I have a player who wants to play a paladin, but as I was reviewing the Paladin class, I noticed this blurb:
a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code
I certainly don't intend to punish him for following the natural progression of the plot, but if he can't cooperate with Laori or Sial in Escape or SoS, that could derail the whole adventure.
Has anyone run into this in their game? How did you handle it?
|
Well, paladins are allowed to associate with evil people provided they are actively trying to reform them, right? I could have sworn that clause is in there somewhere? So the pally could take that tack with them
Mind you, Sial and Laori are certainly lost causes. Sial is Mr. Burns, without Bobo, and practically a Republican ;)
And Laori is just batsh1t insane. You could give her a tragic past that caused her to become an evil genki-girl, but it would kind of dilute her character. Like the Joker, Laori doesnt have an origin, she simply IS. Hells, give her a whole list of tragic backgrounds (do you want to know how I got these scars?).
Frankly, neither Laori or Sial are the sort of characters who get tragic backgrounds or become sympathetic, or ever improve their behavior. Only quiet, somewhat sad, or emotionally damaged characters get that. And being badass is often a prerequisite (Vader, Lucy, Miho, Scar, Mr Tulip). Or they're just so pathetic (gollum). happy, Laughting, hyper ones dont.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I find that quote about paladins to be lame. In the final game, I'm gonna strive to have it either adjusted or removed. I'd rather see something like this:
"A paladin will only associate with chaotic or evil characters if she feels that such association will work to achieve the greater law or good. A paladin can ally with chaos or evil to defeat something of greater chaos or evil, but should attempt to make the chaotic or evil ally see the error of their ways."
Basically... no other class locks out plot elements like the paladin. In a lot of ways, having a paladin in a party can be more disruptive than having an assassin, and that's not really the way it should be, I don't think.
Ignore the quote for a moment and look at it this way. Why is it that no one seems to really notice if a paladin allies with a chaotic good creature but when they ally with a lawful evil creature, it's weird? Does this imply that paladins are good but don't care as much about law?
Thanks for the responses. It looks my player is already leaning that way (he described a "missionary" trip to barbarian orcs in his background), so I don't think he'll have too much of a problem associating with Laori and Sial.
|
Ignore the quote for a moment and look at it this way. Why is it that no one seems to really notice if a paladin allies with a chaotic good creature but when they ally with a lawful evil creature, it's weird? Does this imply that paladins are good but don't care as much about law?
At the risk of prolonging yet another alignment debate, I always thought it a shame that the original diagram of alignment was in the form of a theoretical square.
I always favoured a long, flat rectangle (ie the philosophical differences between Law and Chaos being far, far less severe than the schism between Good and Evil). Or a long, thin trapezoid (thin at the Good point, widening at the Evil point).
Good/Evil is the ends.
Law/Chaos is the means one takes to those ends.
That way, a typical party could consist of LG, NG, CG, LN, N, and CN, and still be viable, and true to the genre. Sure, they may irritate the hell out of each other occasionally, without breaking out into open warfare at every decision point.
The Evil types can still batter each other senseless, but then, they don't need the excuse of a difference along the Law/Chaos axis; they're evil, selfish, paranoid, greedy, egomaniacs - they hate everybody.
Personally, I find that quote about paladins to be lame. In the final game, I'm gonna strive to have it either adjusted or removed. I'd rather see something like this:
"A paladin will only associate with chaotic or evil characters if she feels that such association will work to achieve the greater law or good. A paladin can ally with chaos or evil to defeat something of greater chaos or evil, but should attempt to make the chaotic or evil ally see the error of their ways."
Basically... no other class locks out plot elements like the paladin. In a lot of ways, having a paladin in a party can be more disruptive than having an assassin, and that's not really the way it should be, I don't think.
Ignore the quote for a moment and look at it this way. Why is it that no one seems to really notice if a paladin allies with a chaotic good creature but when they ally with a lawful evil creature, it's weird? Does this imply that paladins are good but don't care as much about law?
I find that quote odd as well, especially since there seems to be no listed penalty for associating with evil characters. It seems to be a attempting to relay a fact about the personality of every paladin. To me it is similar to if it said "A paladin is always clad in shining armor." It seems very silly to me to give that sort of command.