I don't get why lawful good paladins are all up in arms over evil but chaotic gets a free pass. Talk to your DM and see if this aspect of paladinhood would swing
I want to try and play an Evil Character if I can in this campaign I'm in, but the party has a Paladin who'd likely use Detect Evil on me as soon as they spot me.
I know I could go Belkar and carry a lead sheet around, but I was thinking something a little less suspicious.
Right now the party is level 4. I may or may not be able to play this character until a higher level, but for the sake of this thread, lets assume level 4 options here.
I was thinking about a Wizard, but if some other class is just plain excellent at hiding his evil from an alignment detection - while being similar to the Wizard- then awesome.
I know that other classes get Undetectable Alignment, which is pretty cool, but the Wizard does not.
What else can I do here?
The problem is that you want to "get away with" having the alignment, not the method (or lack thereof). A better idea is to work with the GM and Paladin player outside of the game and, truth be told, probably play something that's not evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why lawful good paladins are all up in arms over evil but chaotic gets a free pass. Talk to your DM and see if this aspect of paladinhood would swing
Because the gods don't empower them to fight chaos?
Because chaos can go alongside with good but evil not?Becuase for paladins good is worth more than lawful? (both are needed but one is more important)
If you follow Moorkok's ideas for Law and Chaos, because Law accepts that chaos should have a presence?
Take your pick from the above or find something else, bottom line is that paladins don't go after chaos just for being chaos. (anymore that a lawful good character would)
I don't get why lawful good paladins are all up in arms over evil but chaotic gets a free pass. Talk to your DM and see if this aspect of paladinhood would swing
I think Paizo and other gaming companies are trying to avoid pressuring Paladins to kill hippies.
My suggestion on this...
Watch some episodes of the first season of Blake's 7. If you want to see an example of a group with a LG idealist and LE cynic that still manage to work together that's probably the best example I can think of.
Without spoiling anything, that is a horrible suggestion based on where they all end up...
;)
|
"Help me get away with being Lawful Evil..."
What is your purpose of being Lawful Evil, whether there is a paladin or not in the party?
If it's to have an excuse to be a douche and screw the other players over, no amount of rules-jiggering will change you being a douche.
If it's to play an anti-hero or some legitimate roleplaying idea, and you will not be screwing party harmony in general or the other players fun in particuar a simple talk about your goals with the GM and the other players at the table will suffice. Get them on board and you won't need to jigger the rules. Even the paladin's code is remarkably easy to factor in when the GM and other players are involved. Just one of a million possible angles: "oh, this LE rapscallion is my relative/soul-mate/friend, and it's my duty to make the impossible effort to redeem him back to the light!" A GM can literally miracle up a waiver to a paladin for this rule: Who can say the paladin's deiety does or does not appear in a dream one fitful night and verbally express this in clear language? Why, the GM can! :D
Evil doesn't mean you can't be good and true to your friends. If you want to be evil and NOT be good and true to your party mates, you're being evil for the wrong reasons and you're just being a douche :)
Rather than working with him, have you considered forcing him to work around you?
I once played a Paladin in 3.5. As it so happens one member the party was LE. I never caught on because he played the part quite well. I eventually used Detect Evil on him and realized the truth. It turned out that he had an elaborate backup plan in case this ever happened. I don't recall exactly how it worked but he summoned a demon and swindled me into accidentally committing an evil act. The party was in absolute shock, he never told anybody. Because I had communed with a demon the DM ruled out that I could either loose my Paladin status or convert to a Blackguard. I chose Blackguard, and to this date it was the most fun character I ever had.
Though I know Blackguard doesn't exist in Pathfinder you could probably find some way to convert him to Anti-Paladin if he ever finds out.
|
I want to try and play an Evil Character if I can in this campaign I'm in, but the party has a Paladin who'd likely use Detect Evil on me as soon as they spot me.
If you've broken no laws, the paladin has no legal right to act against you. To do otherwise would be a violation of his lawful alignment.
As your lawful as well, and thus working within the framework of the law, the best the paladin will be able to do without violating his own alignment is scowl at you.
If he tries anything, pursue legal recourse, using the laws of the society of which the paladin is a part. He'll find in most societies that hunting down and killing law abiding citizens is very much a crime, no matter how black their hearts. The usage of legal systems to destroy an opponent is very much at the heart of lawful evil.
|
I want to try and play an Evil Character if I can in this campaign I'm in, but the party has a Paladin who'd likely use Detect Evil on me as soon as they spot me.
If you've broken no laws, the paladin has no legal right to act against you. To do otherwise would be a violation of his lawful alignment.
As your lawful as well, and thus working within the framework of the law, the best the paladin will be able to do without violating his own alignment is scowl at you.
If he tries anything, pursue legal recourse, using the laws of the society of which the paladin is a part. He'll find in most societies that hunting down and killing law abiding citizens is very much a crime, no matter how black their hearts. The usage of legal systems to destroy an opponent is very much at the heart of lawful evil.
per the PRD....
"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 an atonement 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."purposely playing an evil character in an existing party with a Paladin is a selfish move. Your decision to play X has or will hamper a players ability to play his existing character. It is a d!ck move. Trying to "get away with it" is just a horribly crappy way to join a game.
I suggest reconsidering an evil PC and just join in without trying to cause waves.
|
I want to try and play an Evil Character if I can in this campaign I'm in, but the party has a Paladin who'd likely use Detect Evil on me as soon as they spot me.
I know I could go Belkar and carry a lead sheet around, but I was thinking something a little less suspicious.
Right now the party is level 4. I may or may not be able to play this character until a higher level, but for the sake of this thread, lets assume level 4 options here.
I was thinking about a Wizard, but if some other class is just plain excellent at hiding his evil from an alignment detection - while being similar to the Wizard- then awesome.
I know that other classes get Undetectable Alignment, which is pretty cool, but the Wizard does not.
What else can I do here?
It all comes down to mutual goals. If you are the lesser evil it works, when you cease to be the lesser evil it doesn't.
I played in a campaign with a Red Wizard for over 10 levels because he was interested in defeating the same uber BBEG we were...for different reasons.
Now when the greater evil is no longer there...all bets are off.
per the PRD....
"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 an atonement 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."
Depending on the paladin, it is still doable, it just depends on whether the god involved is more concerned about the lawful aspect or the good aspect. Personally, I think the good vs evil is overly used and the lawful vs chaotic is completely forgotten about, which is silly to me. A paladin is just as lawful as he is good, and both conflicts should be part of playing a paladin. It is natural that one or the other will eventually get emphasized, but that should be due to the specifics beliefs of the individual paladin and the god being served, not because everyone thinks that good vs evil is more important than law vs chaos.
|
I want to try and play an Evil Character if I can in this campaign I'm in, but the party has a Paladin who'd likely use Detect Evil on me as soon as they spot me.
I'd recommend not even trying. Once the GM has allowed one player to choose a Paladin, that limits the rest of the players to not being able to play an evil character, so, effectively, even the GM didn't flat out say to you 'no evil characters,' he's made it a non-viable choice. (Some exceptions may apply. I've had GMs who love nothing so much as inter-party conflict, and wring their hands in glee at the thought of two incompatible character submissions, since it means they won't have to do anything other than sit back and wait for the fireworks. If that seems the case, run. In my experience, if the party doesn't turn on themselves, that sort of GM will start engineering moral dilemnas and such to instigate conflict...)
Play something more Paladin-friendly, and accept that your GM, in allowing a Paladin, will cater towards that player and allow that player to determine what you can play and how you can play.
There are nearly infinite non-evil possibilities, and I'm sure you can find one that's fun in a group restricted by the Paladin's code, even if you don't get the special powers that come with that code.
Indeed, this is probably the ideal situation to play a Paladin yourself, so that, as long as you have to play by their class restrictions, you end up getting their class features as well! No reason not to eat some pie, if you are having to chip in and help pay for it, right?
I want to try and play an Evil Character if I can in this campaign I'm in, but the party has a Paladin who'd likely use Detect Evil on me as soon as they spot me.I'd recommend not even trying. Once the GM has allowed one player to choose a Paladin, that limits the rest of the players to not being able to play an evil character, so, effectively, even the GM didn't flat out say to you 'no evil characters,' he's made it a non-viable choice.
Have you spoken with the rest of the party, yet?
There may be other obstacles, and likely are, besides "the paladin." A cleric of a good or neutral god is bound to uphold their faith. They'll need to consider their god's views and relationships during play. To take an example, let's look at Iomedae.
A cleric is likely to have studied the Acts of Iomedae, a well-known text. Within these texts, she's portrayed as an active force for good against the forces of evil. This is likely not a cleric who "sits idly by" when a LE character is acting out. Under Relationships, at least according to the wikia, "She will not associate or parlay with evil gods or any fiends." A cleric of Iomedae would likely look to these resources and teachings.
Let's look at Shaelyn. Her motto, "true beauty comes from within" places her at odds with LE, which is corrupt within its interior. A LE creature then, may have the potential to be beautiful within, but has chosen the other path. Therefore: "A naturally-talented person who doesn’t try and creates something mediocre is shunned by Shelyn (and by extension, her clergy)."
The above are not the only interpretations. My intent here is not to argue that they are, but to point out: your issue is likely more than "just the paladin."
Let's look at the bigger picture.
A monk must be lawful. If they lose that status, they may no longer advance as a monk, right? And, it is also reasonable to expect that they would act in a lawful manner. Now, does the party monk have a personal code? Are they from a good, or neutral nation whose laws would disagree with a LE outlook?
Committing evil acts will gain notice, even if a PC is subtle about it. This will ask the other PCs to evaluate how they react to your character, if at all.
Nothing is more important than, at the start, sitting down with the other players and discussing just what sort of game it is you're wanting to play. Nothing is more important than really "coming together around the table" in the greater sense of the word.
The phrase "get away with" in your post heading suggests to me that you may be less willing to work with your teammates, though I could be mistaken. And if that's the case, I apologize--it just doesn't /seem/ like that, though.
And "coming together" is one of the most important aspects of a group game like DnD.
|
|
purposely playing an evil character in an existing party with a Paladin is a selfish move. Your decision to play X has or will hamper a players ability to play his existing character. It is a d!ck move. Trying to "get away with it" is just a horribly crappy way to join a game.
I suggest reconsidering an evil PC and just join in without trying to cause waves.
A very selfish move, almost Lawful Evil 8p
|
I'm playing a level 12 Fighter/ level 1 Paladin in a game where there is a Loyal Evil DMPC in the team. We have no problem, and a lot of fun.
Heck, the evil character even likes mine, even though I'm suspicious just in case something turns wrong - but the two characters' personality tends to push toward a common goal and respect despite the moral differences.
Talk to your DM and your fellow player about this. If you play an evil character just to be an ass with the paladin, then don't.
On the other hand, don't forget that playing a paladin isn't a free tell-your-group-how-they-HAVE-to-be card. The paladin may give advices or opinions, he's not the secondary DM... as long as you are not voluntarily f*%!ing with him by doing outrageous deeds under his nose and trying to make him fall like there is no tomorrow.
Lying is your friend.
But the truth is a better one. Less to remember. A well played Lawful Evil character can easily fit into a 'good' adventuring party. Have a code of honor or conduct you live by and stick to it. Obviously, being evil, you will do what has to be done (and like it), when it is needed. The smart part comes from doing it where no one can find out or see and making sure no witnesses ever get away.
Telling nothing but the truth also keeps you safe, just remember that the truth can be said many different ways. Half truths may be evasive but they are still the truth.
I have played a lawful evil Warlock in an ongoing game for almost 5 years and only 2 people ever suspected his evil, one was a cleric that used detect evil on him when he first joined the group (which was a metagame issue) and another was another players lawful neutral fighter who saw him interrgate a drow assassin once (she (the fighter) got sick and washed her hands of it, though she did not stop him from getting the information we needed in his own way). Careful play can guarentee you stay safe. After all most Lawful Evils can fit fine in a good society. Their goals are not that different from those of good, they are just willing to do the extreme to get them but they should not be stupid in how they do it.
Just remember, most adventuring types are really dangerous. Why would you NOT want them on your side if you could? Better to have loyal associates that can count on you to be loyal to them in return when the poop hits the fan than not.
I'm playing a level 12 Fighter/ level 1 Paladin in a game where there is a Loyal Evil DMPC in the team. We have no problem, and a lot of fun.
Heck, the evil character even likes mine, even though I'm suspicious just in case something turns wrong - but the two characters' personality tends to push toward a common goal and respect despite the moral differences.Talk to your DM and your fellow player about this. If you play an evil character just to be an ass with the paladin, then don't.
On the other hand, don't forget that playing a paladin isn't a free tell-your-group-how-they-HAVE-to-be card. The paladin may give advices or opinions, he's not the secondary DM... as long as you are not voluntarily f+$!ing with him by doing outrageous deeds under his nose and trying to make him fall like there is no tomorrow.
Thank you for bringing this up. It reminded me of something I hadn't considered.
Before dipping into this it's important, also, to ask your DM what their rough definition is Good is, and Evil is. For instance, a DM might rule like this:
--Uncle Ted may get into a fistfight with his brothers when he's drunk, but he's still basically Good. On the opposite end, for Evil, well, you have the woman who adopted a child, and spent evenings stabbing her feet with a knife as a means of enforced punishment.
--Uncle Ted is Good, and abstains from drink at all costs. Evil, on the opposite end is more abstract and about lies and shady dealings.
The above are just examples of how a person might handle it, and since the DM is the DM, and your friends are your friends, it pays to check in. It's not a reason to get into an argument--but to understand from your DM's perspective, their expectations, and from your own--really communicating with your party and friends /what it is you're wanting to play/.
See, "I want to be Evil" may really be saying, "I just want to play someone who doesn't worry about morality. They can do good acts, or evil acts, but I don't really care."
And your DM might say, "that's Neutral."
Don't get in a fistfight over it. Just make sure you're roughly on the same page and understand what you're going after. Focus on being a positive contribution to the table, which is what you want to be.
Don't play an evil character since there is a paladin.
Don't play an evil character.
Hard-coded alignments are a pretty silly idea.
Just play the character you want to play and put "Neutral" on your character sheet.
Morality is relative anyways.
Morality is relative anyways.
Not in DnD/Pathfinder.
Edit: That's the short version, anyway. Alignment is an actual force in these systems. We've got spells like Holy Smite that judge you as they blast you. Pretty much everyone considers themselves good and righteous, so the relative version would leave us with almost everyone as Good. Maybe Lawful too, if it's relative. After all, you follow your own rules. Which may be subject to change at a moment's notice.
The only people that would be Evil would be the card carrying villains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CardCarryingVillain) and people that link to tvtropes.
...
A paladin is just as lawful as he is good,
...
Gods, and here I was hoping NOT to have to devolve this into an alignment debate on pallys any more than it already has become.
IMOHO, your above statement is wrong.
There is no game mechanics way of tracking how devoted you are to a given aspect of your alignment (76% Good, 24% Lawful), but out of mechanics, inevitably one aspect will be more important. In the case of the Pally, it's GOOD.
Read the fluff text at the top of the pally class. It explicitly states that they dedicate themselves to GOOD and fighting EVIL... Honor is important, but takes a back seat to GOOD. In pursuit of their goal, they develop discipline etc etc, but the phrasing reads as a 'side effect' not a root cause.
Their powers are Smite evil, not smite chaos. Detect evil, not detect chaos. Holy Champion is all vs evil, not vs chaos. The Divine bond (mount version) reads '...In her pursuit against evil...'. They have a GOOD aura, not a lawful one.
Read the code of conduct again more carefully. It is explicit that a SINGULAR evil act makes them cease being a paladin (until atonement blah blah blah). It goes on to say they must respect authority etc, but does not explicitly state that a single chaotic act makes a pally fall. I don't know if I missed a memo, or it's shoddy phrasing, but the argument could be made that a Pally could perform a chaotic act in service of a greater good. The code maintains they must respect authority and maintain a lawful alignment (overall), not that a single infringement de-paladinizes them.
All of this points to them being, GOOD first, and Lawful second. Could you make a variant based on Law? Sure. Just like the Anti-paladin is an Evil variant of it. But the default choice for them in any decision between GOOD vs law, is GOOD.
And yes, every time I do refer to pally and GOOD, I do upper case it. It's a different GOOD that they adhere to from the garden variety 'good' of someone who donates to charities when they remember to, or the Good of an active cleric of a Good deity who regularly goes out and heals the sick and injured at risk to himself because it's the 'right' thing to do. Pallys take good, turn it up to 11, then pull out a wrench to see how much further they can take it before the dial snaps.
My philosophy on LE is "a paladin does what he can, I do what I must". You can be a good guy, interested in saving the village, rescuing babies and such but to a LE guy, the ends justify the means. If it means sacrificing a few for the good of the many, so be it. He will kill, steal, poison and butcher to accomplish his goal whether that goal is saving the village or enforcing the Lord's justice. If the paladin's way works, great but you are the guy with the plan B that isn't so nice...Mr Rowe, That sounds more Lawful Neutral (Tendency Towards Evil) than full blown Lawful Evil.
...
Fine. Lets go the whole hog on alignments then...
To quote LE from the SRD
"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion..."
Note the use of the words 'Compassion', 'Life', 'Mercy' and 'dignity' in the above.
If the above character does evil acts, but feels no remorse, then you are most likely Evil or evil.
If the above character does evil acts, but feels genuine remorse over doing it, then you might argue Neutral and caught in a bad place. A headsman who knows that half the people he kills are innocent and is genuinely messed up about it, but can't do anything may well qualify (though quickly may become evil if he comes to terms with it and accepts it that 'killing innocents is just part of the job'). Once you become the Jailor of Chateau D'lf in Count of Monte Christo you start being evil.
If you are actively questioning your lords orders and saying "Killing them? Again? Seriously? Can't we just exile them, or ask them what the problem is?" then you probably aren't evil... but your lord may want to avoid the local church of Iomedae for a while.
If your lord wants them "out of my face", and killing them is "Easier", then you are going to fall into the Evil category remorse or not. One offs, you might be able to get away with the whole 'twisted angst thing' and greater good, and orders being orders. Run with it too often and you'll suddenly find yourself setting off smite alarms with the local pallys.
Some GOOD stuff!!!
~CLAPS~ My thoughts exactly.
Some GOOD stuff!!!~CLAPS~ My thoughts exactly.
Your thoughts on what part? Hoping this wouldn't devolve into another alignment thread?
Given Krunch hasn't chimed in since the 3rd post with any more info, anyone else tempted to let this die? I THINK most of the bases are covered aside from the remaining 126 pages of alignment discussion and if you stand on your head and squint sideways at rule X, what does it mean as opposed to cross referencing this other product, and lying flat in a full solar eclipse and reading rule Y there upside down....
Some GOOD stuff!!!~CLAPS~ My thoughts exactly.Your thoughts on what part? Hoping this wouldn't devolve into another alignment thread?
Given Krunch hasn't chimed in since the 3rd post with any more info, anyone else tempted to let this die? I THINK most of the bases are covered aside from the remaining 126 pages of alignment discussion and if you stand on your head and squint sideways at rule X, what does it mean as opposed to cross referencing this other product, and lying flat in a full solar eclipse and reading rule Y there upside down....
Yes to everything, including the GOOD part.
|
|
Some GOOD stuff!!!~CLAPS~ My thoughts exactly.
Agreed....and too many people have decided that the warped thoughts they have on what Good/Evil is should be what it really is. They tend to classify it as a subjective ideal instead of a constant. If you look at what ED wrote about Compassion, Life, Mercy, and Dignity and take a true look at how society has warped all that into the ends justifying the means style of thinking you probably can figure out that most of the supposedly good people really aren't so much, maybe not evil, but not so good either.
One last point. Your fellow player picked a Paladin for a reason. You must remember that all of you are playing this to have fun and enjoy being with friends. Having said that, you must also remember that you are in a co-op game and it is not just about you. Talk it over with both the GM and the player of the Paladin. But be ready to play either a neutral or good character if either object, since it is not just all about you. And be willing to accept the conciquences of your actions if you do play an evil character. after all, you are playing in a supernatural realm and the God of the Paladin might just decide to send a few messages to the Paladin about the serpent in his midst.
Chris, I agree with you. If done right and all people being mature adults about it, the mix could make an awesome game. OTOH, if ANY ONE of them is not being a mature adult... ~shrugs~ You get my point. I would love to play a Paladin with an evil character in my party, if done right. If done wrong, lots of issue can occur. Up to an including hurt feeling and lost friendships. To the OP, please try to be amture about what you do. If done right, you will be sitting on a gold mine of fun play.
In Golarion there are Paladins that are Hellknights. I think that about says it all.
My Crimson throne campaign ended a while ago, and all the characters are now 20th level. Korvosa is now a kingdom encompassing all the old holdings of Korvosa.
The King of Korvosa is now a 20th level Paladin King Valitor Jaggare, he was really the hero of the party.
He convinced the Order of the Nail, that the Church of Asmodeus was commiting illegal actions by aiding Queen Illeosa, and when he declared full independence from Cheliax he gave the Order of the Nail a choice: Leave Korvosa lands and go back to Cheliax, or swear loyalty as a chapter of Hellknights operating exclusively in Korvosa. The fact Sir Valitor and the other PC's defeated Lorthact after they attacked House Orneleos gives them quite a bit of pull with Hellknights.
The Hellknights order of the Nail now operate under purview of King Valitor the Paladin.
I think it can work as long as your Lawful Evil Character does not play Lawful Stupid Evil and claim you are just 'roleplaying' alignment.
Evil works when played normal. When evil is played crazy it causes party disintegration. Even in an evil party.
I've always wanted to know what it is about paladins that seems to inspire certain players to make something evil. It isn't just on the messageboards, I see it at the gametable as well.
Because for every player who creates an evil character to screw with a paladin, there is a paladin who rolled the class so they can strong-arm the group, kill anything that shows up on their radar with no respect for the plot, players, or nuance, and/or justify general douchebaggery with their alignment (they weren't acting GOOD! By MY definition of good which is the one that counts! I am within my rights to lecture/accost/imprison/attack/bully them!)
I've actually met far more jerky paladins than evil characters. Not to say messing with them is a mature or appropriate response, but I can understand where the urge originates.
As a sidenote I was playing in a campaign once where we (including the paladin's player) had a BLAST hiding our questionable actions from the paladin. I remember particularly a session where we traded off distracting him while the rest of the party desperately tried to hide a few corpses from a deal that had gone south. The fact that the paladin's player was in real life chaotic neutral on a good day just made it more amusing. So as long as everyone's having a good time, alignment problems can actually be fun.
I get the impression that this was a troll post.
Regardless, as DM/GM, I simply do not allow evil alignments in my campaign for this very reason. What I find is that my players often play the same "character" and stick an alignment on their character sheet. Most discussions about alignment turn ugly because everyone, at least in my group, seems to think that they are right and just about it.
Oddly enough, even without an "evil" character, we still had a near in-game blow up over the LG Cleric (a first time player) and his decision to spare a baby troll. It made for some very tense moments, but the party ended up with a troll ally. It ended up being one of the best RP moments we've had so far.
If the OP didn't troll us and is still reading this thread, I agree with the others about talking to the DM and player. Keep things out in the open. The class description is specific, but it's up the DM to make the call and make the game work for the enjoyment of all. If he's OK with that and the players involved can agree to handle things well, it could end up being quite fun.
Don't play an evil character since there is a paladin.Don't play an evil character.
Better.
...
A paladin is just as lawful as he is good,
...
Gods, and here I was hoping NOT to have to devolve this into an alignment debate on pallys any more than it already has become.
IMOHO, your above statement is wrong.
There is no game mechanics way of tracking how devoted you are to a given aspect of your alignment (76% Good, 24% Lawful), but out of mechanics, inevitably one aspect will be more important. In the case of the Pally, it's GOOD.
Read the fluff text at the top of the pally class. It explicitly states that they dedicate themselves to GOOD and fighting EVIL... Honor is important, but takes a back seat to GOOD. In pursuit of their goal, they develop discipline etc etc, but the phrasing reads as a 'side effect' not a root cause.
Their powers are Smite evil, not smite chaos. Detect evil, not detect chaos. Holy Champion is all vs evil, not vs chaos. The Divine bond (mount version) reads '...In her pursuit against evil...'. They have a GOOD aura, not a lawful one.
Read the code of conduct again more carefully. It is explicit that a SINGULAR evil act makes them cease being a paladin (until atonement blah blah blah). It goes on to say they must respect authority etc, but does not explicitly state that a single chaotic act makes a pally fall. I don't know if I missed a memo, or it's shoddy phrasing, but the argument could be made that a Pally could perform a chaotic act in service of a greater good. The code maintains they must respect authority and maintain a lawful alignment (overall), not that a single infringement de-paladinizes them.
All of this points to them being, GOOD first, and Lawful second. Could you make a variant based on Law? Sure. Just like the Anti-paladin is an Evil variant of it. But the default choice for them in any decision between GOOD vs law, is GOOD.
And yes, every time I do refer to pally and GOOD, I do upper case it. It's a different GOOD that they adhere to from the garden variety 'good' of someone who...
You missed where I pointed out that while one will ultimately get more attention than the other, which one will, or at least should, depend largely on the god the paladin worships and the individual paladin's code of conduct, as well as the individual circumstances. In all cases, it is absolutely necessary to avoid the extremes of goody two shoes and being lawful stupid. Paladins can be a fine class, but too many people insist on playing the extremes of one half of the alignment while largely ignoring the other half. If a paladin can get along with a chaotic good party member, they should be able to get along with a lawful evil party member, provided all of the players involve emphasize the part of the alignment they share when dealing with each other, regardless of which part they emphasize when dealing with others. In a party with all three, the lawful evil and chaotic good would be the most likely not be able to find some kind of middle ground that would allow them to work together.
I have a situation similar to this but different in a key way which I haven't seen mentioned in this thread.
I have a NE Wizard ... his evilness is represented in that he will commit evil acts it greatly benefits him. His character concept was developed and created first.
Now I have someone wanting to play a Paladin. So does the reverse of what you have all been suggesting (if there's a paladin in the party, don't play an evil character) apply? If there's an evil person in the party, don't play a paladin?
The two players got into a discussion about how this would all play out last night ... the NE Wizard player mentioned the spell Blood Transcription, which requires him to drink the pint of a dead spellcaster. The paladin player said that if he witnessed that, things would go poorly. As the DM during this discussion I mentioned that if the NE Wizard committed a blatantly evil act in front of the paladin, the paladin could act accordingly, but I would step in if an Out Of Character dispute arose over something. I'm not interested in player vs player confrontation at the table (character vs character confrontation I have less issue with).
|
|
Now I have someone wanting to play a Paladin. So does the reverse of what you have all been suggesting (if there's a paladin in the party, don't play an evil character) apply? If there's an evil person in the party, don't play a paladin?
Absolutely. The rule of gaming with friends is to not intentionally introduce a character that is guaranteed to lead to conflict, whether it be a magic-destroying 1st edition Barbarian in a group of elven Magic-Users, a kobold-race-hating gnome in a group with a kobold, a Rogue who 'roleplays' by stealing party treasure from other PCs, a Necromancer in a group of Paladins and Clerics of the goddess of hating undead, a Ranger with FE: Orcs in a group of half-orcs or a Paladin in a group of morally shady types.
There's eleven classes and seven races to choose from, just in core, so there should be plenty of options that don't automatically spell 'party conflict.'
Most of those classes and races can also be role-played in a way that tolerates something their class or race wouldn't normally like. A Cleric of Pharasma doesn't *have* to kill undead on sight, or refuse to associate with a necromancer (although she may lecture him, from time to time!). A gnome doesn't *have* to flip out and attack kobolds in a frothing rage, he could simply have grown up in a community that goes through the usual drills in kobold-fighting techniques, despite being 800 miles away from the nearest kobold-infested region, and none of the community members having actually ever seen one (and, being gnomes, being more than a little bit curious about these so-called 'racial enemies...'). A Ranger with a favored enemy could have trained to kill a particular type without hating them, just as one can train to hunt animals without necessarily being motivated to kill the whole species because a herd of deer stampeded your mom to death.
With the exception of the Paladin (especially older and more restrictive versions of the Paladin), few races or classes explicitly forbid grouping with other core races or classes, so role-playing a tolerant or non-confrontational member of a traditionally 'race-hating' or 'class-hating' group is almost always an option.
You are playing a character with a high Int and HALF of the alignment the Pally has.
So act intelligently.
Over-emphasise the honourable, lawful and 'keeps-his-word' part of the LE alignment. Tear into the forces of darkness with a vengeance when they threaten chaos or wanton destruction. You oppose such wasteful evil tropes anyway. Avoid taking actions which point to your dark little heart and always conduct your evil out of sight of the Paladin.
Wear bright colours and be friendly with everyone! You do NOT have to brood, cackle, threaten to enslave the world or do anything else 'typical' of your alignment. You can just harbour such delightful thoughts.
You can be the future Emperor Claudius - waiting for a future time to rise to greatness and dispose of your opponents - rationalising that association with the Paladin will give your character a certain 'cache' with the 'great and the good',taking advantage of his reflected glory and reputation and making everyone think you are 'harmless'.
It will make your eventual tyrannically evil plans all the easier to implement as you will be tied with great deeds of good, bright and shiny friends and everyone will find it hard to believe you could be associated with such terrible deeds.
Being a Pally's mate is a great way to obfuscate your rise to evil domination!
Play it that way - and tell the GM your rationalisation - so he realises the self-discipline you show when doing distasteful acts of 'good' is all a means to an end and he doesn't penalise your alignment choice because of 'uncharacteristic' behaviour.
Intelligent evil is sooooo much more fun.
On the mechanical side - get in touch with the local Cult of Asmodeus or something of that nature and explain your plans. Tell them you need their help and by walking behind the Paladin you will be able to ride on his coat-tails to wide acclaim - making you effectively a 'mole' within the forces of fluffiness....
.... they will be falling over themselves to hide your alignment for you!
This. Being evil does not mean you have to irritate the Paladin, or act in a manner that is obviously evil to observers. If you play it right, it should work.