that.

If the answer is yes, then Smite away with your paladin buddy and be ready to sleep with one eye open.

Silver Crusade

When in doubt Smite it out. Make sure the other characters are on the same page. I wasnt kidding about killing the same player's characters over and over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, there is no point in changing. The GM is my husband. :)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Playing, not one but two, evil characters in a party with two Paladins is what is technically known as a 'dick move'.

If the paladin's go to the extremes of their alignment "Thou shall not suffer evil to live." then there is no really argument, just Smight him till he glows then stab him in the dark.

Even a more progressive LG Paladin, whilst not wanting to kill a character that hasn't openly acted in an evil way, would have to question his own moral compass if he is a member of a party with a prominent evil member, and should possibly feel that the ideals of the party may have diverged from his own.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

I once saw a curse that would cause limbs to fall off if there were inter-party conflicts that might cause the party's benefactor to be, disappointed... It was demonstrated in the second session when the party's NPC companion tried to steal from PC, the limb known as his head fell off.


If the player is doing this to intentionally cause drama or be disruptive with not just your paladin character but a second paladin character in the group...then this guy has a serious problem and is a giant douche.

In no uncertain terms tell him it's not acceptable. Tell him you don't want this drama and will not participate in it. It's a collaborative game and it's meant to be fun. Clearly, this isn't a fun situation for you.

Further, if the GM (who happens to be your husband) can't see why this is a problem and is unfair to established characters you should talk to him about it. Probably with the other player who is a paladin.

You might also suggest that since your party has not 1, but 2 paladins, that there's no way you would accept an evil person into the party. So, when you roleplay out the character joining the party just detect evil on him and then say "Nope, your evil. No way. Pass". If they don't want to roleplay out the character joining the party object, because your character as a paladin literally can't work with evil.

If all else fails...and I know this is difficult...QUIT. Because this isn't cool. I'm guessing the player in question is a close buddy of your husband's, because I can't imagine why else he would be allowed to get away with such behavior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amiella wrote:
Well, there is no point in changing. The GM is my husband. :)

In that case, I assume he *expects* you to kill this guy's evil character. There are lessons to be learned about the choices we make in life, after all. Just because someone says you can do something doesn't mean everybody else isn't going to beat the tar out of you for actually doing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree that everything evil deserves to be smiten. Paladins aren't ruthless thugs who murder everyone who don't share their morals (though I heard of a paladin variant that hates evil so much he's evil himself).

Sometimes, the law of the land protects bad people. And besides, not all bad people are murderous psychopaths looking to bring the apocalypse. Protecting bad people is sometimes the *right* thing to do. A truly good and honorable hero, as a paladin is supposed to be, should look past superficialities such as alignment. If the evil character in question isn't about to commit a serious crime, and has no serious past crime to be judged for, then the truly honorable thing to do would be to try to help that person get back on the "right path".

Otherwise, punishing someone for the sole reason of his alignment is the same as punishing someone for a thought crime. Paladins essentially become thought police. Can anyone sincerely say that when they read novels such as 1984, or historical accounts of the gestapo, "oh look paladins!" is the first thing to come to mind?

There's nothing lawful about making onself judge and executionner, vigilantes are illegal pretty much everywhere. There's also nothing good about punishing someone for crimes he might one day commit or for adhering to different moral principals. (let's get one thing straight, though, I'm talking about standard humanoids, not evil outsiders)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't kill him as a Pallie until he does something.

You can, however, kick the evil character from the group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Goblin-Priest

Unless I read it wrong, the player switched back to the old character [as in literally], he is the same person that was sentenced to death in the first place.

I agree a Paladin shouldn't just smite every evil person they see, but a think a firm warning like ''I can not tolerate evil. If you perform an evil act while in this company I will pronounce judgement upon you and carry out sentencing, as is my right by [God's Name]'' is fair enough to warrant a smiting should they act upon their disruptive alignment.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't kill his character, refuse to let him join the party.

"A mysterious stranger in black leather armor, a trenchcoat and a fully automatic katana launcher approaches you. 'about that party member wanted flyer you posted'..."
"pass."
"what do you mean Pass?"
"I mean I don't like this guy, I'm going to use my veto, he's not joining the party. Pass."

"One other thing", your patron says. "My....associate will be joining you on this quest."
"No deal."
"What do you mean 'no deal'? The patron is always right!!"
"Nope. I don't know that guy. I don't know your relationship with him. He's either there to keep an eye on us - and we're two paladins, we don't have to put up with that kind of shit - or he's there to betray us. He's not coming with us. Suck it up or find someone else to retrieve the sword of infinite papercuts."

"In the dungeon, you find a tough-looking half-orc chained in a cell. Let me out, he says. I can help you."
"Nope. We'll free him on the way out, and send him on his merry way".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Casual Viking:

Just remember to release him on the way out before you set fire to the dungeon. Oooh, the amount of times I've done that in the wrong order.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread has given me a bit of an idea for an adventure. How about a Judge Dredd-a-like with all PCs playing Hellknights? All have to be lawful, but you may have to deal with Good and evil within the bounds of a very strict law/code.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not reading whole thread because well I wasn't aware you were playing The General Hospital ttrpg.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Simple.

The GM wants good guys or he wouldn't have let two players make paladins.

The players want good guys or they would not have made paladins and/or be traveling with paladins.

One player says "Screw you all, even you Mr. GM, I'm going to make an evil character anyway!"

It's not hard to see who is the problem here. Although, when the GM didn't step in at the beginning and say "Hey, Frank, no evil characters - make something that is compatible with this EXISTING group and this ONGOING story", that's when the GM became part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

The answer is simple too.

Get the GM on board with solving problems rather than creating them. Then get the player on board with playing the game as a team member rather than screwing the game as a disruptive individual.

Problem solved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate to bring up the obvious, but I think you don't really have a choice about letting him into the party, only about how you keep him out.

CRB wrote:
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.

How exceptional are your circumstances? And player circumstances don't count.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I suggested above, talk with the entire group, then start a new campaign. It very well could be something as simple as the player was hurt when his original character dies (pre-evil character) and now he is joining a party of characters with back ground and history. He then made an evil character as a concept that was killed by one of the original party members. It is very possible that he is feeling shunned and ostracized by the rest of the group, had a talk with the GM, and the GM said he could bring his second character back, just try and work appropriately with the group.

There are many sides to every story, with out at least an attempt at empathy, every side will end up losing, even if they do not realize it.


Tindalen wrote:
then start a new campaign.

This is the only part I don't agree with. This is not a necessarily the best idea, unless it happens to be what your group wants.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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 minute...

His "twin's" did nothing bad after this particulary moment. They just talk trash (wondering why...your brother was killed by the bastard with no real choice). And he stated to other characters in the group, that some day he would kill the (gnome) paladin, understandable. But for now they have a mission with more importance.

I see no reason why good and bad characters shouldn't play in one group. Especially in this campaign. And there should be other ways than killing each other. They didn't try to talk to him until now.
And i'm a bit surprised that so many of you give advice without further detail ;)
It's a nice roleplaying situation. I see no soap opera in this.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nimor wrote:
It's a nice roleplaying situation. I see no soap opera in this.

Except: at least one of your players is here on these forums, posting repeatedly about this situation and asking us for advice. That doesn't sound, to me, like that player thinks this is so "nice". Quite the opposite, in fact.

I won't tell you how to run your game, but this is the "Advice" forum so I might advise that when your players seek help from strangers about what they think is a problem in the game, then there actually IS a problem. I also advise that whenever a GM invites "drama between characters" and treats it as "a nice roleplaying situation", there will be tension and it will often become a "soap opera", at least at times.

If everyone is OK with that, then it works. But when they're posting here for help/advice, then it's not working. Or at least, not anymore.

Make of that what you will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

my twin brother did this movie Cliché ;p

twin brother is soap opera !

and it's pretty obvious with twins... they both were raised same way by same parents sooooo... when twin nr 1 is dick... the twin nr 2 would be to


Entryhazard wrote:
Wait, this player is insisting on playing an evil character in a party with not one but TWO paladins?

So? I can top that.

I'm playing 2 openly lawfull-evil characters (all the players have 2 characters) in a game that that has 101 paladins (1 of the pcs & 100 npcs)!
Saving the world is in everyone's interest, no matter what your alignment....

Really though I made my characters evil -with the DMs & other players (except the guy playing the pally) blessing - to specifically challenge the PC pally player. He's notorious for playing awefull paladins. So it's my personal goal to give him an opportunity each session to be a better hero than me. Think of me as the Reverse Flash....:)
Screwing the party over, betraying them, etc is NOT on the agenda. This is known by the DM & other players. Because such would absolutely not fit my characters goals.
And to date the rp of me being an ongoing irritant to the paladins has been great fun for all. I've made friends! I've made some enemies. I've forced the pally player to step up his game.;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

But when they're posting here for help/advice, then it's not working. Or at least, not anymore.

I did not see where she has a problem with the situation with the player "outgame". That's not what she posted.

She wanted an advice how to act "ingame"
To be honest: It seems to me she wanted the "permission" to kill him or something like that. That's why I laid out "the whole story".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
coldvictim wrote:
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.

Altruism not, but *the appearance* of Altruism for long-term gain and the possibility to recrute "minions" who are much easier to control and will perform better, because they dont need to scared sh**less every other day. And the biggest Plus: Wont stab you in the back even if a good chance arises.

Evil gets such a bad name from all those single-digit Wisdom dudes.

But "Evil Mob burns down Orphanage" makes a flasier story then "Evil Businessman funds several Orphanage so he can cook the books and skimm of 50% of all donations. Without becoming hunted by Iomedean Crusaders not two weeks into his campaign."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Politically Correct Jargon wrote:
Not reading whole thread because well I wasn't aware you were playing The General Hospital ttrpg.

This is what I was going to say. You don't need to be asking us for advice on how to deal with this, you need to be reviewing plot arcs of All My Children.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin Associates wrote:
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.

Choosing to play an evil character in a campaign that already has a paladin should be very heavily frowned upon. Once the paladin finds out, he has little choice but to tell the group they need to abandon the evil character or the paladin himself will have to strike out on his own. For the same reasons, any player wishing to play a paladin should talk with the rest of the group beforehand, to make sure there will not be any conflict.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Amiella wrote:


The GM allowed this guy to switch back to be evil brother. No one really realizes until my Fighter/ Paladin (1 level) detects evil and see that the evil twin is back in the game. The group's paladin (who is now the lover of my character) does not know about his yet.

What would you do?

To the original question, by the paladin's code regarding associates, you must inform the other paladin that the character is evil and then the both of you must inform the rest of the party that you can't adventure with him.

To do anything else, would violate your code and cause you to fall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:


To do anything else, would violate your code and cause you to fall.

Not if the Paladin PC and GM doesn't think so.


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


To do anything else, would violate your code and cause you to fall.
Not if the Paladin PC and GM doesn't think so.

Maybe not if you houserule. But it's quoted above right from the Core book. "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."

By core rules, a Paladin cannot knowingly be in the same party as an evil character.


Melkiador wrote:
justaworm wrote:
Melkiador wrote:


To do anything else, would violate your code and cause you to fall.
Not if the Paladin PC and GM doesn't think so.

Maybe not if you houserule. But it's quoted above right from the Core book. "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."

By core rules, a Paladin cannot knowingly be in the same party as an evil character.

unless there isn't any other choice but to work with someone who is evil


Blackvial wrote:


unless there isn't any other choice but to work with someone who is evil

This shouldn't be the case unless they are dead in the middle of the dungeon and/or working against a clock. As soon as the action dies down, you should break away from that evil character. You certainly wouldn't plan long term goals with him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackvial wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
justaworm wrote:
Melkiador wrote:


To do anything else, would violate your code and cause you to fall.
Not if the Paladin PC and GM doesn't think so.

Maybe not if you houserule. But it's quoted above right from the Core book. "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."

By core rules, a Paladin cannot knowingly be in the same party as an evil character.

unless there isn't any other choice but to work with someone who is evil

This probably works for a 1-shot adventure. "Hey, this guy is evil! But, I need his help with the greater evil over that hill there. As long as he doesn't start kicking puppies while I'm around, I'll agree to look the other way. Then, after the greater evil is destroyed, I can't wait to get away from or get rid of this evil jerk. I only hope he gives me reason to smite him!"

It probably doesn't work for a 20-level campaign. "Hey, this guy is evil! Oh well, I think I'll travel with him for years, depending on his good graces to watch my back and never ever kick any puppies. My life will constantly be in his evil hands and I have no problem with that."

Somewhere in between is the gray area that everyone needs to figure out for their own game's benefit.


This issue of not working with evil is part of why my paladin doesn't use his detect evil that often. He considers it "rude". Still, if someone starts acting questionable, I will break out the detect evil.


Melkiador wrote:


By core rules, a Paladin cannot knowingly be in the same party as an evil character.

Wow, you very conveniently left out the entire rest of the paragraph...

Let me help you:

Quote:
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 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.


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?


Kick the Paladin out of the group for being a dick and killing a fellow PC. I don't care what you say, I don't condone PvP.

If that guy had a problem with an evil PC, he should have said something to the table, not rolled for initiative. At this point the group works things out and this guy learns not to be Lawful Stupid.

On the other hand, I'd give the guy playing the evil PC a good talking to since it seems like he's trying to stir shit up on purpose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here. I know I am opening a can of worms here and am probably going to get attacked myself; here goes:

Amiella wrote:
A member of our group just decided to play an evil character after the unfortunate death of his last one. His first action was to kill an enemy which the group intended to question and who lay unconscious/helpless on the ground.

I am pretty sure the "Evil" character didn't actually commit an Evil act here; just Chaotic. NOTE: Discuss as a group and with your DM how dark/gritty the alignment/morality of this campaign is because there are wildly differing views on alignment.

Here's why I say that:

PRD/Additional Rules wrote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

But hurting, oppressing, and killing who? Because if "others" meant "anyone" then every PC ever is an Evil murdering POS. All PCs hurt, oppress, and kill others. So there must be some other qualifier to make it an Evil act. There is:

PRD/Additional Rules wrote:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

So the qualifier is innocent life. Hopefully we can all agree that the "enemy" your fellow PC killed was not "innocent." So then, what has the Evil PC actually done? Based on the information provided, without further detail, he doesn't seem to have done anything Evil. Definitely Neutral, and probably Chaotic (depending entirely on the laws of the land and possibly his personal code). Who says that enemies have to be sparred? Did the law of the land hire you to capture these enemies and bring them back for judgment? Remember that the medieval fantasy world you're playing in doesn't necessarily adhere to the Laws and Regulations of modern civilized society.

So, without further detail about the specific situation and what the PC's motivation was. He may only really be guilty of doing something contrary to what the rest of the party intended for that particular enemy. (Out of curiosity, what was the party going to do with that enemy after the questioning was completed? Another good question, was that the party's plan, or the Paladin's plan?) And what did that change of the plan get him:

Amiella wrote:
The group's paladin sentenced him to death and killed him after he was not reasonable. Then his twin brother appears (really looking the same like the dead one) - not evil.

Um, what did the rest of the party think about this? Why is the Paladin just sentencing people to death? Especially, when what the PC did wasn't necessarily Evil, or even unlawful. That seems to be a bit of an over reaction. It reminds me of something else in the Alignment section:

PRD/Additional Rules wrote:
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

I'm not one of those people who think's a Paladin should "fall" for every little thing. That's not where I'm going with this. Depending on the law of the land, what the Paladin did may or may not be lawful. But someone might want to ask the question if he has the legal right to sentence another PC to death for what he did, and then carry out that execution without any further input. Based on the fact that this PC is actually Evil, he is clearly not "innocent." But in this particular instance, it doesn't sound to me (without further detail) like he was guilty of anything that justifies being sentenced to death. Which means the Paladin was possibly acting in a Chaotic manner.

Amiella wrote:
The GM allowed this guy to switch back to be evil brother. No one really realizes until my Fighter/ Paladin (1 level) detects evil and see that the evil twin is back in the game. The group's paladin (who is now the lover of my character) does not know about his yet.

This is sketchy. Sounds to me like the group (out of characters) needs to sit down with the GM and discuss the morality of the PC party, the morality of the campaign, and why a problem PC was allowed to re-enter the party.

I can tell you from experience I have allowed a similar thing; once, as an inexperienced GM. The reason I allowed a player to reintroduce a problem PC, who was also killed by other party members, was because he asked me to talk 1 on 1 outside and he almost started crying over the death of his beloved character. We settled on him being able to reintroduce that character as long as he stopped the antagonistic BS. IIRC, he eventually went back on his word and he and another player (who constantly followed his lead) were permanently cut from the group.

Amiella wrote:
What would you do?

Out of character: Talk to the GM, see where this is going and why. Talk to the other Paladin, he may need to curb the self-righteousness. Talk to the Evil PC, see if he intends to continue his antagonism of the party.

In character: Let the other Paladin know that you saw an Evil aura around the new guy. Paladin 2 confirms the Evil aura. Party as a whole confronts the new guy and don't leave the camp fire or road side until either: A. The whole party, including the new guy, is on the same page, or B. The established party and the new guy part ways (new guy becomes an NPC, that player re-rolls).

I have also had a party unite and say, in character, "You are not welcome here, and if you stay you won't be safe here." That player was basically forced to re-roll a cohesive character to continue playing at our gaming table. It doesn't always have to end in PvP.

...

So, I'm defending the Evil character, but also not totally condemning the Paladin... What's my point? The point is: Paladins and Evil PCs can co-exist.

PRD/Classes/Paladin wrote:

Code of Conduct: 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.

1. I see no reason the Paladin should have killed the other PC, his code is to punish those who harm innocent life.

2. However, the Evil PC should stop antagonistic behavior toward the pre-established party.

3. If points 1 and 2 are settled, and if the campaign has you hunting a greater Evil, the Paladin and Evil character can temporarily co-exist in the party.

4. If there is no Greater Evil being hunted, the Paladin may NOT work with an Evil PC. Therefore, the party has to split and whoever's in the minority (probably the Evil PC's player) will need to re-roll a non-Evil character.

1 to 50 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.