Paladin and Rogue Dilemna

Hey all,

I've been running a Pathfinder game with a group consisting of siblings and friends. Anways, my younger brother is playing a morally ambiguous halfling fighter/rogue who is a little too greedy for his own good, while his best friend is playing a paladin. Now, I understand that a paladin cannot willingly adventure with an evil individual, but how can I resolve this without disrupting my game? Should I just rule that my younger brother is playing a CN character, despite the fact that he is a completely self-centered mercenary? What do you guys think?

I'd ask the halfling to change alignment. In my experience, 90%+ of the time, players of evil PCs act like dicks. CN usually results in the same, as can true Neutral (or even CG in some cases!).
If you think the halfling will be annoying, that's what I recommend anyway. YMMV. I only allow LG, NG, or LN.

I'd ask the halfling to change alignment. In my experience, 90%+ of the time, players of evil PCs act like dicks. CN usually results in the same, as can true Neutral (or even CG in some cases!).

If you think the halfling will be annoying, that's what I recommend anyway. YMMV. I only allow LG, NG, or LN.

I fear beyond anything being thrust into your campaign. Unless, of course, I was a villain. That would be fun! An epic-level villain...

Hey all,

I've been running a Pathfinder game with a group consisting of siblings and friends. Anways, my younger brother is playing a morally ambiguous halfling fighter/rogue who is a little too greedy for his own good, while his best friend is playing a paladin. Now, I understand that a paladin cannot willingly adventure with an evil individual, but how can I resolve this without disrupting my game? Should I just rule that my younger brother is playing a CN character, despite the fact that he is a completely self-centered mercenary? What do you guys think?

since when is putting yourself first considered decidingly evil. I have seen self centered heroes and LG wizards using command to turn thieves into outstanding citizens (for those of you who haven't read the book 'villains by necessity' I really recommend it if you can find it). it all depends on the halfling's mindset - is he trying to take things JUST to take them? is he openly doing this so that the rest of the party knows it is happening, or is he picking pockets in crowded walkways? A paladin cannot willingly adventure with an individual evil that the paladin KNOWS is evil. if the characters just met, and the thief didn't steal in the Paladin's presence without a good reason. (and what thief doesnt' have a beleivable explaination to why he's taking the things he is for a goody too shoes paladin to beleive?)

Oooh! I know!
...this is a great idea. Here it is:
...man, this is probably the BEST idea I've ever had... Anyways, sorry, here it is!
...this is a wonderful idea...

...anyways, here it is:

I'd say you're falling into the usual trap. The real question, is the rogue evil or just chaotic? Everyone has a different opinion of these things.

I had a rogue in my Shackled City game, who was CN, and the most arrogant, self-centered bastard you'd ever meet. He was all about himself, and got the party into no end of trouble. It wasn't until he murdered a man in his sleep to join the assassin's guild that I had his alignment change to evil.

I have another rogue in the party now, who is all about the money. His alignment is N, and he was warned to either betray the party or die with them by the assassin's guild. When the time came, he hung back and waited to see who had the upper hand. Then he jumped in on the party's side. He remains N.

Best I can tell you is see how things play out. It can be a very exciting roleplaying drama, or it could make some players very pissed if they start to butt heads over it.

But geez, don't kill the paladin outright. Ask the player to try a different character. And next time make sure people are at least in the same book when they make their next party.

The DM doesn't have to do everything.

Your players knowingly set up this conflict. Tell them that they have to find a solution which allows the game to go on, otherwise both characters will be squished.

I have a rogue who was CN. He is all over the map - that is the chaotic piece. He has not really done an evil act - there was a time I thought he was going evil but my DM actually threatened to make him CG. He may have been a pain to have around but he did have a streak of helping others even in the midst of taking things that where not his.

And his ill gotten gains was almost always shared with the group. He did not just take things to make himself rich. He was a bit Kender like actually.

The point of all this rambling is that evil is a whole different thing than morally ambigious. I think morally ambigious is more like chaotic - not evil.

Kill the rogue. Paladins rock.

*wink*

Kill the rogue. Paladins rock.

*wink*

*Whacks paladin sympathizer*

"Holds the Paladin Sympathizer down to be whacked."

Unless the rogue is killing innocent people, raping, maiming or other horrible acts, he is not evil. Chaotic Neutral maybe. True neutral maybe. Not evil for pinching a few goods. The Paladin should seriously frown on the actions but it doesn't = adventuring with evil PC. If anything maybe the Pally can try to rehabilitate and "save" the Rogue.

And his ill gotten gains was almost always shared with the group. He did not just take things to make himself rich. He was a bit Kender like actually.

Hehe as a co-DM I had a DMPC in a D&D/D20 modern (Planescape-like) campaign who was a kender... the party ended up only allowing him to carry spell component pouches to carry everything.. and were surprised at the things he still found in those small bags.... it wasn't until after the final boss battle that the fighter took possession of on of the bags and found that it was really a Kender bag O' stuff

Unless the rogue is killing innocent people, raping, maiming or other horrible acts

Those things are considered evil????

I say what the rogue does is not quite evil, despite the fact that greed is a sin.

"Holds the Paladin Sympathizer down to be whacked."

*smites the Paladin Antagonists* ^^

Unless the rogue is killing innocent people, raping, maiming or other horrible acts, he is not evil. Chaotic Neutral maybe. True neutral maybe. Not evil for pinching a few goods. The Paladin should seriously frown on the actions but it doesn't = adventuring with evil PC. If anything maybe the Pally can try to rehabilitate and "save" the Rogue.

If you want to find out if the rogue is really evil, have him take this test.... Alignment test

I'd say (as far as i can see from your description) the halfling is most likely evil - but that's ok, he has about 30% of my campaign world to keep him company. (Ok, maybe 20% of all halflings). Evil starts with schoolyard bullies for me, not with the Boston Strangler.

This is also why i usually advocate taking the "must not associate with evil" clause with a few fistful of salt. Sure, a Paladin can't buy into the destructive merchant house, run its slavery ring and claim "well, i never sold anyone into slavery, so i can't be blamed". But the Paladin most definitely should be able to try and work with evil characters. He needn't like it, and should try and help them "shape up", but disallowing any cooperation is just needlessly cutting down options.

Look at Hinjo in OOTS for example. Not only did he set the openly murderous and destructive Belkar free again, but he even made him his agent - after his uncle had put a leash on Belkar, and handed that leash to someone he trusted.

You know, this whole 'whacking' thing is slightly unnerving. I feel violated.

Anyways. If I have a paladin and a rogue(Knight/Rogue in my new party) I will stick with the paladin most of the time. Meaning I do not encourage openly pissing him off because that just leads to party conflicts, they have it bad enough without another player trying to push their buttons. On the same hand, both of these players have been dating for over three years so they would probably pull it off.

Knight/Rogue

Sorry to stray from the path a bit, but knight/rogue? Is that the PHB2 knight? Wouldn't work too well I'd think because those knights have to fight fair (those poor losers ;-))

What is unfair about rogues? Sure it's called Sneak Attack, but you get it by flanking too. Tactical advantages aren't unfair. Better yet for one-on-one, feinting. Same end is accomplished.

Shem wrote:

And his ill gotten gains was almost always shared with the group. He did not just take things to make himself rich. He was a bit Kender like actually.

Hehe as a co-DM I had a DMPC in a D&D/D20 modern (Planescape-like) campaign who was a kender... the party ended up only allowing him to carry spell component pouches to carry everything.. and were surprised at the things he still found in those small bags.... it wasn't until after the final boss battle that the fighter took possession of on of the bags and found that it was really a Kender bag O' stuff

I am actually getting ready to play this character again in a one off adventure and sent your bag off to my DM. I do not know if it will help my case any but I would love to have one of those...

Thanks.

Shem wrote:

"Holds the Paladin Sympathizer down to be whacked."

*smites the Paladin Antagonists* ^^

"Tumbles under the blow."

If nobody else makes it out alive the Rogues does...

"Tumbles under the blow."

If nobody else makes it out alive the Rogues does...

*keeps pace alongside*

Unless it's a monk/paladin chasing him. ;-)

Rift wrote:

Knight/Rogue

Sorry to stray from the path a bit, but knight/rogue? Is that the PHB2 knight? Wouldn't work too well I'd think because those knights have to fight fair (those poor losers ;-))

Its a knight AND a rogue, as in two separate players and not a knight-rogue multiclass.