Help me get away with being Lawful Evil in a party with a Paladin

[Valandil Ancalime]

DumberOx wrote:

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).

Yes, if the NE wizard was in the party 1st, it's the paladin's players responsibility to be proactive and talk to the DM and player. You already did what most of us have suggested, talk with everybody involved. So did they come to an understanding and are both players ready and willing to accept the consequences?

[Spyderz]

I ran a campaign a few years ago where the players had been pestering me because I don't normally allow evil characters. I agreed to their request and the whole party was Lawful Evil. We talked about it..and since they were playing evil characters, I didn't start off with a set story in mind. They got together and came up with a brilliantly evil plan...and set off to fulfill it. To this end...they acted more Lawful Good than any group I've ever run with before or since (and I've been gaming 35 years.) In towns they volunteered to help out with problems. They refused rewards for their good deeds. They hunted down the vile and evil and put a stop to them. They also did lots of recruiting of the vile and evil outside of the eyesight of the average people. You could do the same sort of thing with a LE character running with a paladin...be more LG than he is...make him feel bad that he's not living up to your standards...make all of the people love you...and bide your time working towards your great evil goal. I recommend coming up with one that won't affect the paladin's good standing...maybe find a nice country to take over (from the evil forces running it...and then build it's army to crush other big evils. Make sure you're working to convert the bad guys to your way of thinking...be lawful...be organized...hide the evil until the grand reveal. If you're the only evil character, have the DM on the inside of your plan...and maybe turn your character over to the DM to become the BBG for the next campaign (or the continuation of this one.)

[Stasiscell]

Also you are lawful and obey rules and conducts if said paladin attacks you like a rabid dog once he detects your alignment he wouldent exactly be lawful good anymore dnd esque paladins need to play the goodie goodie and follow both law and goodness or else there would be neutral good and chaotic good pallies

[TOZ]

Stasiscell wrote:

or else there would be neutral good and chaotic good pallies

There are, they just don't get called that. :P

[Talonhawke]

May have missed it in the thread but there is an inquisitor archetype that hides your alignment.

[Spyderz]

Oh...another idea...FYI...a non undead/outsider/cleric/paladin don't even detect as evil until level 5 or 6 (depending on which way your DM reads the typo on the table...which hasn't been fixed in 4 printings.) Also there's a cheap UA item in Curse of the Crimson Throne Seven days to the grave.

[LazarX]

Atarlost wrote:

Lawful Evil is trustworthy to the extent that it is lawful. You can trust lawful evil to keep agreements.

You have a chance of trusting them to the LETTER of the agreement, but that's the limit. If they find a way to betray you while keeping to that letter, that's your lookout. Also remember that Lawful Evil types are best at using the rules against those who abide by them.

[TOZ]

I wouldn't even trust them to keep to the letter of the agreement.

I trust them to not break the agreement without consideration. Remember, 'I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further'.

LE will think things through before breaking their word. CE will do it for the lulz.

[DumberOx]

Valandil Ancalime wrote:

Yes, if the NE wizard was in the party 1st, it's the paladin's players responsibility to be proactive and talk to the DM and player. You already did what most of us have suggested, talk with everybody involved. So did they come to an understanding and are both players ready and willing to accept the consequences?

I think so. I let them hash away at it a bit before I stepped in. The paladin player said he assumes he plays as a 3.5 paladin. So I explained the changes to the Code of Conduct which allows for me leeway and also some of the setting ... it will be Carrion Crown, so they'll be in Ustalav. His character is Ustalavic. I explained that paladins in Ustalav aren't going around hunting down every evil in that country ... for instance vampires in Caliphas. Hunting them down would cause a problem in Caliphas if a war between mortals and vampires suddenly started up. As I explained more of the setting, things seemed to settle.

In the end I just explained that I don't want to put restrictions on how either of them players their characters, but if during the cours of play any In Character conflict that arises from it becomes Out of Character conflict, I'll step in. It helps that we're all very old friends. We'll see how it goes.

[Valandil Ancalime]

DumberOx wrote:

I think so. I let them hash away at it a bit before I stepped in. The paladin player said he assumes he plays as a 3.5 paladin. So I explained the changes to the Code of Conduct which allows for me leeway and also some of the setting ... it will be Carrion Crown, so they'll be in Ustalav. His character is Ustalavic. I explained that paladins in Ustalav aren't going around hunting down every evil in that country ... for instance vampires in Caliphas. Hunting them down would cause a problem in Caliphas if a war between mortals and vampires suddenly started up. As I explained more of the setting, things seemed to settle.

In the end I just explained that I don't want to put restrictions on how either of them players their characters, but if during the cours of play any In Character conflict that arises from it becomes Out of Character conflict, I'll step in. It helps that we're all very old friends. We'll see how it goes.

IMO that is the way to handle it. Could you have problems in the future? Probably, after all we are all human (unless angels play PF...) and prone to mistakes. We hear and remember what we want to hear and remember. But you have done all you can. The difference between your situation and the Original Poster is that he wanted to "get away with" playing an evil character in a group with a paladin.