How to make an antipaladin fall?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Trip him. He falls :p

On a more cartoony note, what if 3 orphans came to the anti paladin's door, and wanted to stay with him?

Spoiler:
Despicable me


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Just a Mort wrote:

Trip him. He falls :p

On a more cartoony note, what if 3 orphans came to the anti paladin's door, and wanted to stay with him?

** spoiler omitted **

he would of course sacrifice them to create a permanent protection from children circle around his domain.


Antipaladins can't fall. Their code says they can break their code as long as they want to do it. Behaving like superman because you find it fun follows the antipaladin's code.

An antipaladin would have to willing and begrudging do a good act for no personal benefit or deal or bargain.

A player would have to basically say, "I make my character help orphans for no reason and he doesn't want to, but sense I control him it is a willing act."


It's generally easier to be evil than it is to be good, because it's based on selfishness. You can't really create a situation where the Antipaladin is forced to do something good to bring him up to neutrality.


Rub-Eta wrote:
Cute puppy overdose.

For this, you need a Lernean Puppy-Hydra.


IMNSHO, evil - like good (and for that matter, like both order/law and chaos) - is and has to be a continual, deliberate choice. A paladin or antipaladin (or hellknight) must deliberately, continually pursue their moral code. There is no 'coasting'; you cannot simply go about your daily business and remain any non-true-neutral alignment. Even if you want to be on the good side of neutral (presume you use the 1-9 'ratings' of good, or even break each one of those numbers down into more specific ratings - I use a range of 81 for each of Morality and Ethics, due to having a 'border' in between each stage), you have to deliberately go about intentionally treating people scrupulously, or acting charitably, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc. - or intentionally spurning the helpless, trampling the downtrodden, scorning the pitiable, that sort of thing.

Just going about your day buying bread, paying for it, obeying the law because it's convenient, breaking it when it isn't, paying your employees for the work they've done, all that sort of thing - that's all a 'balance/neutral' thing; you do it because that's just how things go. And a paladin/antipaladin doesn't 'fall' because they do that, but if they spend all their time doing only that, then yes - they fall. Because they have been called to be warriors for the Light (or the Dark) and, in their long-term abandonment of pursuit of those aims, they have abandoned them. They're not something you can 'take a break' from; you go out and do a dozen small good deeds, or a dozen small cruelties, a day. A Hellknight makes sure that not only is her life structured, but that the rules of the society she lives in (not all of which are written down) are being followed. (Ref: British society from 1750-1940 - very structured, but most of its societal laws are not written; it's just 'the way things are'.)

The same with, for example, a monk. If a monk gives up the self-discipline (which is, typically, what the 'lawful' requirement for a monk involves) that is necessary for many of his abilities, then he loses those abilities, because he is ... out of shape, has lost his mental focus, or however else you desire to say that he can no longer put himself through such rigors. Similarly for a barbarian, a person who is all about passion and acting upon it. Chaos isn't necessary for a barbarian, but self-discipline is anathema to the surrendering to overwhelming emotion that lies at the core of the barbarian.

Being especially ethical or moral (or especially lacking in them) takes work. So an antipaladin doesn't have to 'do good' to bring them up to neutrality; they simply have to quit being so dedicated to the furtherance of chaos and evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"You used to be cool, Antipaladin Steve. What happened?"
"I got a job. Can't pay the bills looting and pillaging, and I haven't had the time to go spreading chaos or weaving evil. Eventually, I just... fell out of the habit. Underwater basket weaving is my life now."


@The Wyrm Ouroboros: Technically, Barbarians and Monks don't fall for moving to a forbidden alignment -- Barbarians lose Rage and can't get more Barbarian levels, but keep all other class abilities (although to use Rage Powers you would have to get Rage cast upon you or be friends with a 20th level Skald)(*), and Monks only lose the ability to get more Monk levels (and keep ALL class abilities)(**).

(*)Only Classic Barbarian actually says this, but Unchained Barbarian keeps the Non-Lawful alignment requirement, so I'm making a guess that they just forgot to transfer this over to Unchained Barbarian.

(**)Text to this effect is in both Classic and Unchained versions of Monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So, should we rename this thread to how do I make an antipaladin stand for something?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
The Wyrm Ouroboros wrote:

IMNSHO, evil - like good (and for that matter, like both order/law and chaos) - is and has to be a continual, deliberate choice. A paladin or antipaladin (or hellknight) must deliberately, continually pursue their moral code. There is no 'coasting'; you cannot simply go about your daily business and remain any non-true-neutral alignment. Even if you want to be on the good side of neutral (presume you use the 1-9 'ratings' of good, or even break each one of those numbers down into more specific ratings - I use a range of 81 for each of Morality and Ethics, due to having a 'border' in between each stage), you have to deliberately go about intentionally treating people scrupulously, or acting charitably, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc. - or intentionally spurning the helpless, trampling the downtrodden, scorning the pitiable, that sort of thing.

Just going about your day buying bread, paying for it, obeying the law because it's convenient, breaking it when it isn't, paying your employees for the work they've done, all that sort of thing - that's all a 'balance/neutral' thing; you do it because that's just how things go. And a paladin/antipaladin doesn't 'fall' because they do that, but if they spend all their time doing only that, then yes - they fall. Because they have been called to be warriors for the Light (or the Dark) and, in their long-term abandonment of pursuit of those aims, they have abandoned them. They're not something you can 'take a break' from; you go out and do a dozen small good deeds, or a dozen small cruelties, a day. A Hellknight makes sure that not only is her life structured, but that the rules of the society she lives in (not all of which are written down) are being followed. (Ref: British society from 1750-1940 - very structured, but most of its societal laws are not written; it's just 'the way things are'.)

The same with, for example, a monk. If a monk gives up the self-discipline (which is, typically, what the 'lawful' requirement for a monk...

sorry, but I don't think becoming bored and sitting in a cave until you die is a viable way to not get sent to the abyss.


Bandw2 wrote:
sorry, but I don't think becoming bored and sitting in a cave until you die is a viable way to not get sent to the abyss.

That's not a long-term change, that's just protracted suicide. The Wyrm Ouroboros is talking about a more gradual shift. Perhaps think of it this way: If you orchestrated and participated in the massacre and looting of a good, peaceful kingdom in your youth, then laid low and spent the remainder of your days being an ordinary citizen, does that make you, in your current state, significantly more evil than any other citizen? Does it make you more evil than the cutthroat at the town gate who has a body count not even 1/1000th of yours, but who goes out of the way to spit on beggars and kick pigs? I'd argue that if you cease to actively do evil, you will eventually cease to be evil. "Hey I did this horrible thing once" does not permanently make a person evil, rather, the sum of your actions does. Being a regular citizen does not necessarily absolve you of evil, but it is not an evil act in and of itself, and you will drift towards neutral.

Extreme alignments are like developed muscles: As long as you work them out them enough, they'll remain. If you ease up on the exercise, they'll still be there, just not as prominent. But if you slack off for a year, don't expect your sixpack to still be there.


Bandw2 wrote:
sorry, but I don't think becoming bored and sitting in a cave until you die is a viable way to not get sent to the abyss.

Who ever said it was?

What 'My Self' said applies - one (or many) evil acts may lead to a lifetime of regret, quiet solitary penance, and a desire to hide from both the world and yourself. It won't make you good (unless you try to do the right thing with decent frequency), but you won't continue to sit at 'chaotic evil' without actually sowing chaos and enacting evil.

However, the evil and the good a sentient does is tallied to his soul; his current alignment is not a measure of the good or ill he's done in his life, it's only a measure of what he's been up to lately. Slaughter thousands for years, then disappear to smoke cigars and drink whiskey in a bar somewhere until you die, you still have the blood of thousands on your hands, even if your 'alignment' when you finally kick the bucket is True Neutral.

Equating alignment with 'the actual state of your soul' is like comparing a book's cover to its contents - they may have some relation to each other, but the insides are going to be far more complex than what the packaging shows. To fall into that error is to make for boring stories and two-dimensional cardboard cutouts for characters; don't fall into that error.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Technically, Barbarians and Monks don't fall for moving to a forbidden alignment ...

Ah, thanks - not a complete system mavin (and probably won't ever be), so I'm occasionally fuzzy on the specifics. But the concept is still applicable; lose your self-control, be unable to learn more things that depend on self-control; gain self-control, be unable to unleash your inner wildman.

Of course, I would be fascinated to see a monk or barbarian that becomes Mythic and takes Beyond Morality at Mythic 3rd - then proceeds to cross-class in the other to become a monk-barbarian, successfully merging self-discipline with intense passion.

... hey, Mace Windu.


What about making a situation that causes the Antipaladin to betray his new patron because it serves his own interests? The weight of the good - banishing the avatar of whoever gives him powers for a mountain of gold or some ridiculously powerful item (that conveniently only works for those faithful to said patron)?

Sometimes an outcome can be very different than the immediate ramifications. Also, what if the corrupting influence of their evil God starts to take a physically painful toll on their mortal shells? And the priest of whoever can stop the pain... If the AP brings something small to benefit the good church in a big way? For example, by bringing the stolen staff from some weakling thief... Which just so happens to be what the priest needs to feed all the homeless? It can be about the benefit:cost ratio, just like with Paladins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
My Self wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
sorry, but I don't think becoming bored and sitting in a cave until you die is a viable way to not get sent to the abyss.

That's not a long-term change, that's just protracted suicide. The Wyrm Ouroboros is talking about a more gradual shift. Perhaps think of it this way: If you orchestrated and participated in the massacre and looting of a good, peaceful kingdom in your youth, then laid low and spent the remainder of your days being an ordinary citizen, does that make you, in your current state, significantly more evil than any other citizen? Does it make you more evil than the cutthroat at the town gate who has a body count not even 1/1000th of yours, but who goes out of the way to spit on beggars and kick pigs? I'd argue that if you cease to actively do evil, you will eventually cease to be evil. "Hey I did this horrible thing once" does not permanently make a person evil, rather, the sum of your actions does. Being a regular citizen does not necessarily absolve you of evil, but it is not an evil act in and of itself, and you will drift towards neutral.

Extreme alignments are like developed muscles: As long as you work them out them enough, they'll remain. If you ease up on the exercise, they'll still be there, just not as prominent. But if you slack off for a year, don't expect your sixpack to still be there.

I don't actually agree with that. Sure, he could be lying low and not actively furthering Evil, but that doesn't mean he stops being evil eventually. For instance, what if the guards come after discovering this guy's the Butcher of Generica, and attempt to arrest him. I highly doubt he's going to allow that to happen, and would probably murder the guards, and vanish to another city to lay low once more. If he actually became neutral, he probably would have allowed himself to be taken in, hired some sleazy lawyer with all that sweet murder-gold, and got off scott-free.

If you're a big pool of potentially evil actions, and you're just not actively going out of your way to do them, I'd say you're still Evil. Because you have the capacity to do such evil, and you've made no attempts to actually redeem yourself, you're evil. You're not living a life of inaction because you're neutral or good, you're doing it because you don't have any further reason to do so. As soon as a reason shows up, you're back to doing heinous things, so you never really changed at all, you were just hibernating.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

^

my point exactly.

I don't think you do need to "work your muscles", alignment doesn't decay you need to successfully counter act them and doing a bunch of neutral actions doesn't shift your alignment any way at all.

also your alignment i'm pretty sure is the major determiner for where you go after you die. It's not some thing you can rub off (bar the weird stuff like casting protection from evil a bunch of time which I wish wasn't there)

I believe if someone cast detect evil, that guy smoking cigars would still ping as evil. It won't just go away.


Tyinyk wrote:
I don't actually agree with that. Sure, he could be lying low and not actively furthering Evil, but that doesn't mean he stops being evil eventually. For instance, what if the guards come after discovering this guy's the Butcher of Generica, and attempt to arrest him. I highly doubt he's going to allow that to happen, and would probably murder the guards, and vanish to another city to lay low once more. If he actually became neutral, he probably would have allowed himself to be taken in, hired some sleazy lawyer with all that sweet murder-gold, and got off scott-free.

No. If he became lawful evil, he would allow himself to be taken in, and use the law as mentioned to his advantage to get off with a legally clean blank slate.

A person's alignment is dictated by their personality, not vice versa. If a person participates in a brutal slaughter during which he was willfully doing evil, but then something at the very very end caused him to realize the scope of his actions and make him not want to do evil anymore, he's not just "pretending not to be evil". He has received an epiphany, which has led to a dramatic change in personality.

Adopting a Lawful Good viewpoint may make him want to turn himself in and accept sentence and execution, or it might make him want to leave that past entirely and simply try to make up for it in his own way. Adopting a Chaotic Good viewpoint will definitely prefer personal repentance and good deeds on their own terms over what society might expect.

But our example here isn't either. He's gone True Neutral. He just wants to not be part of that world anymore. He's not doing anything to further the cause of evil, but neither is he doing any good to balance the scales.

Indeed, maybe when his final judgment comes, Pharasma weighs his heart and sees more evil and chaos than law and good, and sentences his soul to be tormented by demons if he has not already promised it to a deity. But until that time comes, he isn't evil anymore, and won't even show up on a Detect Evil scan.


Tyinyk wrote:

I don't actually agree with that. Sure, he could be lying low and not actively furthering Evil, but that doesn't mean he stops being evil eventually. For instance, what if the guards come after discovering this guy's the Butcher of Generica, and attempt to arrest him. I highly doubt he's going to allow that to happen, and would probably murder the guards, and vanish to another city to lay low once more. If he actually became neutral, he probably would have allowed himself to be taken in, hired some sleazy lawyer with all that sweet murder-gold, and got off scott-free.

If you're a big pool of potentially evil actions, and you're just not actively going out of your way to do them, I'd say you're still Evil. Because you have the capacity to do such evil, and you've made no attempts to actually redeem yourself, you're evil. You're not living a life of inaction because you're neutral or good, you're doing it because you don't have any further reason to do so. As soon as a reason shows up, you're back to doing heinous things, so you never really changed at all, you were just hibernating.

The hypotheticals you and I are proposing are slightly different. I'm proposing that someone who is evil completely ceases to do evil. You're proposing that someone who is evil to hide but otherwise remain (un)ethically consistent. Your hypothetical is more likely, but it is not quite the point I'm trying to address. I suppose the question could follow as such: If you did something bad once, and still think the most perverse evil thoughts, but don't share or act on them, and always give money to charity, stop to help beggars, and otherwise prevent people from coming to harm through your action or inaction- are you a bad person? Now replace good actions with neutral actions.


swoosh wrote:
NoTongue wrote:
will have a limit and turn on there dark allies for being evil which can give them a chance to realize what being an anti-Paladin means, you would have needed to tolerate these things.

Not at all. An evil character can find certain other evil actions disgusting or bad and still be perfectly evil, in the same way that a lawful character doesn't suddenly stop being lawful just because he jaywalks or something. An antipaladin who butchers a rapist because he thinks that's gross is totally within his code.

The only risk is if he's doing it out of a legitimate concern for the wellbeing of the victim.

Good Real life example of that would be the Aryan Brotherhood. I think most of us will agree they are unpleasant people, but they hate child Molesters and tend to kill any they can.


Im surprised one has said the obvious .
Have the Anti Paladin fall in Love with some one. Anti Paladins are still human or at least humaniod so they have the ability to care for others. So he finds himself caring for that sweet peasant girl he took as a slave in a raid. and when their daughter is born, basic instinct take over .


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cuthel wrote:

Im surprised one has said the obvious .

Have the Anti Paladin fall in Love with some one. Anti Paladins are still human or at least humaniod so they have the ability to care for others. So he finds himself caring for that sweet peasant girl he took as a slave in a raid. and when their daughter is born, basic instinct take over .

this has been said a few times. it's still not a catch 22, because he still has to actually choose to care for someone.


The difficulty of the Antipaladin falling is probably a good thing. It has a hard enough time playing well with others without punishing it for actually doing so.

I like the post that said that "Falling" is really Redemption. Redemption is hard, it isn't something you do accidentally. Which means while it can happen, it probably isn't going to happen without the player's consent, so none of the classic GM traps will work on an Antipaladin.

Except maybe the Sarenrae redemption offer. I can see that working. It appeals to a fundamentally selfish behavior (not dying), something that players are going to want to say yes to (not dying), but the good/evil stakes are on a cosmic scale, saying Yes is a victory for Sarenrae, and essentially you are being selfish at the cost of being evil in the future, which is too much IMO. But it's also an extreme example (with a God getting personally involved).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

good point PK

a Deus ex Machina could probably create a catch 22.


There's a slight difference between an Antipaladin fall and redemption. To stay an Antipaladin, you need to very deliberately be on the crooked and narrow. You basically have to go out of your way to do evil. If you ease up too much on the highway to the Abyss, you might suddenly find yourself not an Antipaladin. That doesn't mean that you suddenly aren't an awful person and everything will be OK. Antipaladin "falling" is not redemption by a long shot- it's the first step, but only the first. As an Antipaladin, you still have a pretty deep hole to dig yourself out of. But yes, the classic GM traps will not work on an Antipaladin, since the Antipaladin code is more flexible than the Paladin one. Paladins fall if they perform any evil act, no matter the intent. Antipaladins fall if they perform a good act selflessly. Buying ice cream for a kid is generally a good act, but it's OK for an Antipaladin to do it so long as greater evil comes out of it. Killing an innocent kid is always a bad act, and a Paladin would have to atone for it, even if is for the greater good, such as saving the lives of an entire kingdom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
My Self wrote:
Buying ice cream for a kid is generally a good act, but it's OK for an Antipaladin to do it so long as greater evil comes out of it.

I can't help but wonder what possible evils the Antipaladin is promoting, here. Extending the blight of obesity and tooth decay upon the world?


I just thought of an amusing "fall". The standard Antipaladin who worships a god does so in a very power hungry fashion. If they, and by extension their god, repeatedly get defeated by a Good god it could result in a crisis of faith leading to a fall. Why follow the divine being that can't seem to win for any length of time when you could throw in with the winning side? Might not flash them into a Paladin but would probably break them away from the Antipaladin far enough to turn them into Fighters or Barbarians.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Saethori wrote:
My Self wrote:
Buying ice cream for a kid is generally a good act, but it's OK for an Antipaladin to do it so long as greater evil comes out of it.
I can't help but wonder what possible evils the Antipaladin is promoting, here. Extending the blight of obesity and tooth decay upon the world?

all proceeds go toward a darker future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Saethori wrote:
My Self wrote:
Buying ice cream for a kid is generally a good act, but it's OK for an Antipaladin to do it so long as greater evil comes out of it.
I can't help but wonder what possible evils the Antipaladin is promoting, here. Extending the blight of obesity and tooth decay upon the world?
all proceeds go toward a darker future.

So that's why McDonalds sells McFlurrys!


Bandw2 wrote:
Cuthel wrote:

Im surprised one has said the obvious .

Have the Anti Paladin fall in Love with some one. Anti Paladins are still human or at least humaniod so they have the ability to care for others. So he finds himself caring for that sweet peasant girl he took as a slave in a raid. and when their daughter is born, basic instinct take over .
this has been said a few times. it's still not a catch 22, because he still has to actually choose to care for someone.

Well sometimes you don't choose to care and love somebody. You just do .

Falling in love most the time not something we decide to do or not to do


My Self wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Saethori wrote:
My Self wrote:
Buying ice cream for a kid is generally a good act, but it's OK for an Antipaladin to do it so long as greater evil comes out of it.
I can't help but wonder what possible evils the Antipaladin is promoting, here. Extending the blight of obesity and tooth decay upon the world?
all proceeds go toward a darker future.
So that's why McDonalds sells McFlurrys!

Hey, it works for Monsatan . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cuthel wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Cuthel wrote:

Im surprised one has said the obvious .

Have the Anti Paladin fall in Love with some one. Anti Paladins are still human or at least humaniod so they have the ability to care for others. So he finds himself caring for that sweet peasant girl he took as a slave in a raid. and when their daughter is born, basic instinct take over .
this has been said a few times. it's still not a catch 22, because he still has to actually choose to care for someone.

Well sometimes you don't choose to care and love somebody. You just do .

Falling in love most the time not something we decide to do or not to do

here's the point, you still have to be wanting to be good, to fall. You have to want it.

you can't catch 22 a paragon of destruction.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Push him really really hard when he's next to a balcony railing. (Or her, no gender bias here)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Antipaladin Aaron befriends a child named Timmy with the intent of getting Timmy to reveal where his parent's gold is hidden, but in the time they spend together Aaron finds himself chuckling at Timmy's crude jokes and thinking Timmy would make a good sidekick in a few years. One day Timmy tells him his parents' secret and Aaron decides to act on it. He breaks in that night and sneaks into their basement, breaks their safe code, and is about to leave when Timmy finds him in the act. As Timmy opens his mouth to yell Aaron stabs him and covers his mouth to muffle the screams. He sees fear and pain in Timmy's eyes and as the kid slumps to the floor Aaron grabs his bloodstained treasure and runs.

A few days later he's travelling through another town, but something strange is happening - he's having nightmares about Timmy's horrified expression. He wakes up in a cold sweat every night hearing that silent scream. The next day he sees a building going up in flames and hears a child yell, and before he even thinks about what he's doing Aaron has jumped through an open window and starts searching the house. When he finds the boy he drags him outside to his parents and as he does so he starts to feel something for the first time in years.

Aaron finds that he can't use his powers anymore, but oddly enough he realizes he doesn't care.


Tell the player you are gonna make him break his conduit.
Honesty is a virtue after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
My Self wrote:
Tyinyk wrote:

I don't actually agree with that. Sure, he could be lying low and not actively furthering Evil, but that doesn't mean he stops being evil eventually. For instance, what if the guards come after discovering this guy's the Butcher of Generica, and attempt to arrest him. I highly doubt he's going to allow that to happen, and would probably murder the guards, and vanish to another city to lay low once more. If he actually became neutral, he probably would have allowed himself to be taken in, hired some sleazy lawyer with all that sweet murder-gold, and got off scott-free.

If you're a big pool of potentially evil actions, and you're just not actively going out of your way to do them, I'd say you're still Evil. Because you have the capacity to do such evil, and you've made no attempts to actually redeem yourself, you're evil. You're not living a life of inaction because you're neutral or good, you're doing it because you don't have any further reason to do so. As soon as a reason shows up, you're back to doing heinous things, so you never really changed at all, you were just hibernating.

The hypotheticals you and I are proposing are slightly different. I'm proposing that someone who is evil completely ceases to do evil. You're proposing that someone who is evil to hide but otherwise remain (un)ethically consistent. Your hypothetical is more likely, but it is not quite the point I'm trying to address. I suppose the question could follow as such: If you did something bad once, and still think the most perverse evil thoughts, but don't share or act on them, and always give money to charity, stop to help beggars, and otherwise prevent people from coming to harm through your action or inaction- are you a bad person? Now replace good actions with neutral actions.

I think you may have missed my point, which is understandable, I did kind of mix it in there with the story a bit much. My point is that if someone who has the capacity to commit such evils is just acting neutral with no stimulus towards one alignment or the other, that doesn't mean they're neutral. They would need to continue acting neutral after a scenario where acting evil would be the logical or easy thing to do occurs.

You don't stop being evil just because there hasn't been a scenario that's caused you to be evil again. You only stop being evil when you actually stop being evil. You're essentially on 'pause' for Evil, until something that would actually test your morals occurs. If you continue to act neutral when it does, then your alignment shifts to neutral. Go back to being evil when it's convenient to do so? You were still Evil the whole time, big surprise.

Bandw2 wrote:
Cuthel wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Cuthel wrote:

Im surprised one has said the obvious .

Have the Anti Paladin fall in Love with some one. Anti Paladins are still human or at least humaniod so they have the ability to care for others. So he finds himself caring for that sweet peasant girl he took as a slave in a raid. and when their daughter is born, basic instinct take over .
this has been said a few times. it's still not a catch 22, because he still has to actually choose to care for someone.

Well sometimes you don't choose to care and love somebody. You just do .

Falling in love most the time not something we decide to do or not to do

here's the point, you still have to be wanting to be good, to fall. You have to want it.

you can't catch 22 a paragon of destruction.

Plus, I feel like a paragon of destruction is probably going to fall in love with someone on a similar level of Evil as them. It's unlikely Bart the Butcher is going to fall for Ida the Innocent. He's got way more in common with Matilda the Mutilator.


Bandw2 wrote:
Cuthel wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Cuthel wrote:

Im surprised one has said the obvious .

Have the Anti Paladin fall in Love with some one. Anti Paladins are still human or at least humaniod so they have the ability to care for others. So he finds himself caring for that sweet peasant girl he took as a slave in a raid. and when their daughter is born, basic instinct take over .
this has been said a few times. it's still not a catch 22, because he still has to actually choose to care for someone.

Well sometimes you don't choose to care and love somebody. You just do .

Falling in love most the time not something we decide to do or not to do

here's the point, you still have to be wanting to be good, to fall. You have to want it.

you can't catch 22 a paragon of destruction.

Not if you force the antiPaladin to cast protection from evil several times. No intent required to shift alignment.


Cuthel wrote:
Good Real life example of that would be the Aryan Brotherhood. I think most of us will agree they are unpleasant people, but they hate child Molesters and tend to kill any they can.

They also do the same to people who report on their activities with the same gusto. They get no points from me for any of their activities. They're violent racist thugs, and that's that.


Introduce a child character that needs to live for some important reason.

See: Piccolo/ the Hound


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Introduce a child character that needs to live and remain good for some important reason.

After all, the Church of Asmodeus does run orphanages in Cheliax and Isger. Raising a child to become evil would not make an antipaladin fall -- especially if his alignment matches that of the antipaladin.


Send an army of daemons at the Antipaladin and force him to cast protection from evil a bunch of times to survive the onslaught.


Ventnor wrote:
Send an army of daemons at the Antipaladin and force him to cast protection from evil a bunch of times to survive the onslaught.

He can't cast a spell that he can't even prepare. Not on his list.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Cuthel wrote:
Good Real life example of that would be the Aryan Brotherhood. I think most of us will agree they are unpleasant people, but they hate child Molesters and tend to kill any they can.
They also do the same to people who report on their activities with the same gusto. They get no points from me for any of their activities. They're violent racist thugs, and that's that.

Exactly, attacking evil does not make you good, which was the point I believe, or I got lost.

Tangent note, while something like nazism or child molesting seems like a good Real World example to use for evil that we all can agree on, I find that the strong emotional reactions readers will have are often detrimental to having a fun and interesting conversation about our game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
LuniasM wrote:

Antipaladin Aaron befriends a child named Timmy with the intent of getting Timmy to reveal where his parent's gold is hidden, but in the time they spend together Aaron finds himself chuckling at Timmy's crude jokes and thinking Timmy would make a good sidekick in a few years. One day Timmy tells him his parents' secret and Aaron decides to act on it. He breaks in that night and sneaks into their basement, breaks their safe code, and is about to leave when Timmy finds him in the act. As Timmy opens his mouth to yell Aaron stabs him and covers his mouth to muffle the screams. He sees fear and pain in Timmy's eyes and as the kid slumps to the floor Aaron grabs his bloodstained treasure and runs.

A few days later he's travelling through another town, but something strange is happening - he's having nightmares about Timmy's horrified expression. He wakes up in a cold sweat every night hearing that silent scream. The next day he sees a building going up in flames and hears a child yell, and before he even thinks about what he's doing Aaron has jumped through an open window and starts searching the house. When he finds the boy he drags him outside to his parents and as he does so he starts to feel something for the first time in years.

Aaron finds that he can't use his powers anymore, but oddly enough he realizes he doesn't care.

still not a catch 22, antipaladin Mr. Dommmachine, still has to want to be good. you can't take antipaladin Murderbro and force him to fall. To point this out, if he wanted to keep his powers more than be good, he'd probably start killing children so that they stop haunting his dreams or some dark ritual to lock away nightmares. Or maybe his nightmares are more fuel for the fire for his Dark powers, and he "levels up".


Java Man wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Cuthel wrote:
Good Real life example of that would be the Aryan Brotherhood. I think most of us will agree they are unpleasant people, but they hate child Molesters and tend to kill any they can.
They also do the same to people who report on their activities with the same gusto. They get no points from me for any of their activities. They're violent racist thugs, and that's that.

Exactly, attacking evil does not make you good, which was the point I believe, or I got lost.

Tangent note, while something like nazism or child molesting seems like a good Real World example to use for evil that we all can agree on, I find that the strong emotional reactions readers will have are often detrimental to having a fun and interesting conversation about our game.

There really ARE topics that don't make for good discussion at a gaming venue.


The key is to know your audience, and since no one here knows all of the other forumites....


Saethori wrote:
Tyinyk wrote:
I don't actually agree with that. Sure, he could be lying low and not actively furthering Evil, but that doesn't mean he stops being evil eventually. For instance, what if the guards come after discovering this guy's the Butcher of Generica, and attempt to arrest him. I highly doubt he's going to allow that to happen, and would probably murder the guards, and vanish to another city to lay low once more. If he actually became neutral, he probably would have allowed himself to be taken in, hired some sleazy lawyer with all that sweet murder-gold, and got off scott-free.

No. If he became lawful evil, he would allow himself to be taken in, and use the law as mentioned to his advantage to get off with a legally clean blank slate.

A person's alignment is dictated by their personality, not vice versa. If a person participates in a brutal slaughter during which he was willfully doing evil, but then something at the very very end caused him to realize the scope of his actions and make him not want to do evil anymore, he's not just "pretending not to be evil". He has received an epiphany, which has led to a dramatic change in personality.

Adopting a Lawful Good viewpoint may make him want to turn himself in and accept sentence and execution, or it might make him want to leave that past entirely and simply try to make up for it in his own way. Adopting a Chaotic Good viewpoint will definitely prefer personal repentance and good deeds on their own terms over what society might expect.

But our example here isn't either. He's gone True Neutral. He just wants to not be part of that world anymore. He's not doing anything to further the cause of evil, but neither is he doing any good to balance the scales.

Indeed, maybe when his final judgment comes, Pharasma weighs his heart and sees more evil and chaos than law and good, and sentences his soul to be tormented by demons if he has not already promised it to a deity. But until that time comes, he isn't evil anymore, and won't even...

That depends HIGHLY on context. People who have been steeped in 8doing repressive things generally don't have sudden eipiphanies where they do a full reversal at the drop of a hat. I know that you can write things any way one wants to, but a story without foundation is a house built on sand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Send an army of daemons at the Antipaladin and force him to cast protection from evil a bunch of times to survive the onslaught.
He can't cast a spell that he can't even prepare. Not on his list.

He can use it if it's in the form of a wand or potion!


Really, the only way to force an evil character into being the good guy is going to result in either the use of magic (as has already been mentioned) or through divine intervention.

Assuming that the player actually wants the change, the simplest method is to place an obstacle in the character's path that forces them to do good things rather than the (usually) quick and easy evil path. Another idea that might work is for the antipaladin finding himself under a Geas/Quest spell because one of those npcs that they killed in a bar fight last month turned out to be the second cousin (twice removed, of course) of a powerful king/high priest/etc.

One important thing to remember that I haven't seen mentioned here is that good and evil aren't relative in D&D/Pathfinder.


Quote:

Code of Conduct

An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.
Associates

While he may adventure with evil or neutral allies, an antipaladin avoids working with good characters or with anyone who consistently attempts to do good deeds. Under exceptional circumstances, an antipaladin can ally with good associates, but only to defeat them from within and bring ruin to their ranks. An antipaladin does not need an atonement spell during such an unusual alliance as long as his nefarious goals are met in the end—evil cares only about results. An antipaladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic evil.

Ex-AntiPaladins

A antipaladin who ceases to be chaotic evil, who willfully commits an good act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all antipaladin spells and class features (including the fiendish boon, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). He may not progress any further in levels as an antipaladin. He regains his abilities and advancement potential if he atones for his violations (see the atonement spell), as appropriate.

The rules on good behavior are inconsistent. The code of conduct states that good actions are acceptable if they further evil ends, basically meaning the antipaladin has no code of conduct at all, while the ex-antipaladin section states that the intentional good act results in loss of all antipaladin features.

Personally, I removed code of conducts and alignment restrictions in my homebrew campaign, but if I hadn't, I'd have taken the stricter interpretation in order to be more equivalent to the standard paladin code of conduct.

Example scenario: Orphanage is on fire, the antipaladin is able to help. Does he? As per the code of conduct, he could, because doing such a heroic act is likely to yield him prestige and influence, which he can then theoretically use for vile purposes. As per the ex-anti-paladin section, risking himself to save all those helpless innocents would be anathema to what he is, and he would be forced to weigh in the potential gains from playing hero against his unholy powers.

Do evil characters have to be evil all the time? No, of course not. Just as good characters don't need to be good all the time, no one is really perfectly black or white. But just as deviating has dire consequences for the paladin, it feels to me like it also should for the antipaladin. Doing good acts should be repulsive to him, he should be allergic to them. It's fine for your villains to masquerade behind a ton of good acts in order to reach vile ends, but to me this is not what an antipaladin should be about. Because otherwise, if "only the ends matter", the whole code of conduct is moot, and you can have an antipaladin live and die as the most heroic and valiant champion of good ever to have walked the earth, simply because he died before his decade-spanning scheme to profit in an evil way from all those good deeds came to be. It's ridiculous.

Dark Archive

Just as the good man doesn't become a monster overnight (usually), the wicked man doesn't become a saint overnight. The best way to do this is with gradual steps. Little decisions made which are only slightly different then what you might have done the day before. And before you know it, the anti-paladin finds himself rescuing those orphans that he once would have gutted as a sacrifice to his/her dark god. After all, rescuing those orphans is only slightly 'worse' then killing those bandits who attacked the caravan he/she was traveling with last week. And there's money at stake if the job gets done.

Then one day the anti-paladin finds himself abandoned by the dark powers he/she had pledged them self to. But it doesn't truely other him/her because there's another job lined up. Okay, so maybe the job is to kill the wizard who's likely been preforming horrific experiments on the townsfolk. But there's money involved. A little later the merc finds them self enjoying that warm feeling granted by helping others.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Just as the good man doesn't become a monster overnight (usually), the wicked man doesn't become a saint overnight.

sure but an anti-paladin just like a paladin can lose their powers with a single action.

what is this single action that can make any paladin fall. where they are forced to take it.

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How to make an antipaladin fall? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.