This recently came up in a discussion I had with my DM, in the Paladin description, it states that a Paladin cannot knowingly associate with an evil character; however, my question is, if an evil character joins the group, or if a current party member turns evil, and the paladin continues to adventure with said character with the idea of redeeming him/her, does the paladin lose his/her status? And if so, why?
Every DM seems to have a different take on Paladins so this answer could vary heavily. I'd say that a Paladin could adventure with an evil individual in the hopes of converting the individual. This actually has a side benefit - you can keep an eye on him and stop him (or die trying) if he actually does anything evil. What I can't buy is that a Paladin would allow an evil individual commit evil without stepping in furthermore there really ought to be some tangible reason why the individual might mend his ways. The Paladin has better things to do then spend the rest of eternity vainly waiting for a single soul to mend his ways.
Oh and while were hear I'll plug Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Paksenarion for being a very entertaining trilogy that features an interesting Paladin promenantly.
First, I'll start by saying that I can't stand the paladin class.
Second, I normally would agree with what was said. At first, traveling with said evil character but keeping an eye on them/hoping to convert them seems like a good idea...
But you're likely to end up having some situation where the evil-guy/girl does do something and the paladin just "didn't know," or just happened to be "looking the other way."
Plus, from what the PHB says about paladins, I don't think that they could even tolerate just being around someone they knew to be evil, despite any active evil-doing or not.
So to prevent aforementioned situation, I wouldn't allow it. He either loses his abilities, or his traveling buddy.
-Kurocyn
|
First, I'll start by saying that I can't stand the paladin class.
This is a little off topic, but Fyraxis can tell you that paladin's in our gaming group suck. We have this stupid paladin that wont hit an guy in the back. I have to ask him that if a demon was standing with it's back to him if he would still not swing. Anywhoo, our boyscout/paladin with prestige class levels in uberwuss is just proving to be a headache for our already screwed up group.
|
|
I think the paladin may be a little bit more pragmatic than to say "You seem kinda sketchy, I'm not adventuring with you." But his tolerance will only go so far, and the paladin has a responsibility to oppose any evil activities his adventuring buddies may be partaking in.
In general, I don't recommend it. Paladins only work well in the right kind of party (i.e. like-minded characters). That may sound limited, but bear in mind the game is really designed for heroic characters. If you're breaking that mould and playing un-heroic characters, then I would advise against anyone playing a paladin.
|
This is a little off topic, but Fyraxis can tell you that paladin's in our gaming group suck. We have this stupid paladin that wont hit an guy in the back. I have to ask him that if a demon was standing with it's back to him if he would still not swing.
This sounds like the player causing trouble, not the class.
There are DMs who take some rules too literally and don't care much about smoothness of game play, and there are players who do the same...Paladins are supposed to fight evil and protect the weak and innocent (not literally quoting any rule book). They are supposed to fight honourably, but are they bound to these standards when their opponent doesn't follow them, either? (-> demons) Couldn't they react reasonably and cooperate with evil PCs, either hoping to convert them or just for reasonability's sake? Maybe their patron god will frown on this behaviour (-> another role playing opportunity and a nice twist of plot)...
Players can take liberties in playing their role, but the DM is the one who decides consequences and reactions of the PC's environment...
There is an excellent article "Making The Tough Decisions" by Rich Burlew on how deep to immerse into your role and on how much "meta thinking" isn't just acceptable but essential for play. I think there were some sentences about the paladin class in specific, too ... ;-)
I highly recommend this article to every player struggling with finding a good combination of rule and role playing for her/ his PC.
I wish your paladin player success in findin her/ his way of playing the class!
Greetings,
Günther
First, I'll start by saying that I can't stand the paladin class.
But you're likely to end up having some situation where the evil-guy/girl does do something and the paladin just "didn't know," or just happened to be "looking the other way."
So to prevent aforementioned situation, I wouldn't allow it. He either loses his abilities, or his traveling buddy.
-Kurocyn
First off, anyone who says they can't stand paladins are just asking me to stick a vorpal keen longsword through their heart!!(JK)
I have to say I love paladins, it was my first class ever!!(his name was William Wallace, no creativity sure but i was a newbie, you know..)Anyways, I played with my paladin for a very long time, and we never had any problems in the group, he was actually the "good guy/main character" of the group".. It was great...
What I think happens is that some people(usually inexperienced) who play paladins are very "radical" and just want to hack-slash any evil guy an NEVER attack someone on their backs. However, these people forget that having mercy and forgiving are also a part of a paladin's morals.
Now concerning the "paladin and evil npcs" thing I think it depends heavily on the DM.. He's gotta notice when the paladin just doesn't know that they are evil or if he's just "looking the other way". It's just a very delicate isssue etc blablabla..
I play in an ongoing campaign with a Paladin PC, where I play a morally ambiguous cleric of Wee Jas. I would never ask the player to tone down his RP of his character, in spite of the character's insufferable boy-scout-ness. I think it's part of the game, albeit one that is unpopular with many to some degree.
I make an effort to conceal my (LN) cleric's casting of "evil" spells from him and I do allright because his character is not that bright. I have no interest in causing him to fall, and respect his earnest devotion to a feeble deity of light and optimism.
In fact, my character finds him charming in a naive sort of way, and while he has no time or understanding for the paladin's devotion to those I refer to as "cattle" (peasants, workers, etc.)he recognizes him as a staunch fighter and my ideal place in combat is back to back with that Pelorian do-gooder. I hope the respect is mutual, and since I never get within 60' of him while I have an evil effect going, his PC sees me as a perhaps misguided and definitely haughty Aasimar who he hopefully values as a combatant as much as I do him.
I know I am not playing an evil PC, but the point of my diatribe is that Paladins are people too, and while they are bound by a strict code of conduct and morals, they may have companions from all walks of life and come in many different varieties with individual personas. I would never (as a DM) allow a Paladin to willingly and knowingly travel or associate with an Evil PC towards evil ends without serious repercussions, but there is no reason why a Paladin should be accountable for every action of his party. And less reason for a player to play the paladin as a creature of monolithic ideology, without any personality, especially to the detriment of the group.
|
Two huge factors in whether or not a paladin can be compatible with an evil-aligned PC are the relationship between the players, and the nature of their portral of the characters.
I've known paladin-players who roleplay them as visciously focused slayers of evil with no depth at all, and others who play them as ponderously anxt-filled holy moralilty peddlers with almost too much depth, if that's possible. Neither approach necessarily rules out interaction with evil PCs, but they do represent very different styles of play and need to be approached differently by the players and the DM.
One of my players is very fond of relating the story of how his paladin (of the 'slay-all-evil-you-find' variety) managed to coexist with an assassin in the same party. The DM set up a plotline in which the paladin knew in no uncertain terms that he needed the help of this assassin in a quest to defeat a much greater evil later in the campaign. So the paladin and the assassin shared a mutual contempt and intolerance, but were able to function in a party together. (At least until the assassin killed him in his sleep, if I remember correctly.)
They reportedly had a lot of fun with the situation; there was an incident with a powerful sentient Holy Avenger that took control of the paladin when it was drawn and compelled him to attack the nearest evil being--which often meant the assassin. (The same sword once overrode the paladin's better judgement and made him rush into battle with a pack of vampires instead of fleeing, as I recall.)
Anyway, the player certainly had a lot of fun with it. i don't know for sure how it affected everyone else in the group to have the spotlight on this continuing in-party drama, but it certainly made things memorable for those involved.
The point to be made with this story, though, is that the players and DM working together need make a way for the campaign to continue with such a situation if they want to include it. If the players approach it properly, it can be a fun roleplaying experience. If they refuse to play their characters in a way that they can coexist, then problems are unavoidable.
Personally, I think a paladin player could get a lot of mileage out of the idea of coexisting with a known evil character to 'show him the light'. Paladins, IMO, are all about setting a noble example for others to follow, so the evil party member could become a work in progress for the paladin. A chance to demonstrate the value of a life of lawfulness and goodness to a 'captive audience', so to speak. Not every conversion to righteousness needs to be at the end of a blade, though that may be an ever-present backup plan if things don't work out. There's also the "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer" principle, which fits right into this idea.
Generally, though, it's the willingness of the players to play out the situation in a reasonable way that lets it work. If they can't, the characters certainly won't.
Paladins are one of the most challenging classes to play correctly (and consequently, one of the most enjoyable). The first thing that should happen is the player and DM absolutely NEED to discuss and work out the paladin's code of conduct (at least in general terms) BEFORE playing the character. Many DMs and players have preconceived notions of what paladins (and LG characters in general) are like that may not agree and this needs to be worked out ahead of time.
The second thing that needs to happen is that the player MUST remember that the code becomes the primary motivation for the character's actions. A paladin is supposed to be a shining example and champion in the fight against the forces of evil. He doesn't go into dungeons just to kill monsters and loot treasure, there must be some evil that needs to be thwarted.
The third thing that needs to happen is that the player must remember a central tenet of good characters: respect for others. A paladin should strive to lead by example, not by telling others what to do (or not do); that sort of behavior is the characteristic of tyranny (LE). Instead, the paladin should explain his code to the rest of the party and try to convince them to avoid dishonorable tactics. Note that flanking and Sneak Attacks aren't necessarily dishonorable, any more than trip attacks or magic.
Evil behavior (poison, torture, killing prisoners, evil magic) should not be tolerated in any fashion; if the paladin cannot convince the other person to give up the behavior, then he will disassociate himself (by leaving the party or having the offending member kicked out) and/or report the character to the authorities if laws have been broken. A SHORT-TERM alliance with an evil character to thwart a greater evil is a possibility, but the paladin should make clear that he will consider evil actions as breaking the alliance.
well, hmm. It is really the priests perview to try to convert or save a character who has turned evil or is evil and it is the paladins perview to be the right arm of the diety and smite evil wherever it if found. Temper this with the idea that various dieties have various targets of priority interest, a paladin has these as priority targets.
You could look at this in a multitude of ways; typically, a paladin cannot group with any person if they KNOW that said individual is evil. This is a sticky wicket. Their are many many ways to hide alignment and many players really are not based in any alignment strong enough to really radiate anything. Also, how much diety intervention do you have; if the dieties have little contact with their mortal hands of justice; and the paladins are just expected to go out and rid the world of that dieties enemies; it is much more likely that players who don't easily fit into that category have some space to slip through. How do you prove someone is evil and what is considered reasonable investigation; if the paladin, when meeting the party for the first time; uses his detect evil and the evil guys have a spell or talisman to mask alignment; well, no evil is detected and thing should go on just like that; no evil detected, hence, no evil; most of the problem with this sort of thing comes from player knowledge intervening into character knowledge; whereas, one player is using his character in a fashion that is unreasonable to catch another player playing his character whereas you know that the character has no real reason to be that suspicous of said player.
There is also the good arguement of mercy and reconciliation; if a evil player repents; even falsely, well, that has to be taken in good faith; hence the paladin would no longer consider him evil and subsequent acts could be just falling off the wagon and the guys weakness or mortal flaw that he is struggling to overcome; if the evil guys plays this out it could have interesting results; but ultimately could be problematic for the icon of good; the paladin. So then you get sticky with the idea of what is adventuring and who is a party member and who isn't; so if the paladin is commanded to protect and assist a priest on his mission and the priest is in the party; is the paladin? maybe, maybe not; some would argue he is only devoted to his mission and is just amiable to the party as any good character would try to get along with the priests companions; but when the chips are down; the paladin backs whatever decision that the priest makes. I would say that the paladin is not a party member; but it really depends on how formal the party is and if they have a charter. Such legal; hence lawful, things make a big difference. Sure, its all sophism, but like Master Obi Wan said; "...from a certain point of view." So from a certain point of view; a paladin can work with a group in extended adventures with an evil character as long as certain critieria is met; it is up the the gm and the players to work this out as the gm plays the dieties in question and the leaders of the order and will basically be responsible to ensure the blind eye of the paladin is not shirking his duty nor making accusations without cause.
well, hmm. It is really the priests perview to try to convert or save a character who has turned evil or is evil and it is the paladins perview to be the right arm of the diety and smite evil wherever it if found. Temper this with the idea that various dieties have various targets of priority interest, a paladin has these as priority targets.
I tried to post this last night, but Paizo was hungry and ate it. I didn't feel like retyping it then.
There's no reason a paladin can't be a peaceful converter more than a militant slayer.
Back to the general thread, and I direct this at no one in particular, but I find people who dislike paladins due to their code and alignment restrictions to be small minded and prejudiced at some level.
Not smiting anyone who registers as evil is not "associating with evil". Speaking to someone who is evil is not "associating with evil". "Associating with evil" would be the paladin heading down to the slums to chat with the drug dealers, then doing nothing about it whatsoever.
To classify an entire group of people as being worthy of nothing more than killing is genocidal, insane, and completely opposed to the whole "good" part of that alignment restriction.
Resorting to the Nuclear Option ("My character can't continue with this party, so I'm leaving," or even worse, "Your character has to go or I do!") is a No-No. Don't do it. I've seen all the fun completely vanish from a session when roleplaying inter-character tensions suddenly went down that road. One player or the other has just had their whole character and concept blown away from them because someone (and not necessarily the paladin) is being an asenine stick in the mud. That's not fun.
There have already been three really good reasons for paladins and evil PCs to co-exist on this thread (Greater Good, Attempted Conversion, Keep Your Enemies Close); choose one or make up another for a different situation, and Make It Work. It's not that hard, and failure to do so is only the fault of the players involved in whatever dispute is at hand. Incorporating a paladin into a group may be more difficult at times than incorporating other types of characters, but with a bit of work, there are very few situations that truly cannot foster a paladin.
Wow.... I never really expected THIS kind of response on the thread, but thanks to everyone who's posted (and those who may post later), this is a lot of REALLY good information, and a nice variety of viewpoints.
Thanks again everyone!
Very good points Saern; am not really saying that a paladin must slay all evil or should be scanning for it all the time like some psychotic looking for something to kill; that really depends upon the dieties outlook and expectations; I more or less consider paladins to the the fist of god type characters though there is no reason why they cant be of the lead by example role model convesion type; being more militant than most priests; I usually don't see them as all that chatty with the agree to dissagree ethos you might get with a priest.
Truly; I do agree with the point that any players should really do what they can to make other players comfortable and find a way to work out various classes and alignments and have a real group ethic; i always try to teach my players to have the group against the world ideal no matter who is in the group; the group has and identity and the group is mother and father; that sort of thing because most of the world will really be out to get them. I try to keep fun and good times at the top of my game and my players seem to have fun as they have been around for couple decades. I always try to gently head off any thing that might come to a your character or mine type collision, but characters have to work at it; the evil assassin in our group is the informant who gives underworld information about various bad guys to the party; this is a big deal and plot device that the party respects; he has vast sources of information and can get extra muscle when the party needs it; sure he is evil; but doesnt push it and genuinly tries to do his mission to help the party; the paladin; keeps his ethics; and tries to set a good example and keeps an eye on him while the priests try to convert him to good all the time. Is very cool and has made the game interesting for the last decade.
One thing I should point out is in my game you dont really register as evil unless you are committed to it or have recently done an evil act. So, if you are under 5th level you really haven't done enough of any alignment type stuff to really radiate any alignment strongly; I run like the old rules that humans are mostly nuetral so people generally day to day are nuetral and over the course of their lives they take on aspects of alignments (which is why I graph alignments); some like paladins, monks and clerics much quicker and stronger than others like a warrior, wizard or rogue that is fairly indifferent to most things other than success.
I would like to think that any good aligned PC would have a problem with an evil adventuring companion. Just because the paladin class has it written into their class description doesn't mean that they have to be the only ones that should take umbrage at another character's actions. The paladin may have the most strict alignment restriction, but penalties should also be placed on other good aligned characters that conveniently 'look the other way' when the evil contingent decides to get their sick thrills.
Also, let's not forget that there are a lot of shades of grey. An evil character doesn't have to be a megalomaniac. An antihero that commits what they see as necessary evils in pursuit of a good cause may be able to have philosophical issues with a paladin or other good aligned PC while remaining comrades. A character that is unapologetically selfish and untrustworthy may have the same alignment as the kill crazy mass murderer, but would be able to remain much more tolerable to other characters.
Sir Kaikillah would not hesitate to help a friend lost in the darkness, find his way back onto the light. Any assosiate of Sir Kaikillah would never be evil(so some are a little shady but none are evil), I could smell it. Any associate of Sir Kaikillah , who began to carry the stench of evil would find a compassionate friend ready to show him the way out of the darkness (if not completly into the light).
Saern has got it right the best thing to do is find a way to make it work. If beginning a new campaign, try not to vex another player who wants to be a paladin by playing an evil character (Paladins are rare PCs, evil is 1/3 the alignment options). If some where down the line one PC becomes evil, make it work; find a reason, and explore the role playing possability.
Well, my original idea for this thread was more regarding how easy/ hard it is for a Paladin to become "fallen" through his associations with evil characters (I've never played a game yet where anyone STARTED as evil) and it's been more or less explained... anyone want to add more along those lines? However, I really do like the way the thread eveolved because it's covered a lot of stuff I hadn't thought of and is certainly making Paladins look like something I would actually WANT to try playing (even though I tend to end up filling the "spellcaster" role most of the time).
F
|
|
This recently came up in a discussion I had with my DM, in the Paladin description, it states that a Paladin cannot knowingly associate with an evil character; however, my question is, if an evil character joins the group, or if a current party member turns evil, and the paladin continues to adventure with said character with the idea of redeeming him/her, does the paladin lose his/her status? And if so, why?
To get back to the letter of your original question, if that is the wording in the rules (which I believe it is), your DM is probably within his/her rights to penalise the paladin if he "knowingly associates" (or adventures with) an evil character, ie, the paladin knows the other character is evil (which it is pretty likely the paladin would know this under the current detect evil rules, let alone through more mundane observation).
Having said that, if I were the DM I would allow a paladin to adventure with an evil character if there was hope of (And attempts at) redemption, and/or if it was in order to stop an even greater evil. But I would not expect a great deal of harmony in that group!
I personally don't like players in my game to run outright evil PCs - it generally doesnt suit my style of gaming. However, if someone really wants to, the onus is on them to come up with a good reason WHY this evil character wants to travel with the rest of the party - and a good enough reason to stick around for more than one adventure. After that, it is up to the player to either hide their character's alignment from the rest of the group, or work out with the other players (or characters) how to co-exist. I don't mind character vs character conflict - if done well it can really enhance the game - but I really dont like when this spills over into characters killing characters or player vs player conflict - and in my experience, allowing evil PCs into a pre-dominantly good aligned group is a quick way to achieve this.
Sorry to get a bit off topic there...
Everything I say below is predicated on the paladin knowing about the evil PC. Obviously, if the paladin (genuinely) doesn't know, he cannot take action, and is in the clear.
if a current party member turns evil, and the paladin continues to adventure with said character with the idea of redeeming him/her
If the player of the paladin stated that as his intent, I would be extremely skeptical. In my experience, a paladin stating such is doing so purely to dodge around the code of conduct, rather than deal with the tough issue his character faces. Let's be honest - if the character wasn't a PC, would the same response be forthcoming? Or would the paladin proceed with the smiting? If the answer is 'the second' then the paladin has no business making an exception simply because the character is a PC.
That said, if the player of the paladin really wanted to go ahead with this course of action, he would be allowed to do so, for a while. However, the paladin had best show that he was really making efforts to redeem his friend, had better be taking steps to curtail and punish evildoing on the part of his friend, and in general better actually be doing what he claimed he would be doing. Otherwise, the paladin _will_ lose his status. (And, by the time it comes to that, it's too late for the paladin to reverse his decision and walk away. He made a choice, and it didn't work out. Now there are consequences.)
if an evil character joins the group,
In this case, the Paladin would be expected to speak up and veto the inclusion of the evil character. If the other PCs overrule him, he would be required to walk.
Out-of-game, as a DM I wouldn't allow a player to bring in an evil character to a group including a paladin. New characters are expected to be compatible with the existing group.
does the paladin lose his/her status? And if so, why?
In general, yes. Association with evil has a nasty habit of corrupting the pure in heart, because they either have to keep putting out fires, or they have to turn a blind eye once in a while. Do that too often, and it becomes a habit, and the standards are moved. Then, there are bigger fires to put out, or a blind eye to turn... after long enough, the paladin has ceased trying to do his job, and loses his status.
Plus, although the player of the paladin may be intend on redeeming his friend, the player of the evil character presumably chose that path. So, it's rather unlikely that the paladin will succeed. Sooner or later, then, the paladin _will_ have to take out his 'friend'. If he doesn't, he has no right to the title of paladin.
In answer to the OP's original question, No. I, as a DM, would not penalize said paladin for associating with an evil character under the stated justification (though much of this would be dependent on the previously established moral code and the evil character's blatent actions). The OP's second question (or revised first question) is a little harder to answer. How "hard" or "easy" it is for a paladin character to lose his/her status is completely subjective and dependent on the attitude of the DM, the paladin player, and the evil character player.
My husband has been playing a paladin character in one of our games for over a decade. There is a female wizard/rogue in the party who started out neutral evil. His character kinda had a crush on the evil character and set out to convert her. Eventually she did convert (though only to chaotic neutral). This has been a great role-playing experience and a real moral dilemna for the paladin. The (now CN) character does not commit "evil" acts while in the company of the paladin and his character gets offended & disappointed in her when he finds out she has stolen something (which she takes great pains to hide) or has broken the law (avoiding the gate tax by sneaking in). In all our years of play I have only suspended the paladin's status once and that was when he was infected with lycanthropy, turned into a werewolf and murdered his companions in their sleep (which was just one of the best gaming sessions ever since I didn't reveal the lycanthropy to the paladin and he had to investigate & discover on his own that *he* was the actual mysterious murderer!). Anyway, since the paladin didn't *choose* the evil behavior I allowed his status to be regained by completing a special quest by the church and being restored by the appropriate spell & ceremony.
The moral code is a guideline like real world Christians follow the Bible. There is freedom in obeying its precepts, not restriction.
The biggest problem I've had with Paladins is in DMing adventures where the PC's must team up with, or recruit evil NPCs to aid them against a greater evil.
When the Paladin vaporized the ghoul in Prince of Red Hand, it pretty much ended any leads that the party had and had it not been a playtest, would have ended that part of the adventure.
My suggestion as a DM is that if you have a Paladin PC, staw away from adventures that the paladin may ruin. Things like having evil allies, or ventureing into wicked cities.
I guess the discussion may come down to: "What will the Paladin accept to defeat the greater evil".
Maybe have the new Paladin take his "knighthood test" and put several "What would you do if..." questions to the player so you can get an idea how they will react to grey area issurs that may come up in your campaign.
ASEO out
When the Paladin vaporized the ghoul in Prince of Red Hand, it pretty much ended any leads that the party had and had it not been a playtest, would have ended that part of the adventure.
IMO, that's a sign of bad adventure design. If the adventure is reliant on the PCs finding the one clue that is vital to them proceeding, or relies on them interacting with a specific NPC to proceed, then there's a problem. There should always be redundancy built in.
And that's virtually nothing to do with paladins - any NPC might be vapourised by any group that's having an off night.
|
One of my guys plays a changeling paladin/rogue. I certainly allow him latitude in his behaviour. You can be lawful good without being stupid or suicidal. I agree with the above sentiment: what does LG want to achieve, and what is feasible to do to achieve it while sticking within the alignment? Lying to evil characters seems pefectly OK to me. Getting the drop on evil characters seems reasonable. Allowing the injury or deaths of innocents to get the bad guy - now you begin to get on to less safe ground.
This recently came up in a discussion I had with my DM, in the Paladin description, it states that a Paladin cannot knowingly associate with an evil character; however, my question is, if an evil character joins the group, or if a current party member turns evil, and the paladin continues to adventure with said character with the idea of redeeming him/her, does the paladin lose his/her status? And if so, why?
To me, no. If the Paladin is intent on redeeming the evil character, they're taking active steps well in excess of not associating with the character. Non-association is a minimum bar-- if you're willing to do more, the gods certainly won't punish you for doing it.
If what you're looking for is examples and stories of fallen paladins in order to get some inspiration, Warcraft III's Arthas is a good example, and I think Lady Aribeth from the original Neverwinter Nights also has an interesting story.
The point to be made with this story, though, is that the players and DM working together need make a way for the campaign to continue with such a situation if they want to include it.
This speaks directly to the question at hand and others have said as much. I'd like to add that it is important for the GM and all of the players at the beginning of a campaign or session to come to a concensus on how to treat evil and good. Specifically, what it means for PCs to cross lines that will specifically *affect* any stat block related PC field (alignment or otherwise). There are some resources to turn to to decide this including PHB, PHBII, and (i'd encourage) both the BOED and BOVD.
Why, you may ask, is this important? Because from a metagame vantage point, everyone knows for sure that a PC has done something contrary to his/her alignment, code, ethics, etc. the instant that a stat block has changed due to role playing decisions. There are grey areas that can be debated to no end no matter what the group's approach to treating alignment and such is. Grey area is fair game!!! Even if the players don't like what an individual PC is doing and there is a discussion about how PC actions fall within (or outside) of the PC alignment, if stat blocks haven't changed, there should be no rub.
Additionally, once everyone is clear about where those lines are set (this differs widely with how a group treats alignment), it is up to everyone, not just the GM to regulate where they feel necessary via group discussion. It is, however, imparitive of the GM to make it absolutely clear to a player who is thinking about having his/her PC cross a line that they *are or are not* risking or sealing stat block changes that are handed down solely by the GM.
As ever,
ACE
I would like to think that any good aligned PC would have a problem with an evil adventuring companion. Just because the paladin class has it written into their class description doesn't mean that they have to be the only ones that should take umbrage at another character's actions. The paladin may have the most strict alignment restriction, but penalties should also be placed on other good aligned characters that conveniently 'look the other way' when the evil contingent decides to get their sick thrills.
Also, let's not forget that there are a lot of shades of grey. An evil character doesn't have to be a megalomaniac. An antihero that commits what they see as necessary evils in pursuit of a good cause may be able to have philosophical issues with a paladin or other good aligned PC while remaining comrades. A character that is unapologetically selfish and untrustworthy may have the same alignment as the kill crazy mass murderer, but would be able to remain much more tolerable to other characters.
Well put, Mr. Keegan.
I don't think enough focus is put on the importance that the entire party must work towards group cohesion. Playing an evil character isn't a free pass to do what you will & hijack a campaign. Consider the rest of the party; each player has goals & wants to have fun. Also consider the DM, as a self-destructing party may be fun for a one-time adventure, but hardly for an AP.
Personally I'm tired of alignment being a tool of convenience; after all, this is (for most) a game of heroic roleplay...so stand up for something! Good characters often are looking the other way for most of the 'grey area' actions James mentioned, I think it's only fair that evil characters play smart & make an attempt to maintain party cohesion. If the evil character absolutely must stab someone, do it away from the party.
Back to paladins; you've all given great info to work with. A paladin *can* be played as they are meant, a champion of good & leader, without being a zealot. Pick your battles. Lead by example. You're likely travelling with other good characters...get them on your side & perhaps that will help tone down the activities of a "not-so-good" companion. Confront them when necessary, but from a position of strength (hehe...images of a party intervention...) after all else has failed. I think the key is in how you play it; a paladin can be devoted and likeable/personable at the same time...remember those charisma scores! It's not just how the paladin approaches evil, but how they deal with everyone else.
Sorry if that sounds disjointed, but I only write these from work ;-)
C-
The biggest problem I've had with Paladins is in DMing adventures where the PC's must team up with, or recruit evil NPCs to aid them against a greater evil.
This is possible, within limits (as I stated above). This is dangerous ground for a paladin, however, and should be reserved for when it's absolutely necessary. If it's a scenario that occurs more than once (or maybe twice) in a campaign, then either the player should retire the paladin for another character or the DM should rethink the scenario to provide a different method to defeat the BBEG (a side trek for a holy widget/special blessing/etc.).
When the Paladin vaporized the ghoul in Prince of Red Hand, it pretty much ended any leads that the party had and had it not been a playtest, would have ended that part of the adventure.
Is this where the option of Raising the ghoul came from? I'd say that a paladin SHOULD try to get a former good cleric Raised, even if he has to slay the undead shell first.
The first Character I started to play was to be the crazy thief that everyone liked, it was my first game and I was really excited... Well My first character Haun found a ring on my first session ever! It was the Cursed Ring of Ratri Which although made him a very very very good thief, I didn’t plan for this to happen it just did and he slowly became a very evil person traveling with a very Heroic set of people. Why did they stick beside Hauns side? Why didn’t they just kill him? Well to be honest Haun might have been evil but he was there loyal friend he viewed as family and he was there’s in return, My point I traveled with a Lawful Good Cleric and He really didn’t approve of Haun but, He had faith and helped my First Character Haun that I created Three years ago become a Good Guy (just this past month), Even went to hell and back for the Guy.......and It was FUN!!
My point is it works
its possible
and its a great story line!!
What did your DM end up saying ?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Is this where the option of Raising the ghoul came from? I'd say that a paladin SHOULD try to get a former good cleric Raised, even if he has to slay the undead shell first.
I thought that undead couldn't be raised after they were destroyed? Or is it just that they can't be raised while they're still undead? I was never really clear on this.
Undead (even "dead" ones) are not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. However, resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures, turning them back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
|
|
I believe that this whole discussion fall under the domain of "DM's Discretion". If the DM has a great story device that would be interesting if the party paladin redeemed his evil buddy, then by all means let it happen. Now the story would have to have a degree of finesse. A paladin wont sit around and let his evil buddy go on killing sprees or be directly evil. Alot of really good points were brought up in the above posts. I still say that is all depends on the DM.
I believe that this whole discussion fall under the domain of "DM's Discretion". If the DM has a great story device that would be interesting if the party paladin redeemed his evil buddy, then by all means let it happen. Now the story would have to have a degree of finesse. A paladin wont sit around and let his evil buddy go on killing sprees or be directly evil. Alot of really good points were brought up in the above posts. I still say that is all depends on the DM.
The players have to be able to handle it, too. I've seen this work very well and I've also seen it fail miserably.
The DM is only half of the game; if he thinks the players are up to this sort of thing, then he should TALK TO THEM FIRST. Unless the entire group is OK with playing this sort of scenario, it will not work. Even if the players can handle the intra-party conflicts and tension involved, they may not all WANT to; don't force them into it, you'll only end up with one or more fed up players.
Is this where the option of Raising the ghoul came from? I'd say that a paladin SHOULD try to get a former good cleric Raised, even if he has to slay the undead shell first.I thought that undead couldn't be raised after they were destroyed? Or is it just that they can't be raised while they're still undead? I was never really clear on this.
I was using Raised loosely, as in "brought back to life."
Even if the paladin destroyed the ghoul with a turning check, there are methods of bringing the original creature back. If the paladin DIDN'T pursue the option (i.e., notifying the church of St. Cuthbert at least and/or sending them the dust/remains), then I would say he was starting to tend toward Chaos. If he WAS of the church of St. Cuthbert, then he DEFINITELY would be showing questionable judgement.