One fun thing about playing an evil character, is that you can do as much good as you want. It's utterly liberating. You are, in fact, much freer to do good, than a Paladin, as you will never have to worry about your code of conduct restricting you from freeing people who have been lawfully enslaved, or defying the commands of a corrupt authority, or 'behaving dishonorably,' or using the most effective means necessary to save innocents (such as setting poisoned traps for the oncoming raiders).
Make evil-sounding excuses for the good deeds you do, and leave everyone thoroughly confused.
Define your character choices around pride, arrogance, greed, selfishness, etc. and you can justify all sorts of 'heroic' behavior, like refusing to leave allies behind, or saving a village, or freeing slaves, or even setting up an orphanage.
It's easiest in games where the GM sets up some less-than-black-and-white situations for the Paladin to have to RP his way around (instead of one who just blithely ignores the Paladin's code and alignment, and allows the player to run him as a Fighter with super-powers), as your evil character can Occam's Razor his way through the ethical Gordian Knots. While the Paladin is still figuring out how he can free the slaves without losing his kewl sooper-powerz, you can just go, "Bang. I free the slaves / save the village / unseat the corrupt Duke."
And if the Paladin is utterly trapped by some moral or ethical dilemna, and it would be inappropriate for your evil dude to have saved the day, just flat-out lie. "I didn't free the slaves! Why on earth would I do that? Lawless abolitionist scum!"
Seems like you're trying to turn Lawful Evil into Chaotic Good. Lawful Evil no more defies law than a Lawful Good character. There is nothing inherently evil in lawbreaking, just something inherently lawless(chaotic).
|
Lawful Evil no more defies law than a Lawful Good character. There is nothing inherently evil in lawbreaking, just something inherently lawless(chaotic).
In the mind of a paladin, the edicts of an arbitrary and capricious tyrant are chaotic evil. An authority is to be respected only if they are ethically legitimate.
Lawful Evil no more defies law than a Lawful Good character. There is nothing inherently evil in lawbreaking, just something inherently lawless(chaotic).In the mind of a paladin, the edicts of an arbitrary and capricious tyrant are chaotic evil. An authority is to be respected only if they are ethically legitimate.
I suppose the first thing i should say is that I don't understand how that is a response to me saying that Lawful Evil characters wouldn't act like Chaotic Good ones. I never said anything about how a Paladin views the world. Having said that, I'm clueless as to why a Paladin would see a Lawfully Evil empire as Chaotic Evil. He'd oppose either. I suppose it's that dump stat of 7 leaving him too stupid to differentiate law from chaos?
I think of a Paladin as more Superman than Judge Dredd, personally, but YMMV.
Lawful Evil no more defies law than a Lawful Good character. There is nothing inherently evil in lawbreaking, just something inherently lawless(chaotic).In the mind of a paladin, the edicts of an arbitrary and capricious tyrant are chaotic evil. An authority is to be respected only if they are ethically legitimate.
That depends, if a tyrant took over a country (by force) two years ago then yes a paladin could very well start a war against them. If on the other a paladin is on Chelliax then he's pretty much screwed because (to my understanding) the Chelliax empire's rules are totally legal and totally legitimate, now if another country started a crusade to free the Chelliax people from it's evil rules then it's a different story.
Lawful Evil no more defies law than a Lawful Good character. There is nothing inherently evil in lawbreaking, just something inherently lawless(chaotic).In the mind of a paladin, the edicts of an arbitrary and capricious tyrant are chaotic evil. An authority is to be respected only if they are ethically legitimate.
...did you just double cite yourself?
All conversations about Paladins inherently devolve into the absurd - "You must unquestioningly and rigidly adhere to my arbitrary definition of a relative morality!" where "my" is a DM, Paladin's player, or stick-in-the-mud. Only once have I seen a description of a Paladin I like.
Only once have I seen a description of a Paladin I like.
Here's the one I enjoy:
Trouble.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
<Set channeling my Lawful Evil character snipped>
Seems like you're trying to turn Lawful Evil into Chaotic Good. Lawful Evil no more defies law than a Lawful Good character. There is nothing inherently evil in lawbreaking, just something inherently lawless(chaotic).
Keep in mind *law* is not 'laws of where I'm standing.' A Lawful good character won't beat a peseant every Tuesday, because the land they're in currently has that as a law.
Lawful Evil can be driven by their own code. Example would be something like the Mafia, that has their own code and rules, but breaks laws all the time.
To use my own Shadrach* again, he *did* save villages, risked his life for innocents and set up an orphanage. He did it for his own gain in the long run. But he didn't directly lie (omission was fine) he didn't start fights (but almost certainly would finish them) and his best friend in the party was the NG cleric.
If not for DM intervention this would have scored him his greatest victory.
It culminated when we were infiltrating a cult. You needed robes to bypass the portal. When we first came through I burned all the extra robes 'to make sure no one could escape'. I arranged for the party to let the rogue and Shad run rear guard, then I used skate to get ahead of her as the portal was collapsing. I put on a robe, grabbed her robe and dove through the portal. The party had already evacuated the building on the other side, so I could stash the extra robe and lament that she 'was right behind me'. Perfect, untracable murder.
The DM decided to fiat her able to get through the collapsing portal, but she couldn't prove that I plotted her death.
It's possible to be Lawful to your code, and let people think you're a paragon of virtue.
*
One question I never saw answered in this thread is why a party that contains an evil character and apparently a number of other shady types would permit a character who is openly a paladin to join them. The only answer I can see is the "PC radar" one -- because he is a player character, you have to treat him as one of your group since it would be a very unfriendly move to snub the paladin and eject him from the party -- something you would have no qualms about doing with a similar NPC.
On the other hand, a player newly joining or rejoining the group does have a reasonable obligation to create a character that the rest of the party would be willing to adventure with. This is where somebody dropped the ball -- either nobody informed this player about the nature of the existing PCs, or he knew and didn't care. In the former case, you have a group problem that will require a group solution -- or, more likely (since the new/returning player created his character in consultation with the GM) a passive aggressive GM who was unwilling to come out and say that he did not like your character. In the latter case, you have a jerk of a player who will probably keep causing trouble no matter what the rest of you do.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in disentangling this mess.
|
|
All conversations about Paladins inherently devolve into the absurd - "You must unquestioningly and rigidly adhere to my arbitrary definition of a relative morality!" where "my" is a DM, Paladin's player, or stick-in-the-mud. Only once have I seen a description of a Paladin I like.
There isn't a single person on the face of the earth who enjoys being robbed or assaulted (lack of consent being integral to their very definitions) -- there's nothing arbitrary or relative about it. It is, in fact, one of the most objectively determinable aspects of sentient existence.
Lawful Evil can be driven by their own code.
*shrug*
Here's what the Core says (I shall massively snip for brevity and to succinctly address the topic at hand):
Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters... respect authority...
Chaotic characters follow their consciences...
Law implies... obedience to authority...
Chaos implies freedom...
Following your own code is Chaotic. Following the code of a structured organization (like the church or the mafia) may also be Lawful in addition to the Lawfulness of obeying the laws of a government. The question is whether you follow your conscience or or whether you subject yourself to a higher authority, obeying even when that authority makes decisions with which you do not agree.
All conversations about Paladins inherently devolve into the absurd - "You must unquestioningly and rigidly adhere to my arbitrary definition of a relative morality!" where "my" is a DM, Paladin's player, or stick-in-the-mud. Only once have I seen a description of a Paladin I like.There isn't a single person on the face of the earth who enjoys being robbed or assaulted (lack of consent being integral to their very definitions) -- there's nothing arbitrary or relative about it. It is, in fact, one of the most objectively determinable aspects of sentient existence.
I expected you would pull something like that. There are certain items that are not relativistically moral. Fighting devils, stopping murders, what have you. Erastil and Torag are not going to have the same nitty gritty beliefs of what is good and lawful despite both being lawful good. Both are not always going to take the same actions given the same situation.
People often fail to admit that LG people do not act like robots or clones of each other. No two LG chars are gonna act the same to everything. Paladins are no different, heck nothing stops two paladins from being on different sides of a fight or outright hating each other.
Each order of paladins are gonna have different ideas and goals on how and what the code is. Even different people within the order.
It just isn't cut and dry on many things. The big ones sure, but that goes for all LG people doesn't it.
Geas and Cure spells are not in the same ballpark. If you started using abilities that can hurt/kill another player, do you NOT think they're entitled to respond in kind? Would you expect them to just roll over and take it?Just for the record: The original topic was that the paladin used detect evil and you felt justified to just let loose.
Geas might hurt/kill. It depends on how it's used. In the case you mentioned, it probably couldn't hurt the character. It was about stopping someone from doing something offensive to the wizard.
The Geas example was from a game I was playing in, it happened between two other players. The Geas wasn't to stop the other player from hurting people, it was to control his behavior, because the wizard didn't like something that he was doing that had nothing to do with the wizard (other than he witnessed it happening).
I agree, attacking for a Detect Evil would be overboard, but the general theme of my first post, if you bothered to read it, was about TALKING first and setting up guidelines between the players. Establishing if they wanted to start an in-party fight, or would rather avoid it. I gave examples of how things can go terribly wrong, and you jumped on those examples as if that was what I was advocating, when in fact, I'm really suggesting the opposite.
It's probably one reason that I dislike people who break up other peoples posts and respond to sections of it. I didn't post in sections, I made one post. Paragraphs are intended to be broken up when you're talking about different ideas, but sometimes it's better to put all the paragraphs together to form context, hence why they were all included in one post. I blame the internet for this kind of writing though, in our 140 character society, it's getting rarer and rarer that people can string together paragraphs.
To the OP: you cannot help but expend resources to thwart the paladin's detect evil ability, role-playing considerations and common courtesy aside. I recommend a ring of mind shielding at your earliest opportunity. It provides a sovereign defense against that ability. The paladin will thereafter have to justify smiting you.
You might investigate various defensive spells to add to your spell book and growing collection of scrolls.
|
|
To the OP: you cannot help but expend resources to thwart the paladin's detect evil ability, role-playing considerations and common courtesy aside. I recommend a ring of mind shielding at your earliest opportunity. It provides a sovereign defense against that ability. The paladin will thereafter have to justify smiting you.
You might investigate various defensive spells to add to your spell book and growing collection of scrolls.
Either that, or a thin sheet of lead. Sometimes, dhampir do that to prove their manliness. ;-)
You're a necromancer?
Magic jar an innocent bystander then disguise your host body as yourself with a hat of disguise.
Detect evil will pick up the alignment of the host body, rather than yourself (I had an NPC which who did this once to avoid PC brain scans). If the paladin sees you summoning undead or some such, and kills you for it, he's only succeeded in killing an innocent farmer instead, and may well lose his powers for it.
Either that, or a thin sheet of lead. Sometimes, dhampir do that to prove their manliness. ;-)To the OP: you cannot help but expend resources to thwart the paladin's detect evil ability, role-playing considerations and common courtesy aside. I recommend a ring of mind shielding at your earliest opportunity. It provides a sovereign defense against that ability. The paladin will thereafter have to justify smiting you.
You might investigate various defensive spells to add to your spell book and growing collection of scrolls.
Ah, there is the "machismo" factor to consider. :-)
wonders how much an explorer's outfit entirely lined with a thin sheet of lead would encumber the wearer...
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 8
|
I feel your pain: I've got a LN Chelaxian Wizard, who's Neutral due to more of an "overall average" of her actions. While she has no desires to hurt innocents, she's just as happy sacrificing them for a Planar Binding-type spell, as saving the world from the BBEG.
Really, she just doesn't care about that section of her alignment: She's Lawful to a fault... and that's about as far as her alignment concerns her.
Anywho, recently she picked up that aforementioned Planar Binding spell of the Greater version, and our Stupid Good Paladin had something to say about it: Bind anything Good, I'll kill you. Bind anything Evil, I'll kill you....
I didn't think that was very Paladin-like, but he was allowed to do so anyway.
That's not even to mention my LE Imp familiar he's stated he'll kill next time he sees it... so there goes using my familiar.
I've thought about just going ahead and Binding things and utilizing my familiar, but I really don't want to cause inter-party tension... and I'm pretty sure I could kill him with a little planning :P
I didn't realize you were feeling so limited by our very own hand of Desna. The rest of us wouldn't just sit there and let one of you beat the other up, but I doubt it'll ever get to that level. After all, he did just cure your wizard of a bad case of mummy rot, and as far as we know your wizard is the only member of the party with a reliable way to plane shift us out of... the place we're in. Despite what you may have heard, Chels and Varisians can work together!
It's likely we can do something about your Imp as well, if you'd like to use it more. Show the Paladin the clause in the Imp's contract that releases it from your service if it's killed, and remind him that it isn't out causing trouble as long as it's working for you. This strategy may work for more impressive bound devils as well.
Also I'm not sure if you or the Paladin's player noticed, but you're not the only one with some secrets a Paladin wouldn't like. Nobody made a big deal out of it, but last session another party member was unexpectedly injured by a stray splash of holy water with no explanation given. And in case you forgot, the other guy is a contract killer in his free time. Even my character has a few dirty tricks up his sleeve for a rainy day.
|
|
Ask the paladin if he had just cause to inspect your aura and moreover if he was doing so under some legal authority and if so which. Remind him that presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of justice (which is LG by another name) whereas presumption of guilt is the cornerstone of tyranny (LE) and ask him which of those two alignments he serves.
I totally understand where this sentiment is coming from, but it just bugs me when modern Western (American in particular) values and rights are superimposed on a medieval setting. The right to privacy is a fairly modern invention, and lawful agents of the King or the Church in days of yore didn't really need to ask permission when they came knocking irrespective of if their intention was noble or otherwise. Heck, even today Police Officers have the right to frisk you for weapons (which in my mind is comparable to a detect evil) if they have a reasonable suspicion (you know, like, walking around with a bunch of undead minions).
Of course what exactly is "lawful" is pretty campaign specific. If you want your campaign world to have an American style Constitution more power to you.
Personally, as a GM I would of nipped this one in the bud. I would of insisted that the new guy played a non-good character for the sake of realism and party harmony. Barring extreme GM fiat there is no reason a Paladin would just join up with a group of low character. If the incoming player was dead set on playing a Paladin I would allowed him to play as a LE Paladin and just have him follow the code of the Hellknights or something similar.
|
|
I expected you would pull something like that. There are certain items that are not relativistically moral. Fighting devils, stopping murders, what have you. Erastil and Torag are not going to have the same nitty gritty beliefs of what is good and lawful despite both being lawful good. Both are not always going to take the same actions given the same situation.All conversations about Paladins inherently devolve into the absurd - "You must unquestioningly and rigidly adhere to my arbitrary definition of a relative morality!" where "my" is a DM, Paladin's player, or stick-in-the-mud. Only once have I seen a description of a Paladin I like.There isn't a single person on the face of the earth who enjoys being robbed or assaulted (lack of consent being integral to their very definitions) -- there's nothing arbitrary or relative about it. It is, in fact, one of the most objectively determinable aspects of sentient existence.
You're not actually arguing with what I wrote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ask the paladin if he had just cause to inspect your aura and moreover if he was doing so under some legal authority and if so which. Remind him that presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of justice (which is LG by another name) whereas presumption of guilt is the cornerstone of tyranny (LE) and ask him which of those two alignments he serves.I totally understand where this sentiment is coming from, but it just bugs me when modern Western (American in particular) values and rights are superimposed on a medieval setting. The right to privacy is a fairly modern invention, and lawful agents of the King or the Church in days of yore didn't really need to ask permission when they came knocking irrespective of if their intention was noble or otherwise. Heck, even today Police Officers have the right to frisk you for weapons (which in my mind is comparable to a detect evil) if they have a reasonable suspicion (you know, like, walking around with a bunch of undead minions).
Of course what exactly is "lawful" is pretty campaign specific. If you want your campaign world to have an American style Constitution more power to you.
Personally, as a GM I would of nipped this one in the bud. I would of insisted that the new guy played a non-good character for the sake of realism and party harmony. Barring extreme GM fiat there is no reason a Paladin would just join up with a group of low character. If the incoming player was dead set on playing a Paladin I would allowed him to play as a LE Paladin and just have him follow the code of the Hellknights or something similar.
We already impose modern Western/American values all over the setting willy-nilly and nobody bats an eyelash. Are women emancipated and able to hold almost any position of power/authority? Check. Is slavery only allowed by "evil" nations and supported by "evil" religions? Check. Are "drugs" addictive and dangerous but alcohol which is no big deal, up to and including the idealized hero being a guy with a sword in one hand and a beer stein in the other? Check. Are all these things post-Enlightenment if not 20th century? Check.
Honestly, if your anachronism bells aren't going off from backdating women's suffrage from the 1920s to the 1420s, or outlawing slavery from 1863 to 1363, then privacy rights which partially date back to the Bill of Rights and partially to rulings from 1923? Exactly what is the problem?
If someone was actually willing to play a medieval paladin, including the vigils, the self flagellation, the mortification of the flesh and so on, then yeah, I could see a full on medieval values system. That said, I think that arguing that the definitions of good and evil I offered are too modern doesn't hold up when the paladin doesn't act medieval either.
I totally understand where this sentiment is coming from, but it just bugs me when modern Western (American in particular) values and rights are superimposed on a medieval setting. The right to privacy is a fairly modern invention, and lawful agents of the King or the Church in days of yore didn't really need to ask permission when they came knocking irrespective of if their intention was noble or otherwise. Heck, even today Police Officers have the right to frisk you for weapons (which in my mind is comparable to a detect evil) if they have a reasonable suspicion (you know, like, walking around with a bunch of undead minions).
I don't think privacy necessarily is that modern of a concept. First off, the word first shows up in the 15th century, which means that they understood the concept. Second, I think a major part of looking at privacy is looking at ownership rights.
In a feudal society where lords and knights own all the land and commoners just "rent" it from them, of course the lord/knight can search your house, he owns it. A traveling lord/knight might not have that right though, unless given permission by the laws of the land though. The king, being an uber-lord, would of course have permission.
I think it still stands though, search someones home (or mind) is tantamount to accusing them of a crime. If something valuable that never leaves my home goes missing and I come into your home searching for it, that's essentially saying I think you took it. Making such an accusation can have ramifications sometimes.
The Inquisition was very powerful, but they were given that power by some of the highest authorities in their societies, the Pope and whichever king ruled that land. Typically they targeted those who were weak or already marginalized by society in some fashion. I've never seen anyone argue that the Inquisition could even remotely be considered Good, so I'm not sure using them as an example makes appropriate behavior for Paladins more clear.
|
|
We already impose modern Western/American values all over the setting willy-nilly and nobody bats an eyelash. Are women emancipated and able to hold almost any position of power/authority? Check. Is slavery only allowed by "evil" nations and supported by "evil" religions? Check. Are "drugs" addictive and dangerous but alcohol which is no big deal, up to and...
I see where you are coming from but all of these standards and personal rights are arbitrary lines in the sand depending on the campaign world. Look at the nation of Katapesh in the Inner Sea. Apparently this is a Neutral nation but it is the cornerstone of an active Inner Sea slave trade, and drug dens and exports are a flourishing trade. What exactly are person's "rights" in a place like this?
It's all of matter of how you choose to define your campaign world and personal preference really. Personally, I just feel making Pallys need permission slips or a search warrant every time they want to detect evil on someone is a bit silly. It's kind of hard to be the righteous fist of the gods when you constantly have to go around apologizing for doing your job. But again that's just my opinion and preference.
We already impose modern Western/American values all over the setting willy-nilly and nobody bats an eyelash. Are women emancipated and able to hold almost any position of power/authority? Check. Is slavery only allowed by "evil" nations and supported by "evil" religions? Check. Are "drugs" addictive and dangerous but alcohol which is no big deal, up to and including the idealized hero being a guy with a sword in one hand and a beer stein in the other? Check.
No on the first one (depends on specific society but most of them are ptriarchic ones), you are porbably correct on the second one, and no to the third one (most of the times we don't emphasize on drugs being addictive and dagerous, well more so than any other thing)
You're a necromancer?
Magic jar an innocent bystander then disguise your host body as yourself with a hat of disguise.
Detect evil will pick up the alignment of the host body, rather than yourself (I had an NPC which who did this once to avoid PC brain scans). If the paladin sees you summoning undead or some such, and kills you for it, he's only succeeded in killing an innocent farmer instead, and may well lose his powers for it.
He's a 4th level Necromancer. Magic Jar is a little ways down the road yet.
And it only lasts 1 hour per level. Not exactly long enough to keep a fellow PC fooled longer than a day.
Oh, and you keep your own alignment anyway, as noted in the spell description.
So yeah, doesn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We already impose modern Western/American values all over the setting willy-nilly and nobody bats an eyelash. Are women emancipated and able to hold almost any position of power/authority? Check. Is slavery only allowed by "evil" nations and supported by "evil" religions? Check. Are "drugs" addictive and dangerous but alcohol which is no big deal, up to and...I see where you are coming from but all of these standards and personal rights are arbitrary lines in the sand depending on the campaign world. Look at the nation of Katapesh in the Inner Sea. Apparently this is a Neutral nation but it is the cornerstone of an active Inner Sea slave trade, and drug dens and exports are a flourishing trade. What exactly are person's "rights" in a place like this?
It's all of matter of how you choose to define your campaign world and personal preference really. Personally, I just feel making Pallys need permission slips or a search warrant every time they want to detect evil on someone is a bit silly. It's kind of hard to be the righteous fist of the gods when you constantly have to go around apologizing for doing your job. But again that's just my opinion and preference.
My point is that you can have hazy line-in-the-sand depends-on-your-perspective-and-local-social-values-and-customs definitions all you like, but when you have "Detect Evil" as a spell and as a paladin special ability, you need to have a hard-and-fast definition of evil. Otherwise you have wizards writing monographs about how they detect alignment on a slaver and eunuch-maker in Katapesh and he detects as "Good" (because he's otherwise a devout follower of Sarenrae, tithes to his church, gives to widows and charities etc.) and then they teleport the same man to Andoran and he detects as "Evil" with the capital E.
Does alcohol suddenly become Evil if you have a convention of Temperance ladies suddenly roll into town? Why or why not?
Unless you want to have this sort of "community values" silliness going on, every GM is going have to decide for himself what acts are actively evil in his world and moreover come up with some rational explanation why this is so, and furthermore he should hand a quick summary of this to all the players with any variety of "Detect Evil" capacity or even one rank of Knowledge Religion.
Is hypocrisy evil? What would you call a gang of thieves, murderers, and tomb robbers accusing necromancers and devil summoners of wickedness? And if you can engage in theft, murder, and the desecration of graves without losing a Good alignment tag, then why not a little recreational necromancy and demonology?
And honestly, if you're going to make anyone Evil who does something taboo somewhere, then how is your pally going to distinguish the necromancers from the people who eat shrimp or work on the sabbath?
Oh, and you keep your own alignment anyway, as noted in the spell description.
Oops. Guess I owe my paladin player an apology then. One of my BBEGs used this trick against him for a long time.
Oh well, I guess he had an [conceals alignment] magic item the whole time.