|
Alright, I know the paladin code is a hot topic most of the time. Some thing it stupidly restrictive, some think it fine. I have habitually interpreted it quite liberally, not letting them associate with evil creatures unless they must, or commit evil acts, but not saying if someone summons a demon with summon monster, that he hast to attack it.
SO we have a Diabolist (lawful neutral), a member of the hellknights, and a paladin in the same party. The Diabolist isnt evil, but he binds and summons evil monsters. His idea is to use the power of hell to push the cause of law and order. The paladin disagrees with his methods, but appreciates his goals. The paladin player is confused how to RP this. Should his character leave the party? He trusts the character, and the guy has proven himself to be a straight shooter and truly lawful, but he habitually binds devils and has an evil imp companion that serves him, but that teases the paladin regularly. (nothing really bad, just verbally)
How do you guys think the paladin code would interact with this?
I'd say he won't approve of the hellknight's methods, and would never use them himself, but if he knows the hk well and trusts that's he's not falling to evil he'd accept it. But he'll be wary of the potential influence that the summoned devils will have on both the hellknight and anyone else who associates with them. He might even insist on being present so that he can try and prevent the imps from manipulating anyone.
A complex issue that really depends on the stakes of the situation, IMHO. Consider the following: a summoner who habitually binds Azatas with the intention of deconstructing social order and bringing about an anarchist utopia. This character shares some common goals with a paladin(good in this example, law in your example) and some strong idealogical differences. Assuming (in my example) the party is facing a BBEG who has evil motives above all else, it is likely that the paladin and Azata summoner will get along just fine, with the occasional heated debate. Certainly a lot of CG and LG characters coexist peacefully in adventuring parties.
The same logic can apply to your situation along the other axis of alignment: are the two players united in their struggle against some force of chaos that seeks to destroy civilisation? If so, it seems reasonable that the Paladin would put aside ideological differences and fight the common enemy. Alternatively, is the main anatagonist in this campaign a force of evil/hell who seeks to dominate civilisation rather than destroy it? In this case you might expect the two characters to be directly at odds and the Paladin to be at the very least extremely suspicious of the HK's motives.
I agree that the Paladin's god/code play into how this is dealt with, but there are a few solutions:
A) Fluff summoning so that it acts like a compulsion spell: the devils being summoned are acting against their will. The Paladin can at least rationalize this: charming a 5th level orc to let them into the fort or dominating a cultist to sabotage a ceremony would probably slide, right? Magic is turning evil into a tool for law. He disapproves, but more is at stake and evil is being forced to serve goods ends, not their own. The imp is still a problem here, though you could encourage the Diabolist to play the Imp as a slave/prisoner. The Paladin might be able to see the logic of "a prisoner doing service". This opens up a cosmological can of worms regarding the redemption of Devils, but if Angels can fall, perhaps Devils can rise? Maybe the Paladin tries not only to redeem the Diabolist, but the Imp as well? That would be some fun, and probably funny, roleplaying.
B) Throw Atonement in as loot. Or give it to the Paladin for free so he doesn't fall, but force him to take an oath to perform a side quest (this rewards your players with yummy XP for roleplaying well)
C) Have a church elder, preferably an Inquisitor grant an Indulgence for a period, forgoing Atonement providing he defeat this evil, etc. Grey Guard stuff. This lets your Paladin finger wag the hellknight but permit the technically evil stuff that serves the greater good.
Which deity does the paladin worship?
The following is based as much on my opinion as it is on the rules.
The paladin disagrees with his methods, but appreciates his goals.
Bad Paladin!
Kidding aside, Paladins are prohibited from associating with Evil characters unless there's a clear, immediate and greater Evil to be confronted. I'd expand that to include a ban on people who themselves frequently associate with Evil. A Paladin who claims "I'm not dealing with Evil creatures, it's my buddy who does that so I'm okay." is the same type who leaves the room so the rest of the party can torture prisoners. And that type is not the Paladin type.The paladin player is confused how to RP this. Should his character leave the party?Yes. These two characters simply aren't compatible. What we have here is a case of "double poppycocks":
How do you guys think the paladin code would interact with this?
The Code should become corporeal, and Smite!.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. These two characters simply aren't compatible. What we have here is a case of "double poppycocks":The Diabolist is using inherently Evil creatures to establish Order? That's not LN, that's LE. The Paladin is okay with Devils working for him, as long as they're controlled by someone who isn't Evil? That's not a Paladin.
To be fair, our Diabolist is also working with an inherently good Paladin to establish order, which, by your thinking, isn't LN, but LG.
So LE + LG = LN. Order trumps morals in this case, which is very LN.
So the character is LN. Which is okay for the Paladin, because Law and Order are good things in their worldview.
Which brings us to the difficult dichotomy of why Evil is a no-no for Paladins, but Chaos is not. It's been a double standard since the dawn of the 2 axis system that CG and LG can be bosom pals, but LG and LE, LOOK OUT!
So we need to be flexible. The PC is clearly trying to play their character well, being morally conflicted and all, as is the Diabolist, antagonizing the Paladin in a harmless RP fashion. This is all excellent stuff, so why are we trying to be Stupid Good (The inverse of Lawful Stupid) and blow it up?
Playing a Paladin, or any lawful holy character and playing an evil/chaotic character side by side requires give and take. The Lawful Goods must be willing to loosen their code to casual transgressions and the chaotics/evils must be willing to abide by their ally's code to a degree: it's a reality of teamwork.
Now I agree, demon summoners aren't exactly casual transgressors, so a solution should be found that doesn't result in PVP, splitting the group or effectively killing a character. I've suggested 3 options, others have chipped in their ideas, and I'm sure we could come up with more.
I disagree with the suggestion that the paladin engage in PVP or quit the group though. That's uncreative and not fun. Especially when you have a CE adversary that forces natural enemies to unite. That's interesting story telling.
Which brings us to the difficult dichotomy of why Evil is a no-no for Paladins, but Chaos is not. It's been a double standard since the dawn of the 2 axis system that CG and LG can be bosom pals, but LG and LE, LOOK OUT!
You may well have identified the core of the conundrum. Paladins are Good, and happen to be Lawful in order to be Good.
Good vs Evil is not like Law vs Chaos, at least not to Good characters. Law should be, to a Paladin, the means by which to achieve Good - any Good. A Paladin who creates a Chaotic Good paradise did their job just fine. A Paladin who creates a LN society on the other hand, has failed.So we need to be flexible.It seems that the players and GM are willing to be just that, but a Paladin, played correctly, cannot be "flexible". He's a zealot with a code.
why are we trying to be Stupid Good (The inverse of Lawful Stupid) and blow it up?
'cause That's what Paladins do. No, really. A Paladin is a man or woman of Principles. And if they must suffer to uphold those Principles, then so be it. If you're willing to be reasonable, if you're willing to compromise... you're not a Paladin.
The problem is not the Diabolist himself, but rather his companion. The Imp is an evil creature and the paladin is associating with him and that does break the code. From the sound of things the Imp is accompanying the party on adventures so is part of the party. What breaks the code is the fact that paladin is associating with a devil no matter how minor. Even if the Imp is a familiar it is still a devil and the paladin is should fall if he continues to associate with him
Summoning evil creatures is also suspect but is easier to justify because for the most part they are here in a very controlled manner. They are here only for a short while and are under control of someone the paladin trusts. As long as the devils are not allowed to corrupt or temp people the paladin can probably justify it because they are fighting a greater evil.
|
As a Paladin, I'd tolerate a short term devil summoning from a LN character provided it was only used for fighting evil in the defense of his own life. The imp familiar though would be smote back to hell. An Imp isn't just a spell effect, it's a long-term source of corruption and if a Paladin adventured with it in the party then he is associating with evil characters. After killing the Imp I'd have a talk with the diabolist about the need to remove a source of temptation and evil for the good of his soul, and if he summoned it again the next day, I'd kill it again, and then leave the party, and roll another character that would work with the diabolist.
Which brings us to the difficult dichotomy of why Evil is a no-no for Paladins, but Chaos is not. It's been a double standard since the dawn of the 2 axis system that CG and LG can be bosom pals, but LG and LE, LOOK OUT!You may well have identified the core of the conundrum. Paladins are Good, and happen to be Lawful in order to be Good.
Good vs Evil is not like Law vs Chaos, at least not to Good characters. Law should be, to a Paladin, the means by which to achieve Good - any Good. A Paladin who creates a Chaotic Good paradise did their job just fine. A Paladin who creates a LN society on the other hand, has failed.
I might need to catch up in my reading, but where in the Paladin description is it stated that the G-E axis is more important then the L-C axis?
For me the equality between these two and troubles that are generated by this equality are what makes a Paladin interesting.
I like how your players have worked it out.
However, as the paladin player, while I might be willing to tolerate a neutral guy with orderly intentions but evil methods, I wouldn't tolerate his imp, not when it deliberately gets on my nerves. I would smite that little devil and send it packing back to the hells - my LAWFUL companion would just have to understand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another sterling example of why I've seen paladins banned in the past:
"If I'm playing what I want to play, you can't play what you want to play".
Depending on the timing of things and the characters' background, it might fall under the "exceptional circumstances" clause of the code regarding associates:
"
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.
"
Story-wise it would be great for the paladin to convince the diabolist to get rid of the imp and send it back to the Hells in failure. Sadly, RAW does not often support such stories.
-TimD
where in the Paladin description is it stated that the G-E axis is more important then the L-C axis?
Evil: "loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
Chaos: ...
I agree that the only real problem is the imp servitor. A paladin can largely ignore evil summons that disappear into the aether because they are short lived and under complete control. The paladin may be a little concerned about the summoner, but as long as he stay lawful and not evil he can let it slide. The imp however, might be best off hidden. Perhaps the summoner can make a show of "sending" the imp back to hell, and instead give him a ring of invisibility to hide. The imp can hang around perhaps help out when the Paladin is conviently not around or not looking. But theres really no way RP wise for a Paladin to tolerate a devil, unless there are earth ending consequences on the doorstep that are so large smaller evil can be ignored. Whether the conditions of the game are such is up to you as the DM.
Imp:
At will—invisibility (self only)
I don't think he needs a ring for this. In any case, it seems the imp enjoys teasing the paladin. Paladins I play have a pretty laid-back approach, usually a live-and-let-live perspective on life, at least until the chips are down. But they also have a very low tolerance for taking abuse from evil outsiders. Like zero tolerance. That Imp would be back in the hells before it finished its second insult (assuming the first one was in the imp's surprise round).
where in the Paladin description is it stated that the G-E axis is more important then the L-C axis?Evil: "loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
Chaos: ...
Thanks! Back on track folks, nothing to see here.
Imp:
At will—invisibility (self only)
I don't think he needs a ring for this. In any case, it seems the imp enjoys teasing the paladin. Paladins I play have a pretty laid-back approach, usually a live-and-let-live perspective on life, at least until the chips are down. But they also have a very low tolerance for taking abuse from evil outsiders. Like zero tolerance. That Imp would be back in the hells before it finished its second insult (assuming the first one was in the imp's surprise round).
Forgot imp's had at will invisibility. Have the Summoner RP with his Imp companion and tell him to remain invisible when the paladin is present and stop teasing the paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or rather be sure the summoner has that RP conversation with his new Imp (since the Pally will have smote the last one back to Hell), and also have it stay in one of it's Beast forms ("Yeah, like, I saw you didn't like my old Imp friend, so I decided to stick with a basic bird, right?").
I'm assuming the summoner player is the one playing the Imp too. The paladin's smiting reaction should teach him to be a tad more subtle.
Also, Imps are Devils. They tend to be a bit more insidious. Frankly, an imp that taunts a paladin is a failure and deserves to be sent back to Hell for just punishments. An Imp that can weasel it's way into the Paladin's trust and ultimately make him fall, with a side order of sold soul, deserves a promotion.
Imp "barding"? He's a horse now?
Can't imps just wear armor, if they're so inclined?
It depends on a few factors. How "deep" is the paladin into LG? Meaning, is he just good and lawful enough to count, or is he uber lawful good? What order/deity is the paladin serving?
Detect evil is a cone and requires concentration. Couldn't a smart imp just stay out of the cone? Provided there aren't space restrictions it seems reasonable.
I'd say it all depends on how you run it. It doesn't sound like the diabolist is being a bad guy. From a meta perspective, you do have to find some way to work together or the group won't work as is. How you run a paladin is mostly left up to the player - GM and what's been decided between the two. I'd think if the diabolist isn't actively causing trouble there probably isn't a problem to be had. I've seen GMs who'd let the paladin look the other way if the guy was burning down a village and I've met others who would actively try to force the paladin to kill the diabolist against his will.
The imp familiar though would be smote back to hell.
Just throwing it out there, but killing peoples animal companions is usually bad for party cohesion.
|
I'll break with convention a bit and turn your question back at you for a minute - what do you think would be the most fun?
See, unless there's a good reason not to, you should be free to house rule anything you want to. Outside of PFS or that Paladin being ran under another GM, you can't really go wrong here.
Personally, I would use it as a roleplaying opportunity for the Paladin's player. Make it clear that they are safe from falling as long as they stay firmly in character - complain about it, object to it, offer alternatives, bicker with the evil outsiders, threaten to smite them, and generally hate every minute of it.
If, that is, I thought my players would enjoy the conflict and they could keep it between the characters (not their players).
So, in short, why do you ask?
|
|
^ That.
We're playing savage tides, so they are both fighting against The demons and Demagorgon himself trying to bring a tide of savagery and chaos to the world.
Thanks for your input.
A paladin absolutely can cautiously associate with a LN devil-summoner and an imp in order to fight a serious demonic threat. There is a very specific "greater evil" exception for this in the "no association with evil creatures" part of the code and this absolutely qualifies. He might warn the hellknight that he's playing with fire, and he'll probably keep a very careful eye on that imp, but he doesn't have to smite anything.
I know that paladins are very shiny-good, but Sarenrae and Asmodeus teamed up to trap Rovagug and are we really going to hold a paladin to stricter standards than a good-aligned goddess?
This is not worth tearing the party apart over. What's important is that you're enjoying the game, and if your group will enjoy the game more with a slightly less smitey paladin than some people prefer, that is not a problem.
EDIT: If everyone thinks it would be fun for the paladin to react more severely, go ahead, but it's not required by the class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The imp familiar though would be smote back to hell.Just throwing it out there, but killing peoples animal companions is usually bad for party cohesion.
True, but he isn't directly hurting the other player, and he can summon a replacement one in one day. A Diabolist and a Paladin are at odds just because of who they are. The party cohesion was put to the test when the DM allowed them both in the first place. The players are doing a good job of keeping things together, but IMO the Imp is a dealbreaker and counts as associating with evil. Not doing anything would require constant atonement for letting the thing spread it's subversion unmolested. And as I said, if I was playing the paladin, it would be the imp goes or I go. In character, I would say to the Diabolist:
"I cannot remain with that creature. It is a fiend and nothing good can come of it. I know you mean well, and when you are ready to forsake this devil, I will be waiting to travel with you again."*Then I place my hand on the hilt of my sword.*
"Also know this: if you go over the edge into the abyss it is leading you to, I will be will also be waiting. "
The I turn away and walk into the sunset, hand the DM my character sheet to use as an NPC, and then roll a new character that will be able to tolerate the presence of demons. The DM can then use the character to save us from doom or attack us as he sees fit.
A Paladin doesn't tolerate evil. Period.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing this out there: There are canonical Paladin Hellknights. In fact I think one is the leader of the Order of the Godclaws, IIRC.
So if they can stand to work with other evil Hell Knights without falling I don't see why Paladin can't work with another. Sure they might but heads* but I don't think they otherwise can't party together.
*Paladin might smite the imp, but they should be able to work around that, like pay him compensation to get a new familiar/whatever.
|
|
Yeah, he's deciding between playing a cavalier and a paladin, with this in mind
Yes I am the GM.
This has all been a lot of good discussion. The reason I asked, is Because I like to hear what other people think. You cant learn without getting various perspectives on an issue. This has helped a lot.
The player has decided to play a Cavalier, who more or less follows the paladin's code to the best of his ability. Essentially his character wanted to be a paladin, but couldnt be THAT good, and he lacked a certain personal charisma. That way we can have the fun interactions, as well as not have the players actually causing each others characters to leave.
Just throwing this out there: There are canonical Paladin Hellknights. In fact I think one is the leader of the Order of the Godclaws, IIRC.
So if they can stand to work with other evil Hell Knights without falling I don't see why Paladin can't work with another. Sure they might but heads* but I don't think they otherwise can't party together.
Can anyone verify this? Or is it a... Clerical Error?
And Xavier, it sounds like you guys can look over this thread and decide whether the pair wants the Roleplay opportunity of him being a paladin or if he wants to avoid the conflict and roll a Cavalier instead.
Just throwing this out there: There are canonical Paladin Hellknights. In fact I think one is the leader of the Order of the Godclaws, IIRC.
So if they can stand to work with other evil Hell Knights without falling I don't see why Paladin can't work with another. Sure they might but heads* but I don't think they otherwise can't party together.
Can anyone verify this? Or is it a... Clerical Error?
And Xavier, it sounds like you guys can look over this thread and decide whether the pair wants the Roleplay opportunity of him being a paladin or if he wants to avoid the conflict and roll a Cavalier instead.
Totally correct. The Order of the Godclaw was founded by a group of Paladins on the way to Crusade in Mendev at the World Wound (IIRC).
|
|
http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Regan_Vashan
Ironically, the Diabolist is a member of the order of the God Claw. And as the Savage Tide game happens in Greyhawk, the five gods are Heironneus, Hextor, Asmodeus, Wee Jas and Moradin. He's got all of their holy symbols tattooed on his body, and he tried to find the balance between good and evil, in which he believes true law exists.
Can anyone verify this? Or is it a... Clerical Error?
That's awesome! Next character, Hellknight Paladin.
Hmmm, another question should probably be how long do you think the other character can remain neutral while constantly summoning fiends and demons?
Would you rather be doing whatever they were doing in their own plane?
Whether that turns you evil is probably a whole different can of worms.
Hmmm, another question should probably be how long do you think the other character can remain neutral while constantly summoning fiends and demons?
Depends on whether we're talking about the idiotic beyond belief "Using spells with the [Evil] descriptor literally turns you Evil regardless of your usage" rules or not.
|
|
Evil or not, the Diabolist is going directly to hell upon death as a class feature, and hell will obstruct him from being rasied. Even if he is neutral, he is literally damned to hell in return for his powers. I think most of the world outside of Cheliax would see him as evil even if he uses his infernal powers to defend society from chaos.
Evil or not, the Diabolist is going directly to hell upon death as a class feature, and hell will obstruct him from being rasied. Even if he is neutral, he is literally damned to hell in return for his powers. I think most of the world outside of Cheliax would see him as evil even if he uses his infernal powers to defend society from chaos.
What does this have to do with the working with the paladin? If anything its a tirade about how evil the diabolist is. Doesn't sound like he's going out committing evil acts that would compromise the paladin working with him, unless I missed something. That would actually be pretty important information if he was.
|
|
Just an observation really. The paladin would have to work on direct observable acts, but the imp is unarguably evil. And while there may be hell knight paladins that fight the good fight out in the world, I doubt that there are any in the Order of the Gate.
It doesn't really matter at this point as the player is playing a cavalier and he need not be so strict in his world view.