My party is of various alignments, the Paladin just found out that one, possibly, two people in the party are evil. One of the rogues have prestieged to Assasin, the other one is looking to go Shadowdancer (no evil required, but he's done some evil acts anyway).
The party have already had to make new characters due to death, is there anything I can throw at them to force them together regardless of alignment?
Party is:
human paladin
human rogue/assasin
human rogue
human barbarian
ogrin barbarian
|
My party is of various alignments, the Paladin just found out that one, possibly, two people in the party are evil. One of the rogues have prestieged to Assasin, the other one is looking to go Shadowdancer (no evil required, but he's done some evil acts anyway).
The party have already had to make new characters due to death, is there anything I can throw at them to force them together regardless of alignment?Party is:
human paladin
human rogue/assasin
human rogue
human barbarian
ogrin barbarian
No. Do not mix Paladin's and Evil player characters. It doesn't end well.
If I were the Paladin I'll took the group in charge and go on making very good deeds with them to redeemed them... ;)
I've played something akin, though it was a Knight, not a Pally, refusing rewards or giving all of it to poor people, showing mercy to ennemy whenever it was possible, capturing them alive whenever it was possible even if this made the fight harder (doing temporary damage), trying diplomacy over muscle etc.
Even if the Paladin is not the "chief" of the group there's not much the others can do if, when the king propose you a mission for gold the Paladin answer him the group will do that for free, 'cause it's a noble quest etc.
This is totally in character for a Paladin, he is not a chastising machine, to redeem is also his role ;)
The rogues were originally neutral, but due to killing in cold blood, obvious stealing etc, they've begun shifting in alignment.
Our last session ended with the paladin confronting the Assasin, throwing a pair of manicles in front of her and saying "make this easy on yourself" when she told him where to shove the manicles, he drew his blade and chased her till she dissapeared to the rooftops :s
I can understand him wanting to make them attone, but the message so far seems to be that he's going to arrest them, and obviously they refuse to let that happen.
The assasin has made enough evil acts to gain levels in said presteige class, but has since been one of the most heroic characters in the party (riding a warjack into the center of a swarm of undead to detroy them).
I forsee this tearing the party apart, resulting in new characters or the end of the campaign. Obviously this is frustrating for the whole group since no one wants to lose their character or stop the campaign.
|
I forsee this tearing the party apart, resulting in new characters or the end of the campaign. Obviously this is frustrating for the whole group since no one wants to lose their character or stop the campaign.
Unfortunately, they brought it on themselves. The Paladin player knew from the outset that his character would not play well with others, it's part and parcel of playing a Paladin. The Rogue players have chosen to do evil things (and even become an Assassin!) despite *knowing* and agreeing to play in a game with a Paladin.
As a player, it's their responsibility to design characters (and moderate behavior) to not cause this sort of problem.
If Bob's says 'I want to play a Paladin,' and you don't speak up with a reason why he shouldn't, you don't get a choice anymore.
Your characters alignment choices and behavior and actions are constrained by Bob's choice, as the nature of the class pretty much requires him to either impose his own alignment and morals and ethics and code of conduct (real or made-up) on everyone he travels with, or quit playing that character.
Since the players didn't hash this out in advance, the options I see are;
1) Let the pieces fall where they may (which will likely lead to PVP between the Paladin and Rogue(s) and possibly hurt friendships and a ruined game).
2) Rewind the game a bit, and alter a few of the chosen actions (and remove the levels of Assassin), to make it 'Paladin-friendly.'
3) Have the Paladin player retire (or rework) that character, and bring in something a bit more 'everybody-else-friendly.'
4) If the Paladin player is more interested in the Paladin's abilities, than the LG-ness, allow him to reroll the character as Holy Warrior of a less uncompromising alignment / faith / nature.
5) Some from column A, some from column B. Paladin plays something less unflexible, Assassin switches to a less over-the-top controversial choice, Shadowdancer is on warning to 'not be quite so terribly much evil, please.' Everybody makes sacrifices to make the play experience less confrontational, instead of the Paladin player or the Assassin player having to unilaterally abandon their concept to accomodate the other.
Someone's gotta budge. This isn't an 'everybody can win' kinda situation. Either someone takes one for the team and changes or replaces their character, or everybody affected agrees to change / replace their character to 'play well with others.'
This is a tough situation your group is is indeed. Has the paladin WITNESSED any of the 'evil' acts by the rogue/assassin? He can't arrest on a hunch. Following the law there must be proof of guilt to stand up in a lawfull court.
If the rogue/assassin goes about it smartly and keeps his shady dealings on the 'down-low' and away from paladin eyes you could gain a party truce. However it will be an uneasy one at best because the paladin is obviously a bit gung-ho on rounding up the evil. Mabye rightly so, depending on the players interpritation of her/his role.
It will take some co-operation from all involved to create a cohesive party.
Sometimes a paladin must work with a 'lesser evil' in order that the 'greater good' may be accomplished. And mabye deal with the 'lesser evil' later if there has been no redeeming qualities shown.
This dosen't seem to be the case as you've said the rogue/assassin has been one of the most heroic in action thus far.
There's always hope for redemption. (the mantra for lawfull-goods everywhere)
-Flea
|
If Paladins "had" to fight every evil creature they met, none of them would reach level 2.
Have the paladin player re-read this: (From the Paladin core class description)
----------------------------
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code.
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek anatonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
----------------------------
Nowhere in here does it say they must arrest, smite, fight, etc. every evil person/creature they meet.
Tell your paladin to not be an obdurate fool and learn to play nicely.
AS long as the assassin and rogue aren't walking around killing innocents, they should be able to work together to fight a common opponent (greater evil). Are they "acting" evil around the paladin? Does they paladin know for certain that they are doing all sorts of evil things?
If your paladin has made up their mind, have their character die nobly and then conveniently find a way to have them not be able to be raised from the dead. Let them kill a demon that is eating an innocent or something... that should appease their "noble" self.
|
Obvious Stealing is an evil act?
Its more on the chaotic side then evil.
Also I have to question the ability of any Rogue who does obvious stealing.
Unless they are robbing poor innocent people of the food required to keep themselves and thier family alive, I can't see it as evil.
Killing in cold blood isn't really an evil act either.
You would have to be more specific about the "evil" acts.
It really is entirely possible for a Paladin to work in a group with people who aren't evil, but commit evil acts as long as the Paladin doesn't find out about it or is actively working towards redeeming them.
The scenario is as follows: The players have made their way to the bar, where they are to meet the capitan of the guard about an investigation they held on necromancers in the area. One rogue enters the party here and finds out from the party that his current companions died while he was away, they were unable to recover the bodies (he's not impressed).
With a piece of evidence about the necromancers launching an attack on the city this night, the paladin turns to round up the group. It's at this moment, a nearby drunk begins harassing the half-elf rogue (assasin) nearby for being a half-elf. The pair of rogues, in their current state of mind, instinctively shoot him (clockwork era guns)killing him in the middle of the bar. The ominous silence is broken by the paladin who, at this time, rounds up the whole bar to his side to fight against the undead and wanders off like nothing happened.
Now that the undead have been purged, the paladin is going after the rogues for killing the innocent drunk, to which they've argued "but you did nothing to stop us/him".
I like the ideas so far. Set, screaming-flea and r.doyle, you're making this easier for sure. Thanks to everyone else as well of course.
You can have a successful party that includes a paladin and one or more evil characters, but the paladin's player needs to be an experienced player, and the players of the evil characters need to be willing to make concessions in order to maintain group unity. It sounds like one, possibly both, of these things are not present here.
My question is, why didn't these two evil characters create evil characters to begin with? You said they began as neutral characters, only transitioning to evil due to in-game activities. Were evil characters disallowed at character creation?
|
The scenario is as follows: The players have made their way to the bar, where they are to meet the capitan of the guard about an investigation they held on necromancers in the area. One rogue enters the party here and finds out from the party that his current companions died while he was away, they were unable to recover the bodies (he's not impressed).
With a piece of evidence about the necromancers launching an attack on the city this night, the paladin turns to round up the group. It's at this moment, a nearby drunk begins harassing the half-elf rogue (assasin) nearby for being a half-elf. The pair of rogues, in their current state of mind, instinctively shoot him (clockwork era guns)killing him in the middle of the bar. The ominous silence is broken by the paladin who, at this time, rounds up the whole bar to his side to fight against the undead and wanders off like nothing happened.
Now that the undead have been purged, the paladin is going after the rogues for killing the innocent drunk, to which they've argued "but you did nothing to stop us/him".I like the ideas so far. Set, screaming-flea and r.doyle, you're making this easier for sure. Thanks to everyone else as well of course.
The captain of the guard witnessed them outright murder this bar patron? The paladin is well within his rights to say that the rogues turn themselves in. The comitted a blatantly evil act. Killing a guy just because he's drunk and annoying you? Sound like a number of villians.
Why didn't the captain of the gaurd also try to arrest these players? The bar is full of witnesses. As a GM you might want to show that their evil acts have repecussions. Bringing the law to bear on these two characters may help them realize they need to reign things in and be a little more party friendly.
It seems the paladin is being a little zealous, but if he has seen multiple evil acts then he is under some pressure to bring them to justice, unless a more pressing evil is at hand. But concessions on both sides of the table need to be made before either side begins doing things just to spite one another.
Killing in cold blood isn't really an evil act either.
To quote one of my favorite SNL bits... "Really!?!" This is part and parcel of the definition of evil!
Have you ever killed an insect without thinking about it?
Congratulations, you are now Evil!
Yeah, cause swatting an insect is the exact same thing as murdering a sentient person.
|
|
An alignment thread, and it took you 3 hours to show up? You're slacking today ;) lolHave you ever killed an insect without thinking about it?
Congratulations, you are now Evil!
I have to sleep sometime! :)
Yeah, cause swatting an insect is the exact same thing as murdering a sentient person.
Hey, you're the one that made the statement "Killing in cold blood is part and parcel of the definition of Evil". Or do you kill all the insects you kill in hot blood?
Killing in cold blood isn't really an evil act either.
Okay, you've made me curious: If cold-blooded murder is not an evil act, what is? Do you have to tortur-rape their pets to death, followed by all their family members, especially the children, and then the victim, all the while invoking the Great Old Ones?
To me, this is a perfect example of Lawful Stupid. No offense to your player, but a paladin doesn't go crazy and arrest his comrades because they have different viewpoints.
Yes they do. They totally do. At least if that different viewpoint is "this guy deserves to die because he insulted me."
And "no offence" doesn't work if you then insult people.
Our last session ended with the paladin confronting the Assasin, throwing a pair of manicles in front of her and saying "make this easy on yourself" when she told him where to shove the manicles, he drew his blade and chased her till she dissapeared to the rooftops
That's actually quite reasonable. Others would have attacked the rogue right there.
The only thing that doesn't fit is that the Paladin didn't comment on the situation earlier.
Obviously this is frustrating for the whole group since no one wants to lose their character or stop the campaign.
Well, too bad for them, but they shouldn't have worked so hard towards that end.
Playing an assassin (who has to kill just to be let into the club) in a party already containing a paladin? That's crying for infighting!
Shooting someone for insulting you, right in front of a paladin? What did they think would happen? Paladin saying "he had it coming?"
I'd gather everyone involved together around the table and then start with shouting at them for two hours straight. After that, I'd tell them, in a hard, loud voice just how they f+%+ed up and how it's going to be from this moment forward (the shouting preceding this part would, of course, be incoherent except for the profanities ;-)).
I have a policy: No alignment restriction, but the characters have to fit into the campaign, be adventurous, and the party has to be able to work together. Tension like having paladins and diabolists in the same party can work, but only if people talk about it beforehand, and it is clear that nobody will do anything that would basically force another character to fight another party member (or else totally ignore his character concept).
why are people treating the paladin like he's the bad guy?
it sounds to me like the rogues made their choices. the bar bit as described should make them public outlaws, the other people I'n the party other than the paladin shouldn't exactly be happy either.
I would talk to the rogue players work out story elements for their new life as criminals and have them make new characters. then use them as re occurring villains or such.
ultimately anyone making an asassin I'n a party with a paladin is asking for this. I don't see why people blame the paladin the only situation I can see where it might be the paladin players fault is if he joined the party as a latervedition.
|
|
Yeah, cause swatting an insect is the exact same thing as murdering a sentient person.Have you ever killed an insect without thinking about it?
Congratulations, you are now Evil!
Hey, you're the one that said "Killing in cold blood is part and parcel to the definition of Evil".
If you swat an insect, you are killing it. If you're not angry at it, it's cold-blooded killing. Killing in cold blood is Evil according to you. Have I missed anything?
AS long as the assassin and rogue aren't walking around killing innocents,
At least the assassin IS since that's in the prequisites
A party with a paladin and an evil character can exist. Good example for that: Edwin Odesseiron from Baldur's Gate. Being evil means that he's extremely selfish, to the point that he has no qualms to harm anyone for his own benefits. But he doesn't walk around killing randomly, nor is he some sadistic psychopath who kills innocent without any cause. A paladin could fight on Edwin's side, no problem with that, Edwin doesn't commit any crimes ("crime" on the base of legitimacy, not legality)
But as for an assassin who kills innocent people just for money on a regular base... the paladin's duty would be to make sure that this stops. If the guy can't be arrested... well.
As a player, I tend to oversee some stuff other PCs do so the game can go on, the extreme form of that would be the point in The Gamers where they find a PC mage in the evil endbattle ruins and tell him "you seem trustworthy, would you like to join us in our noble quest", but there are borders and I can't play a paladin who stands idle while another player kills an innocent (especially for no good reason), sorry pal but your character is to stupid to live
Yeah, cause swatting an insect is the exact same thing as murdering a sentient person.Have you ever killed an insect without thinking about it?
Congratulations, you are now Evil!
Hey, you're the one that said "Killing in cold blood is part and parcel to the definition of Evil".
If you swat an insect, you are killing it. If you're not angry at it, it's cold-blooded killing. Killing in cold blood is Evil according to you. Have I missed anything?
Only the obvious... and intentionally at that. It was quite obvious the discussion wasn't about bugs...
|
|
'Cold blooded killing' obviously refers to killing an ectotherm (such as a lizardfolk). Or perhaps an ectotherm killing someone?
Gosh, now I'm all confused. Does it matter if the shark is cold-blooded or the tiger is hot-blooded, if you still get chewed up and pooped out?
I'm pretty sure I don't want to be killed in hot blood, or kinda warm blood, or tepid blood, for that matter. Why such a bias against cold blood?
Also, smurf.
(Ooh, rawk. I got a grumpy sarcastic looking one!)
Just taking your words to their obvious conclusion. Or are you using a different definition of 'killing' or 'cold-blood' than I am?
Sorry, all out of troll chow today.
Back to the OP's issue, playing an assasin with a Paladin in the party is just one character trying to push the buttons of another and is unavoidably going to lead to issues.
I have to agree with the view your paladin isn't playing his class correctly. . . . . . or,at least he is being entirely to overzealous and overzealous paladins don't live long.
I stopped allowing paladins in my games long ago. Lawful stupid and overzealous anything is just entirely to irritating.
The assasin has made enough evil acts to gain levels in said presteige class, but has since been one of the most heroic characters in the party (riding a warjack into the center of a swarm of undead to detroy them).
Sorry about that last post I'm new here
I might be focusing on the wrong thing here but you did say "WarJack" So I have to assume this is in an Iron Kingdom's setting and then looking over your party who is the healer, because the IK setting has some pretty harsh healing rules if your alignment is close to the person whose doing the healing. Any way its kind of a side issue to what you brought up but I just wanted to know. But if your not in IK and are just using there stuff its not an issue at all.
So then its already been said several times that it really comes down to your players and if there willing to do some compromise, once again if you are in IK and the rogue did just kill someone out right the local guard can over look that for a short time for a greater danger but then would come looking for her after the issue was taken care of, and that’s just because the IK governments can be like that. Also if its not IK…well I’m sure the governments can be like that too. I’ve read over most of this and I just don’t know what you want to happen, or anything about your players to give more focused advice. Like is the person playing the assassin kind of a b@stard or just doing it for fun or what?
Spot on actually, it is in IK, which is why the capitain of the guard was witing for things to settle down, given the current situation (undead invading blah blah blah). He intends to merely fine them since they did save the city afterall, though it would still be a hefty fine.
The paladin has never healed the assasin since she became evil, so there's no worris there so far on IK's heavy healing rules.The non-assasin is running a small gang of theives on the side, but that's something that the players are working out in a way that the paladin can let it go (or use it to his advantage as part of the greater good).
It's mostly the assasin vs the paladin that is the core of the problem, and yes they've brought it on themselves, and yes worse comes to worse i'll have them both re-roll characters in a bloody fight to the death or something. The key is trying to find away around making them re-roll entirely, as they've both played big role's in the party so far, and have potential for the future.
It's at this moment, a nearby drunk begins harassing the half-elf rogue (assasin) nearby for being a half-elf. The pair of rogues, in their current state of mind, instinctively shoot him (clockwork era guns)killing him in the middle of the bar. The ominous silence is broken by the paladin who, at this time, rounds up the whole bar to his side to fight against the undead and wanders off like nothing happened.
Now that the undead have been purged, the paladin is going after the rogues for killing the innocent drunk, to which they've argued "but you did nothing to stop us/him".
Sounds like bad play all round, frankly.
Shooting somebody in the bar for insulting you? Stupid Evil.
Not doing something about it until later? Stupid ... er, well just stupid.
A Suggested Solution: paladins do not have to be up-tight douchebags. It is more important for a paladin to redeem an evil-doer than to kill or punish them. I suggest that you pull the players aside for a chat and explain it to them something like this:
"In character, you are friends, you both know the other is capable of serious heroism and together you've saved a city. At certain points your characters had the stress get to them and did things (or didn't do things) that they shouldn't have (or should have done things they didn't). So here's what can happen: the assassin can realise he went to far, and apologise to his friend and ask for the chance to atone with more heroic deeds, and the paladin is going to apologise for being an ass over it and forgive him on those conditions to redeem him from the grasp of evil. The rogues are going to try and remember that they are meant to be heroes in future, and the paladin is going to bear in mind that everyone makes mistakes.
"Or, if you cannot handle that, you can ALL go make up new characters."
|
|
It's at this moment, a nearby drunk begins harassing the half-elf rogue (assasin) nearby for being a half-elf. The pair of rogues, in their current state of mind, instinctively shoot him (clockwork era guns)killing him in the middle of the bar. The ominous silence is broken by the paladin who, at this time, rounds up the whole bar to his side to fight against the undead and wanders off like nothing happened.
Now that the undead have been purged, the paladin is going after the rogues for killing the innocent drunk, to which they've argued "but you did nothing to stop us/him".Sounds like bad play all round, frankly.
Shooting somebody in the bar for insulting you? Stupid Evil.
Not doing something about it until later? Stupid ... er, well just stupid.
A Suggested Solution: paladins do not have to be up-tight douchebags. It is more important for a paladin to redeem an evil-doer than to kill or punish them. I suggest that you pull the players aside for a chat and explain it to them something like this:
"In character, you are friends, you both know the other is capable of serious heroism and together you've saved a city. At certain points your characters had the stress get to them and did things (or didn't do things) that they shouldn't have (or should have done things they didn't). So here's what can happen: the assassin can realise he went to far, and apologise to his friend and ask for the chance to atone with more heroic deeds, and the paladin is going to apologise for being an ass over it and forgive him on those conditions to redeem him from the grasp of evil. The rogues are going to try and remember that they are meant to be heroes in future, and the paladin is going to bear in mind that everyone makes mistakes.
"Or, if you cannot handle that, you can ALL go make up new characters."
This. Exactly this. I'm gonna copy this in my "GM Notes" for future reference. Hope you don't mind =)
|
|
If you weren't thinking about it then I think it'd be manslaughter and not murder, or bugslaughter. Either way I don't think it's murder.Have you ever killed an insect without thinking about it?
Congratulations, you are now Evil!
Never said it was murder. It was killing. It was said that killing is Evil, therefore killing a bug is Evil.
This. Exactly this. I'm gonna copy this in my "GM Notes" for future reference. Hope you don't mind =)It's at this moment, a nearby drunk begins harassing the half-elf rogue (assasin) nearby for being a half-elf. The pair of rogues, in their current state of mind, instinctively shoot him (clockwork era guns)killing him in the middle of the bar. The ominous silence is broken by the paladin who, at this time, rounds up the whole bar to his side to fight against the undead and wanders off like nothing happened.
Now that the undead have been purged, the paladin is going after the rogues for killing the innocent drunk, to which they've argued "but you did nothing to stop us/him".Sounds like bad play all round, frankly.
Shooting somebody in the bar for insulting you? Stupid Evil.
Not doing something about it until later? Stupid ... er, well just stupid.
A Suggested Solution: paladins do not have to be up-tight douchebags. It is more important for a paladin to redeem an evil-doer than to kill or punish them. I suggest that you pull the players aside for a chat and explain it to them something like this:
"In character, you are friends, you both know the other is capable of serious heroism and together you've saved a city. At certain points your characters had the stress get to them and did things (or didn't do things) that they shouldn't have (or should have done things they didn't). So here's what can happen: the assassin can realise he went to far, and apologise to his friend and ask for the chance to atone with more heroic deeds, and the paladin is going to apologise for being an ass over it and forgive him on those conditions to redeem him from the grasp of evil. The rogues are going to try and remember that they are meant to be heroes in future, and the paladin is going to bear in mind that everyone makes mistakes.
"Or, if you cannot handle that, you can ALL go make up new characters."
Meeee Too. +1
Mr. $mith it is the Witchfire Trilogy, this all started just before the Longest Night began (shooting the dwarf in the bar), and ended about an hour after the undead were fought off (sword drawn, manacle chase).
I've talked to the assassin already and given her a compromise situation that she can work with, and explained that if things aren't resolved, they will both be making new characters (the rogue has managed to keep himself out of harm's way for the time being). Next stop - paladin conversation.
why are people treating the paladin like he's the bad guy?
it sounds to me like the rogues made their choices. the bar bit as described should make them public outlaws, the other people I'n the party other than the paladin shouldn't exactly be happy either.
Agree. The Paladin is 100% in character to try to rectify the blatant murder in front of him. For that matter, any GOOD character should be doing the same, Lawful or otherwise... As the town was getting invaded at the moment, then it is ALSO in-character to deal with this later. The needs of the many over the needs of the few and all that...
If ANYONE screwed up, it was the assassin... What in the WORLD was he thinking?? If someone insults you... you don't just CAP them in the bar... That's how LOSERS fight!!
You're an ASSASSIN... You take the insults like a man... Ditch the party later... track the offender down and kill him in an alley in the dead of the night. Depending on HOW evil you are... you take out his family too, just for good measure ^_^
Any assassin who leaves a room full of witness including the city guard and a paladin should be drummed out of the guild!!
This reminds me of a Ravenloft 1890's game I played in once... We walked into a bar, someone pushed a pc... the pc blew the guys head off with a scattergun...
And promptly got arrested.. thrown in jail... and never seen again. Ironically it was that players first night in the game, and as our group was split at the time... MY guy never even MET him...
Some things you just CAN"T do without SOME kind of reprecussions....
|
|
If ANYONE screwed up, it was the assassin... What in the WORLD was he thinking?? If someone insults you... you don't just CAP them in the bar... That's how LOSERS fight!!
I know, right? Everyone gets to call himself "assassin" these days. Some of those guilds have not standards at all. "Oh yeah, just kill some random bloke just to watch him die and we'll let you in". Disgusting.
Professional work ethics keep me from doing anything about it. I'd like to just murder all those "assassins" - I'll call them jackassassins from now on - in that pretender guild, but I can hardly do so just for fun.
Anyone want to put a hit on them? Let's say two copper pieces.
|
|
Never said it was murder. It was killing. It was said that killing is Evil, therefore killing a bug is Evil.If you weren't thinking about it then I think it'd be manslaughter and not murder, or bugslaughter. Either way I don't think it's murder.Have you ever killed an insect without thinking about it?
Congratulations, you are now Evil!
Well then killing an evil person is evil.
|
|
You are correct sir! Remember, we're talking about a game based on murderous hobos breaking into peoples houses. The only reason we aren't appalled by it is because we don't consider orcs and goblins to be real people. :P
Don't forget the other adventurer cash-cow, graverobbing.
Nothing says 'adventurer' like staggering out of some champion / chieftan / kings heavily-trapped tomb to get the rings you pried off of his dead fingers appraised.
[I read somewhere that some of the pharaoh's tombs were robbed *before they finished sealing them up.* Can you imagine the frustration on the faces of the latter-day tomb robbers, having to struggle to get into the place only to find it already picked clean?]
I'm siding with the paladin here. His player showed great maturity in having the character delay in vengeance until the apocalypse was over. The assassin, on the other hand, sounds like somebody who doesn't know how evil works, and who decided it means "kill whoever, even if it'll turn out badly for me."