Quick question.
At what point would a Paladin ever consider working with a Diabolist? Or would this just never happen? Playing a game and one of the other players in the group is a Diabolist and am looking at ways of better roleplaying this. My Paladin doesn't know that there is one yet.
Thanks again.
|
Quick question.
At what point would a Paladin ever consider working with a Diabolist? Or would this just never happen? Playing a game and one of the other players in the group is a Diabolist and am looking at ways of better roleplaying this. My Paladin doesn't know that there is one yet.
Thanks again.
It could be a tolerable evil, like in the "fight fire with fire" adage.
Maybe the Diabolist is a good liar and/or the Pally is reallly dim.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the game where one Player is running an evil PC and another a good PC they HAVE to find a reason, NO MATTER WHAT, even if it's not that realistic sounding.
Here's what I did a few years ago with my Paladin when one of the PCs was a CE Drow Rogue/ Assassin: My Pally showed by example, "planted the seed" as the christians say, hoping that one day, maybe years in the future, the drow would see the evil of his ways. At one point we captured a hobgoblin or somesuch in the Underdark (mostly Underdark Campaign) and brought him with us to slowly rehabilitate. it worked over the course of several sessions, the Hoby-Goby went from NE to N and eventually, NG. My PC considered that a great way to show the bastard drow PC that good is good and bad sucks, without me as a Player EVER ONCE talking to the Player running the Drow about his alignment.
I just decided that my Pally's deity (LG Mishakal) had told him in a dream not to go there, that my actions through the course of the Campaign would be good enough.
(And in my mind's eye, 10 years after the Campaign finished that drow was sitting in his rocking chair enjoying life as a retired adventurer and said to himself, "Man, that Pally was right all those years ago -- I'm gonna be good from now on." and changes his Alignment.)
. . . .
As DM, though, when a Player runs an Alignment contrary to the other PCs I have that Player come up with the background or whatever to make the conflicting Alignments work, not the "good" Players.
Either way though, you have to come up with something.
|
Paladin and Diabolist sitting in a tree! K, I, S, S, I, N... oh blood hell what am I doing!?!??!
Sorry lack of sleep here.
As stated above it is possible for them to work together.
1) Diabolist is a class/job. That does not mean a Diabolist HAVE to do things that are against the Paladin's values/vows.
2) Find a way to make sure that whenever a Diabolist IS doing something your Paladin does not approve, do it away/out of sigh of the Paladin.
3) How to work togethar. Well... the options are limitless here, the Paladin could fall in love with the Diabolist! :P And try to "redeem" him/her. They could face a "Greater Evil" and need to work together to fight that. Maybe the Diabolist is LN and therefore not "evil".
4) Remember as long as the Diabolist does not do anything "Evil", you as a Paladin is not required to go all out after the Diabolist.
That's my take!
Spontaneously, i´d say: Demons ? Lot´s of them ?;)
On second thought, i agree with the post above and the general sentiment.
On third thought and research concerning the Diabolist, some further comment:
The Diabolist doesn´t even have to be evil, is yours ? You might try to save his soul, find a way to free him from his cruel masters...
Or you could smite evil him.
Just a thought.
I smell a sit-com brewing! The fastidious Paladin and sloppy Diabolist...this thing almost writes itself. Naturally, they have to be flatmates because the rent in Absalom is so *fiendishly* high! There could be an episode where the Diabolist wants to use the kitchen table to sacrifice a virgin--but, oh no! The Paladin is bringing his mum over for tea! That's a recipe for wackiness if I ever heard one.
Ahem. I think it is too much of a stretch for such an alliance to last very long. Maybe short-term to fight a major battle or to take down *one* common BBEG, but I wouldn't see it lasting any longer than that.
|
|
Really Kelvar,?
So what would you do in your game -- just quit playing?
Force someone else to leave the group?
Force someone to play a PC they don't want to play -- making that Player spend 6-7 hours a week of his free time playing something he doesn't want to play, or leave the group?
No, screw this lame-ass idea that such an alliance can't last very long because we can't think of a completely realistic reason. It doesn't matter if there is good reason or a completely stupid reason (The evil PC's favorite color is green, too! Wow, I like this guy even if he IS evil.)
They have to work together. For whatever dumb (or, hopefully, good) reason.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are just as able to work with a diabolist as they are with a cleric of Desna. Both are equally far from the paladin's alignment, and the paladin will need to justify his association with the chaotic good or the lawful evil character in much the same way.
The fact that the paladin's rules make him more a champion against evil than he is a champion against chaos means that it's a bit EASIER for him to ally with a chaotic good creature, but doesn't make it impossible for a paladin to ally with a lawful evil creature.
Of course, mileage in your particular GM's world may vary.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where's that Hellknight Paladin persona of mine ... ah there it is ...
*dons his helmet*
Within Cheliax, diablerie is protected by law. Provided that proper respect is paid to Asmodeus and no devil is paid or served outside of their appropriate rank in the hierarchy, I have no complaint.
Indeed, I am often in the company of diabolists. They tolerate my presence, often grateful to have a Hellknight for a bodyguard, and quite often believe themselves too clever in their deceit to be found out. In truth, I find it better to watch them closely while indulging that foolish belief. Even being in the presence of a Hellknight often induces them to police themselves, and when they stray they often lead me toward other weak, undisciplined souls more in need of correction. Accompanying a diabolist is, in this way, not unlike fishing. Hrmph!
And, lest I stray from the Chain, a Hellknight is outside the law in order to enforce it, but one should never forget that diabolists are seldom solitary in their malfeasance. Even beyond noble Cheliax, they possess allies, and wield politics and assassins to protect their own. Punish one, and the next day another will stoop further for the power to extract petty vengeance. No, more often than not it is best to atone tomorrow for standing by today. If I am strong enough, the diabolist will witness my actions and recognize their own weakness. Or else make a mistake from which they cannot recover.
And I will be watching.
*removes his helmet*
|
|
Far as I remember, there are NINE alignments in the Corebook. And, sure enough, the same nine in 3E. And will ya looky there, glancing at my 2E PHB, I see the same nine alignments. I wonder if, gimme a sec and let me grab my old 1976 PHB . . . . Ayup, same nine alignments there, too.
Players can play any of the nine alignments just as they can play any race or class -- the key is to make sure you find a way that, no matter what the combo of PCs, they can all work toghether.
|
I'd say focus on what the two of them have in common. Maybe they both want to subvert the devils, the Paladin by destroying them and the Diabolist by exploiting them? Or maybe they both share a similar backstory that the two of you can roleplay? I kinda like the idea that they're brothers-- even if your brother chose a path in life that you just couldn't endorse, you still wouldn't abandon him, right?
Here's a thought, maybe the Diabolist is using the Paladin to try and wiggle his way out of his debts, hoping that the Pally will smite the devils he's indebted to and he'll be off the hook. And in turn, the Paladin is really just using the Diabolist, since it's his goal to seek out and destroy evil and he knows that wherever the Diabolist goes, a devil will show up sooner or later.
Far as I remember, there are NINE alignments in the Corebook. And, sure enough, the same nine in 3E. And will ya looky there, glancing at my 2E PHB, I see the same nine alignments. I wonder if, gimme a sec and let me grab my old 1976 PHB . . . . Ayup, same nine alignments there, too.
Players can play any of the nine alignments just as they can play any race or class -- the key is to make sure you find a way that, no matter what the combo of PCs, they can all work toghether.
Psssst, then don't look in the 4th Ed PHB, since they cut the alignments down to five. Coincidentally, this is one of the very few things I like about 4th, the way they updated alignments.
|
|
Aha.
The difference, Enevhar, is that the 1976 PHB, the 1989 PHB, the 2000 PHB and the Pathfinder Corebook are all , while the game that WotC publishes is decidedly not D&D.
Thanks for proving my point.
EDIT:
Though I certainly do not have, and have never had, a problem with any DM or group saying Alignments don't exist at all in their group. Nowhere on any PC sheet or monster stat block is a place for Alignment. No problem.
But it's a Houserule (maybe a great one, though I like Alignments.)
Thanks for all the advice. In response, he is a LN half elf mage, who's soul/sole desire is to achieve as much power as possible. I am a Dwarven pally of Torag with inclinations towards Angradd (Vow of Vengeance). Yeah, I think I won't have a problem with it as long as the Demons/devils stay out of the way and if one of them gets Smited by accident, then I guess that is okay too.
off topic, what would be better the weapon bond or a Boar?
We are playing Second Darkness campaign.
|
|
Weapon Bond is pretty sweet. Especially if you get a falchion and use weapon bond to make it keen, or really any two-hander.
And if the Diabolist is LN, you should be fine. He's only one step away from your alignment, so he probably won't do anything that chafes your pally too much beyond the obvious devil association.
Just have your pally tell the Diabolist straight-up, "If I see a fiend, I'm smiting it, but otherwise we're good."
|
|
Weapon Bond.
I would say especially in The Second Darkness Adventure Path, but honestly, unless it was specific to the character concept, I dunno if I would ever recommend a mount for a Pally. (Though, I remember about 7 years ago playing in the RPGA there was a guy with a Pally and a mount (no choice back then) and he did it quite well.)
Still, Weapon Bond.
Awesome.
And you don't have to deal with running an animal.
Though a boar would be cool.
|
|
Paladins are just as able to work with a diabolist as they are with a cleric of Desna. Both are equally far from the paladin's alignment, and the paladin will need to justify his association with the chaotic good or the lawful evil character in much the same way.
The fact that the paladin's rules make him more a champion against evil than he is a champion against chaos means that it's a bit EASIER for him to ally with a chaotic good creature, but doesn't make it impossible for a paladin to ally with a lawful evil creature.
In our year long Council of Thieves campaign our Paladin (who was intelligently and very well role played by my friend Jason) was allied with my lawful evil wizard.
Since my wizard believed he could never rule the city of Westcrown openly (nor did he cherish the direct scrutiny that being Lord Mayor of Westcrown would bring; as numerous assassination attempts on the Paladin would later prove) he decided early on that the Paladin was the "ideal face" for governmenship while he, the wizard, would "guide the power" from beind the thrown. (The wizard even had a butler/stooge named Wormtounge.)
During combat my wizard put himself directly in harms way many times to protect the Paladin because my wizard really did believe the Paladin (ie. Smiting Meal Ticket) was destined to rule of Westcrown; on one occassion, with bonded rapier in hand, he charged and put himself directly between the Paladin and three vampires.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are just as able to work with a diabolist as they are with a cleric of Desna. Both are equally far from the paladin's alignment, and the paladin will need to justify his association with the chaotic good or the lawful evil character in much the same way.
Not really. It should be something like this, but the rules have different ideas. I'm talking, of course, about the infamous "associates" paragraph
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.
Flavour text as well as the players', GMs' and designers' intentions might be that the lawful and the good part are equally important, the hard rules only make it hard for evil.
And this is the Pathfinder version, which was softened compared to the 3e version, where they absolutely couldn't associate with evil characters.
Of course, there is the whole "lesser of two evils" and "for the greater good" thing you can use to have paladins and evil characters in the same group, but that doesn't always work. It might work if you're talking about a big, overarching story where it's obvious that the party is working towards a big goal, but many campaigns aren't like that:
In many campaigns, the group has a number of unrelated (or seemingly unrelated) adventures, has some freedom over what missions they go on, and aren't under direct pressure. In such a campaign, I'd say the paladin and the evildoer couldn't just hang out unless the GM changes the rules for the paladin.
In the end, it comes down to this: Much more important than any alignment questions for characters, or alignment compatibility questions is to work together (the players and the GM) to make a party that can work as a team. It takes communication.
I even incorporated that into my house rules. In my campaigns, there is no hard limit on alignments - if you have a concept for a CE character, it's not automatically vetoed.
However, I have these two rules for characters:
1: They must be adventurers. That means they will want to go on adventures and don't have to be bribed with ridiculous rewards for everything. I had to introduce that after a player went off the reservation and things got weird and crazy for a session or two (and not the good kind of weird and crazy).
Of course, the characters won't have to do pro bono work all the time, or fear that they'll have to beg for scraps. It's metagaming, sure, but I find it much more enjoyable all around if the party will agree to go on the adventures (which are usually APs I bought, so the plot is a given, at least to some extent) without too much extortion or bribing going on to get them to do it. The flipside is that I make sure they don't end up too poor or weak.
2: The party must be able to work as a party. This one is the most important rule, ever. There can be some bickering, sure, some teasing, but it is understood that everyone should be OK with this and that it won't lead to the party abandoning their mission to fight each other.
This, as I said earlier, involves communication. No showing up for the first game session with a character nobody knew about beforehand. The players are encouraged to compare notes with each other and the GM, anyway, so they won't end up with three undead blaster priests in a campaign that will have few to no undead, or have three ranged fighters but nobody who can heal or go toe to toe with big, brutish critters, or something like that.
So if they already talk to each other, it should not be too much of a problem to see if they can work together. If one player wants to play a paladin and the other a guy who eats babies and is a serial rapist (just to pick a hyperbolic example. With that concept, the player in question would have his work cut out convincing a sane GM that this character is worthy to be in the campaign as a PC and not as an excuse for the GM to beat the player up), either one of them needs to think of a new character, or the GM needs to think of a reason those two have to work together (and the players have both to be okay with the situation), or or the players themselves have to come up with a good story of why they work together, one both the players and the GM can live with.
That way, you won't end up with a situation where one player will have to throw away his character because no reasonable reason can be found for the characters to stay in the same party.
And, of course, some people just cannot play evil characters.
Weapon Bond.
"Bond. Weapon Bond. Jimmy's my wee brother."
|
|
The rules have different ideas. I'm talking, of course, about the infamous "associates" paragraph.
It's cases like these -- truly bone-headed, bad designing and writing from typically good game designers -- that should be completely ignored. Bulmahn may indeed be a good designer, and he had Monte on his side and Mona above him -- but what a friggin blunder. Ignore it; that's the best thing.
It's somewhat forgivable: All designers, even the best ones, have failed miserably, pathetically even, in writing the Alignment chapters in D&D. It's no wonder that so many gamers hate Alignment in their games, what with designers arguing Law and Chaos is a moral venue and not a personality venue. And that's just the beginning.
The rules have different ideas. I'm talking, of course, about the infamous "associates" paragraph.It's cases like these -- truly bone-headed, bad designing and writing from typically good game designers -- that should be completely ignored. Bulmahn may indeed be a good designer, and he had Monte on his side and Mona above him -- but what a friggin blunder. Ignore it; that's the best thing.
It's somewhat forgivable: All designers, even the best ones, have failed miserably, pathetically even, in writing the Alignment chapters in D&D. It's no wonder that so many gamers hate Alignment in their games, what with designers arguing Law and Chaos is a moral venue and not a personality venue. And that's just the beginning.
Actually, I like it. It fits the paladin. Note that it's the improved version. 3e and before had "No contact with evil at all (except to fight it)".
The paladin is the LG champion of all that is just and right. It perfectly fits the concept that they can't just hang out with evil people. If the whole alignment part were taken from the class (which Paizo - I think it was JJ, in fact - repeatedly said that they wouldn't do as it's part of the class's identity), I could see it.
But the paladin as it's now without anything said about what company paladins may keep would just be wrong.
Well, that's one Player's Paladin. It's one way to run or interpret the Pally. Pallys are LG, yes -- lots of different ways to play that.It fits the paladin ....
The paladin is the LG champion of all that is just and right.
Actually, that's more or less every paladin except those who are house ruled. Not only the flavour text about the class and its role, but also the code of conduct as well as the associates class features impose restrictions on what is acceptable behaviour for paladins. They're held to a higher standard than other LG characters and need to do stuff like act with honour. It's not just a good idea, it's the rule.
There's still many ways to interpret all this, but you can't just ignore it without wandering into house rule territory.
And that means that no paladin can just associate with evil characters without some sort of reason or justification. Again, there are many ways to explain or justify it, but if you're down-right ignore this, you're using house rules (or use the RAW incorrectly, in the case when you cannot use house rules).
I'm not saying that there is no way a paladin and an evil character could ever be in the same party (that was D&D 3e and probably before). But playing a paladin means you can't be lazy about moral matters. Playing a paladin in a party where there are obviously evil characters because "Well, that's the characters" breaks the rules. Being in that party because "While evil, they have abilities that are necessary for this party to achieve its goal, which will accomplish a much greater good/prevent a much greater evil, and that nobody else seems to have." is better - but of course, you still cannot tolerate evil acts like killing babies.
While I can see that this is sparking a bit of debate, and it is interesting in how people interpret the same writing in different ways, but to make it simple. The Diabolist is LN, so I can handle that, and the Imp has yet to reveal himself to me, or my character hasn't noticed it yet. I am suspicious of the guy, a) he is a half elf and I am a dwarf. b) he is always going off to do things and seems to talk to himself a bit. But on the plus side he saved my life several times so I have to cut him a bit of slack, and he does respect me for a meat shield so his hasn't done anything to totally tick me off.
I believe his total goal is personal power. So i can kind of understand that. so my take on this, is when I do find out that he has a pet devil, as long as he keeps it on a tight leash, doesn't allow it to hurt anyone else, and keeps it away from me I am fine with that. The moment it hurts someone or tries to broker a deal with someone else's soul, it dies and I take reparations out of his hide.
My paladin took the vow of vengeance so he is more Law than good. Cold hard justice!
Thanks for all the advice and interesting debate.
I am suspicious of the guy, a) he is a half elf and I am a dwarf.
Note that this is racism, which is very unpaladinlike. Racism in itself is LE, as it condemns others not because of their deeds, but because of their race. All kinds of prejudice are generally LE.
While I wouldn't say that a bit of racism automatically makes you LE, a paladin and the high standards he's held to should always be above it.
My paladin took the vow of vengeance so he is more Law than good. Cold hard justice!
Still, as a paladin (who may not commit any evil acts), you have to temper your lawful ways with goodness.
Otherwise, you might find that the pet devil walks up to you some time and says "How do you like the power we vested in you? Oh, you thought that came from a 'higher source'? From Justice? The ends justify the means? You had good intentions all around? Well, not all around. More like under your feet, for they're the paving on the road you're on. And you're almost there."
And then he laughs. Do you know how disconcerting a two-foot devil is when he laughs with that squeaky voice? Even if you didn't just find out your retirement home will be warmer than you thought, this is some pretty disconcerting stuff!
While I can see that this is sparking a bit of debate, and it is interesting in how people interpret the same writing in different ways, but to make it simple. The Diabolist is LN, so I can handle that, and the Imp has yet to reveal himself to me, or my character hasn't noticed it yet. I am suspicious of the guy, a) he is a half elf and I am a dwarf. b) he is always going off to do things and seems to talk to himself a bit. But on the plus side he saved my life several times so I have to cut him a bit of slack, and he does respect me for a meat shield so his hasn't done anything to totally tick me off.
I believe his total goal is personal power. So i can kind of understand that. so my take on this, is when I do find out that he has a pet devil, as long as he keeps it on a tight leash, doesn't allow it to hurt anyone else, and keeps it away from me I am fine with that. The moment it hurts someone or tries to broker a deal with someone else's soul, it dies and I take reparations out of his hide.
My paladin took the vow of vengeance so he is more Law than good. Cold hard justice!
Thanks for all the advice and interesting debate.
Wow, I'm surprised you'd be that lenient. If I saw that one of my fellow adventurers had a pet imp (and I were a paladin) I'd smite that thing before it had time to say Asmodeus.
|
|
If I saw that one of my fellow adventurers had a pet imp (and I were a paladin) I'd smite that thing before it had time to say "Asmodeus."
I guess I'll repeat what I said earlier -- you'd really force a conflict like that with another PC? You'd purposely ruin the game just because your interpretation of the Pally is so straight-jacketed? You'd essentially force another Player to play something he doesn't want to play (cuz he wants to play with an Imp familiar) or force him out of the game? -- Or completely ruin the whole game and possibly real life friendships because of the arguments that often pop up when one Player has his PC attack another Player's PC, stopping the game, and the fun, and making everyone pick sides or try to stay neutral?
I just don't believe it.
Were you to play a Pally and be in a party that had a LE PC w/ Imp familiar, the two of you and the DM would HAVE to find a reason that the PCs would tolerate each other. Even if it's not much of a reason. Heck, the reason I gave for my Pally earlier in the Thread in the party w/ the CE drow Assassin wasn't great, but it's reasonable enough for some degree of believability and generic enough to be used in most situations. And it had to be done.
If I saw that one of my fellow adventurers had a pet imp (and I were a paladin) I'd smite that thing before it had time to say "Asmodeus."I guess I'll repeat what I said earlier -- you'd really force a conflict like that with another PC? You'd purposely ruin the game just because your interpretation of the Pally is so straight-jacketed? You'd essentially force another Player to play something he doesn't want to play (cuz he wants to play with an Imp familiar) or force him out of the game? -- Or completely ruin the whole game and possibly real life friendships because of the arguments that often pop up when one Player has his PC attack another Player's PC, stopping the game, and the fun, and making everyone pick sides or try to stay neutral?
I just don't believe it.
Were you to play a Pally and be in a party that had a LE PC w/ Imp familiar, the two of you and the DM would HAVE to find a reason that the PCs would tolerate each other. Even if it's not much of a reason. Heck, the reason I gave for my Pally earlier in the Thread in the party w/ the CE drow Assassin wasn't great, but it's reasonable enough for some degree of believability and generic enough to be used in most situations. And it had to be done.
Well I'd try to make sure I'm not a paladin in a party as a diabolist, and if I had a reason to stick with him I would, but in almost any instance if a Paladin sees an evil outsider it should fall to him to smite that sucker. Frankly, if someone in my group wanted to RP out what happens when he tries to conceal his devil from the paladin I'd be all for it, but they would know in advance what would happen.
(Also, I'm very unlikely to play a paladin in most cases anyway I favor the right side of the alignment grid.)
|
|
I'm very unlikely to play a paladin in most cases anyway; I favor the (dumb) side of the alignment grid.
Yeah, it's all in theory, anyway.
Well I'd try to make sure I'm not a paladin in a party as a diabolist, and if I had a reason to stick with him I would,....
And that's the other side of the coin. I feel strongly that the Player should be able to play -- if at all possible -- what he wants to play. I reason it thusly: This guy's gonna spend 6+ hours of his precious little free time each week in my game -- JEEZ, we gotta try to maximize the fun for each individual, of course knowing that we'll have to compromise some.
If a Player just LOVES playing a Pally, the group should do its best to let him -- even when another Player just LOVES playing a LE Diabolist. The group should do its best to let him, too.
Sure, sometimes it won't work -- the DM is designing a low magic Campaign cuz everyone else is in the mood for that, an archmage concept who crafts magical items ain't gonna fit, much as the Player wants to run it.
And those kinds of Campaigns are much more frequently exclusive of evil PCs. But if a Player with a hankerin' to run an evil PC has a few things built into his concept that allows him to work with the good party, it's wrong for another Player to have his PC run the evil PC out.
....But in almost any instance if a Paladin sees an evil outsider it should fall to him to smite that sucker.
Sure glad you said "almost." There's even a well known adventure in Dungeon from near the end of the magazine where a Gelugon and a Planetar together guard some CE Artifact. Together. As a team. (Not that they like it.) And that's not even mortals -- that's a greater Devil and an Angel.
Frankly, if someone in my group wanted to RP out what happens when he tries to conceal his devil from the paladin I'd be all for it, but they would know in advance what would happen.
Yes, different groups have different styles; your mileage may vary.
But,....
I hope if ever one day someone joins your group and has an idea that they'd love to play and can figure a way for it to work out, you don't kill that PC's Imp.
;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I saw that one of my fellow adventurers had a pet imp (and I were a paladin) I'd smite that thing before it had time to say "Asmodeus."I guess I'll repeat what I said earlier -- you'd really force a conflict like that with another PC? You'd purposely ruin the game just because your interpretation of the Pally is so straight-jacketed? You'd essentially force another Player to play something he doesn't want to play (cuz he wants to play with an Imp familiar) or force him out of the game? -- Or completely ruin the whole game and possibly real life friendships because of the arguments that often pop up when one Player has his PC attack another Player's PC, stopping the game, and the fun, and making everyone pick sides or try to stay neutral?
I just don't believe it.
Were you to play a Pally and be in a party that had a LE PC w/ Imp familiar, the two of you and the DM would HAVE to find a reason that the PCs would tolerate each other. Even if it's not much of a reason. Heck, the reason I gave for my Pally earlier in the Thread in the party w/ the CE drow Assassin wasn't great, but it's reasonable enough for some degree of believability and generic enough to be used in most situations. And it had to be done.
So the argument is: the player of the paladin needs to adapt so someone else can have fun. There's no responsibility for the other players to make sure the player of the paladin has fun?
There are some classes that may not be compatible based on how the players and GMs interpret things. It's not wrong. It's just how things go. It is wrong to suggest that the paladin player is wrong just because someone else wants to play a diabolist. The reverse is also just as likely. The diabolist player could be wrong because he knows how the paladin is going to be played by the other player.
Bob makes a good point. And do take into consideration what the books say about a Diabolist's Imp familiar. It is loyal to Hell first and foremost, and that means it will most likely ask the Diabolist (and any evil guys in the party) to corrupt the Paladin or try doing so by itself. Hell, it might try to corrupt the souls of the whole party, and that would give the Paladin a VERY good reason to smite the little bastard to oblivion, which of course would set off the Player vs. Player scenario that will end as a big mess.
I think the Diabolist is the more harmful one in this, if only because he has a familiar who might NOT share his goals and because that familiar would probably make any Good player hostile towards it. And from that I just figured out a solution of sorts: Why not have the Diabolist take the Improved Familiar feat and tell that Imp to go back to Hell?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a Paladin and LE Assassin working together through Curse of the Crimson Throne. They signed a 'mutual non-aggression pact', and the Assassin only accepted contracts against evil people or
If I saw that one of my fellow adventurers had a pet imp (and I were a paladin) I'd smite that thing before it had time to say "Asmodeus."I guess I'll repeat what I said earlier -- you'd really force a conflict like that with another PC? You'd purposely ruin the game just because your interpretation of the Pally is so straight-jacketed? You'd essentially force another Player to play something he doesn't want to play (cuz he wants to play with an Imp familiar) or force him out of the game? -- Or completely ruin the whole game and possibly real life friendships because of the arguments that often pop up when one Player has his PC attack another Player's PC, stopping the game, and the fun, and making everyone pick sides or try to stay neutral?
I just don't believe it.
Were you to play a Pally and be in a party that had a LE PC w/ Imp familiar, the two of you and the DM would HAVE to find a reason that the PCs would tolerate each other. Even if it's not much of a reason. Heck, the reason I gave for my Pally earlier in the Thread in the party w/ the CE drow Assassin wasn't great, but it's reasonable enough for some degree of believability and generic enough to be used in most situations. And it had to be done.
So the argument is: the player of the paladin needs to adapt so someone else can have fun. There's no responsibility for the other players to make sure the player of the paladin has fun?
There are some classes that may not be compatible based on how the players and GMs interpret things. It's not wrong. It's just how things go. It is wrong to suggest that the paladin player is wrong just because someone else wants to play a diabolist. The reverse is also just as likely. The diabolist player could be wrong because he knows how the paladin is going to be played by the other player.
Well ultimately it depends on your group. I see where W E Ray is coming from, but if one person wants to play a pally and the other wants to be a diabolist you ought to talk that out before hand and sometimes you will just have to compromise. Like I said above, if they want to RP it out they can go for it, but I think that a Paladin is truly incompatible with a diabolist under most circumstances. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a group discussing their characters and then realizing that someone needs to change something. If the whole group is LG and one guy wants to be CE, the CE guy is probably going to have to change to fit in. It just happens like that sometimes.
Well ultimately it depends on your group. I see where W E Ray is coming from, but if one person wants to play a pally and the other wants to be a diabolist you ought to talk that out before hand and sometimes you will just have to compromise. Like I said above, if they want to RP it out they can go for it, but I think that a Paladin is truly incompatible with a diabolist under most circumstances. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a group discussing their characters and then realizing that someone needs to change something. If the whole group is LG and one guy wants to be CE, the CE guy is probably going to have to change to fit in. It just happens like that sometimes.
I agree completely. One thing I notice in many paladin discussions is that the player of the paladin is the one who is often assumed to be in the wrong. I don't think that's a reasonable position to take most of the time. I don't know what the rest of the party consists of, so it is entirely possible that the paladin is the black sheep in the party. I don't like to start with that assumption though.
Well ultimately it depends on your group. I see where W E Ray is coming from, but if one person wants to play a pally and the other wants to be a diabolist you ought to talk that out before hand and sometimes you will just have to compromise. Like I said above, if they want to RP it out they can go for it, but I think that a Paladin is truly incompatible with a diabolist under most circumstances. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a group discussing their characters and then realizing that someone needs to change something. If the whole group is LG and one guy wants to be CE, the CE guy is probably going to have to change to fit in. It just happens like that sometimes.I agree completely. One thing I notice in many paladin discussions is that the player of the paladin is the one who is often assumed to be in the wrong. I don't think that's a reasonable position to take most of the time. I don't know what the rest of the party consists of, so it is entirely possible that the paladin is the black sheep in the party. I don't like to start with that assumption though.
This is all the more interesting because the default assumption of D&D and Pathfinder is that the PCs are good or neutral. Sure we have an option for an anti-paladin, but the paladin is the one that makes it into the core rules. And in terms that relate more directly to the topic, even a LN diabolist is suspect to a lot of people, not just paladins. It's pretty meta-gamey to say we should always be able to justify a paladin working with evil party members.