In a 3.5 campaign consisting of a Minotar, Dwarven Dragon Shaman, and Vampire (all some alignment of evil except for the vampire), I figured this would be a great chance to try out a Necromancer, with all of those cool spells and abilities that are harder to make work in a good aligned party.
After reaching 3rd level my friend playing the vampire decides he's not so fond of his character choice, and opts to reroll a new character, which we're all cool with. At first I was somewhat relieved, because that Vampire didn't like the idea of my dark magic fiddling with the undead.
Then I just found out that the new character he's chosen is a Lawful Good Paladin/Cleric/Monk who's all about healing and cleansing the world of, well, people like my Dread Necromancer. As you can understand, this is a big wrench in my plans for this character. To the same token though, he's also wanted to play a character like his for a while too, and the rest of the party could benefit from a good healer.
I don't want to ask him to pick a different character, and he hasn't asked me to either, but I really don't see how we can make this work. What made him think that his character could fit in this party is beyond me, but he's made his decision, and I'm genuinely scared for my character's future now.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. How can we coexist?
In case it helps, here's my character's back story.
My grandfather was a great wizard and innovator in the necromantic arts. In the pursuit of a more powerful form of arcane resurrection and immortality, he performed many dark experiments in the house where my father, Frodrick (yes, like from the movie "Young Frankenstein") grew up. Whether from some dark ritual or just prolonged exposure, my father gained a certain affinity for negative energy. After meeting the love of his life, my mother, he cut all ties from the family business so that he could be with her.
I lived a mostly normal life, except for a strange condition that prevented wounds from healing by most clerical means, though my father was able to heal me, somehow. About a month ago I discovered an old journal/magic book stored away that revealed the truth to me about my grandfather, and incite into my condition. I got caught attempting some of the magic described in the journal, and when our ties to Necromancy were revealed, we were forced to flee the country.
While at sea, our ship was attacked by pirates and my mother and I kidnapped. I became separated from my mother a short while later, and I haven't seen either of my parents since.
I was taken to a pirate island and found work with a party of adventurers, continuing my grandfather's work in the dark arts.
Side Note: I actually started out playing as Frodrick at level 1, and what turned him back to Necromancy is a slightly different story. Unfortunately, he tragically died to a high damage crit, escaping from prison with the rest of the party. They later met up with David at level 2 on the pirate island, so I could still play a Necromancer.
Next meeting, tell everyone you see a problem ahead. Ask if you play your character as a researcher as opposed to a minion maker, if his character can play opposed to minion makers, and allow "research" as long as it is "limited" in scope. You get to create new spells that can heal or buff yourself, and maybe even allow temporary reanimation of enemies that are then laid to rest after the battle.
If that does not work, ask for him to come up with a way for a LG Paladin to join a party with a Necromancer. He needs to consult his "code", but if he can rationalize it, they it will work. Since your character was there while he was creating his, it is on him to fit the new character into the party.
Another possibility is for the Paladin to "promise" to not kill you while the grand quest is incomplete. Said quest to be defined as something that causes the party to retire. At that point, you should be able to depart with a teleport where he cannot follow and pursue your final experiments in peace. Private demiplanes work great for that.
/cevah
|
Get either you or a rogueish ally to invest in bluff massively. Try to have somebody get the Convincing Lie rogue talent. (Ask the paladin to dump sense motive too and possibly Wisdom.)
Explain away everything as either coincidences or as a powerful "curse" on you. Everyone who repeats this lie uses that modifier instead of their own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry son. I cannot help you.
*head desk*
Yeah, I strongly suspect the 'let's introduce the new PC' scene is not going to end with everybody's internal organs still internalized.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... I enjoy pallies, I play them fairly often, but this is a completely impossible scenario and it's entirely the other players fault. You literally cannot play a pally in an evil party, and you can not create a pally when everyone else is already evil and expect that to fly. He could play an anti-paladin, or a battle cleric or inquisitor, but him showing up with a paladin is completely unreasonable.
Your paladin making friend is being a complete Richard. Normally I like some intraparty intrigue, but this is head and shoulders above any kind of intrigue he's going to either fall hard or there will be death from PvP as the evil character kill off his paladin. Really a stupid move on his part. He should have gone with an AntiPaladin or maybe even a LE Hellknight if he wants something of that flavor.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the 3 evil characters meet him and he introduces himself as a paladin, simply say "No thanks, we don't need a paladin in this group."
Then he retires his paladin and makes a new character.
Parties can have neutral/good and 1 evil who is hiding his motives or is perhaps lawful evil and has given their word to not hinder the party, but with this particular party make-up a LG paladin will die most horribly as the others sit back and laugh at him.
Wow, this will get ugly. The paladin player is just asking for it, and should not feel bad when he gets it. An Anti-Paladin is a far better choice (even though the name is stupid).
|
My advice: do not ever allow this combination of classes and alignments at the same table with the intent that they be in the same party. It is destined for failure and hurt feelings
I don't actually allow CE characters in our home group(s); if you take too many actions that shift your alignment, your Jack the Ripper impersonator becomes an NPC. Even in Evil campaigns your choices are Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and various shades of neutral.
I have a rule that transcends alignment: no PC vs PC. Even evil characters obey it. You can be a douche all you want, just not against fellow PCs. But making.a character for the purpose of not getting along gives others free reign to remove the annoying character.
I guess it depends on the how's and why's. Do evil people have a reason to go after him? Most games do not have evil people doing evil things just for the sake of evilness. This is why my no PC vs. PC rule is in place. It keeps evil characters from offing each other, and it works in all ways. It is the only way for an evil party to not implode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin as written will just not work. Antipaladin might be a possible solution at first glance, but since the OP mentioned the party being in need of a good healer (and said player wanted to play one), it's actually not.
I'd say you guys should think about alternatives here... an oracle is flexible when it comes to alignment, you can be CE and still take the Life mystery and channel positive energy all day long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM allows this, and you already have minotaur and vampier so i guess he may, then this is his problem. Of cause the evil trio of doom is not gonna allow a guy in shiny Armor to change every thing they are just because he is new in town.
I think you guys need to talk to the GM about expectations to the campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your paladin making friend is being a complete Richard. Normally I like some intraparty intrigue, but this is head and shoulders above any kind of intrigue he's going to either fall hard or there will be death from PvP as the evil character kill off his paladin. Really a stupid move on his part. He should have gone with an AntiPaladin or maybe even a LE Hellknight if he wants something of that flavor.
Yeah, I remember the one time someone did this to me ... I said I was playing a necromancer, and his eyes immediately lit up and he said he was making a Paladin. Of course, I didn't flinch because my necromancer was LG and Exalted. The look of disappointment on his face when he found out ... PRICELESS.
Paladins are allowed to work with evil individuals if it is in service for what they feel is the greater good. In fact, this is even noted in the class description. The question becomes: What stops the evil characters from laying down a coup de grace on a paladin in its sleep?
It's allowed in Pathfinder. OP said 3.5, where it wasn't. Even if he survives joining the group, hanging around with them will make him fall.
Paladins are allowed to work with evil individuals if it is in service for what they feel is the greater good. In fact, this is even noted in the class description. The question becomes: What stops the evil characters from laying down a coup de grace on a paladin in its sleep?It's allowed in Pathfinder. OP said 3.5, where it wasn't. Even if he survives joining the group, hanging around with them will make him fall.
Which officially qualifies as a dumb rule. Hopefully the GM will overturn it.
I think this is one of a few cases where alignment ruling makes sense. Unless you ignore the RP in RPG, I can't see how running a paladin- the epitome of Goodness- around with card-carrying Evil necromancers and the like without moral ramifications. This only works in a system without meaningful alignment, like D&D 4.0 (the failure of which spawned the Pathfinder RPG we currently enjoy).
I mean, do whatever you like in your home games, but I have to contest how "officially" the rule qualifies as "dumb", all things considered.
Alignment is dumb in general; having such ludicrous restrictions (which, admittedly, is more the code than alignment per se) is dumb specifically. The fact that it inherently causes such conflict is why I don't use either.
And, frankly, I think D&D4e had the best alignment system of any edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is dumb in general; having such ludicrous restrictions (which, admittedly, is more the code than alignment per se) is dumb specifically. The fact that it inherently causes such conflict is why I don't use either.
I find alignment to be a useful indicator of where a player thinks their character's moral compass is. Alignment rarely causes conflict, but what it does do is prevent certain actions. And that's a good thing, as far as I am concerned.
It doesn't take long playing a table top game to run into the player that disregards RP and wants to do whatever will allow him to accumulate as much character power as possible. This mindset goes against the idea of role-playing, and so whatever obstructions can be placed in his way (including mechanical, story-based, and GM fiat) are useful tools.
Most people that complain about alignment don't seem to understand the system well.
Alignment does not restrict or prevent any actions, at all. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way round.
If you're having problem with a player's behavior, the correct action is to talk to the player about the expectations of the game and his character, not use ham-handed control-freaking.
I've not used alignment in years, and I've found roleplaying to be better, because nobody makes the mistake of looking at their sheet and going 'Oh, I'm LG, therefore I must ...' which is wrong. People actually roleplay a character, not an alignment.
In my book, THAT'S good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment does not restrict or prevent any actions, at all. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way round.
If you're having problem with a player's behavior, the correct action is to talk to the player about the expectations of the game and his character, not use ham-handed control-freaking.
I've not used alignment in years, and I've found roleplaying to be better, because nobody makes the mistake of looking at their sheet and going 'Oh, I'm LG, therefore I must ...' which is wrong. People actually roleplay a character, not an alignment.
In my book, THAT'S good.
The best alignment rule set that I have ever come across was from an alternative rule book for D&D that I picked up once many years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know what happened to the book.
I do (more or less) remember how alignment was handled in that book though. Basically, each character set up a set of guidelines for what that character would or would not do. For example, there were a number of options with regards to how the character views torture (and how these views range from good to evil), such as:
1) Character would not resort to torture for any reason (extreme good).
2) Character would only use torture to obtain vital information if all other options had failed and the character believed that torture is the only thing that would work.
3) Character would use torture regularly, but only to extract information and does not enjoy the process.
4) Character only uses torture in order to obtain information, but enjoys doing this.
5) Character employs torture purely for pleasure regardless of whether any information is obtained (extreme evil).
I may have forgotten a few of the options, but you get the idea. If I remember right, there was actually a questionnaire for the player to fill out to indicate the character's moral code. It was a lot less two dimensional than the standard D&D alignment system. The book also had some sample moral codes showing how they would work as an indication of the character's alignment. An interesting note, is that it is perfectly possible for an evil character to be repulsed by the idea of torture ("Sure, I have murdered millions of innocent intelligent beings, but I never TORTURED anyone!").
The fact is though, that there are some things that good characters would never do... if they wanted to stay good. So while you are technically right in saying that the player should not look at their character sheet and say, "Oh, I'm LG, therefore I must ..." If the character DOES do things that a LG character would NOT do, then their alignment would change to reflect the change to their moral code.
Funny thing is, what you said at the beginning of your post actually says this! So yeah, actions determine alignment... but doesn't that fact contradict your claim that you do not use alignment? Or do the players in your campaign just do anything they choose with no consequences? ("Yeah, I am a paladin, a paragon of virtue, and my friend here is a sadistic murderer. What of it?")
Personally, I cannot see a paladin (who is supposed to be good) associating with an evil character, if for no other reason than that they would have nothing in common.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm running a huge group of 8-10 players through Wrath of the Righteous, and most of the party is evil, two are neutral and only one is good...but he's lawful good.
My benchmark has been simple: Alignment guides behavior and overall world view, it's not a set of manacles. Lawful Good doesn't mean you are a flawless boy scout, and chaotic evil doesn't make you a cackling mad man. It means your character values law, and values goodness. Or values chaos, and values evil. Or neutrality. A chaotic evil character might save a child from a burning building just to see people's faces when they did, or to engender good faith to help them rob them blind later. A lawful good character might let an innocent man who was justly convicted go to the gallows for the sake of the 'greater good'.
As long as there is a logical reason in the plot of the adventure as to why they'd be together without murdering each other, be it duty, money, revenge, or simply for the lulz, then it makes sense.
If he wants to force the issue and play it as awful good, or lawful stupid, then he'll get steamrolled by his evil compatriots...and rightly so.
Peaceful coexistence can be achieved via the following method
Rock Falls you all Die
Reroll characters
:D
Any way you can convince him to make like an LN/TN Cleric instead who still heals and stuff? Much more party compatible.
Though, er, now I think of it...exactly how useful is a Positive Energy healer in a party with a Vampire and a Necromancer (likely to become undead or gain Negative Energy Affinity at some point)?
On a side note, this is not the thread I was expecting. Usually this dilemma is the exact opposite I've seen ("I'm a Paladin, and some guy is bringing in a CE Necromancer! What do?" is the usual).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once had a character playing a NE Cleric of Undeath in a Good/Neutral company, including a paladin. I made the other characters take the evil one as a prisoner and force him to accompany them in their quest, since he was the only one who could give them the informations they needed to defeat their enemies. The cleric gave informations only sparely and insisted to talk only with the paladin, whom he had known from childhood and knew was true to his word. The paladin wished to redeem the evil one, and anyways had given his word to protect the old friend, so he prevented his allies to kill him, even if he didn't like him so much. That seemed to work.
But you have the other way round and- I don't think this can work easily. Maybe you could make up a story to give it a try anyway. Good luck.
(snip)
As I said, I don't use paladins; they're outright banned. IMHO, if there's only one way to play a class, it shouldn't be a base class, which are intended to be broad archetypes encompassing multiple concepts, plus the inherent conflict with the Paladin's code, which spawns self-righteous bossy jerk characters who think they have the right to tell other people how to handle their business.
When I did use alignment, I tried to tell people 'actions determine alignment, not vice versa', but nobody listened, and all I got was flat, dull characters. 'Well, I'm (alignment) so I have to ...' Drove me up the wall.
The mistake you (and many others) make is assuming that a lack of mechanical repercussion means a lack of repercussion in general, which is not true. There are roleplaying repercussions, which IMHO are more interesting.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. How can we coexist?
No one in-game has a giant "New PC" sign floating over their head, waiting to join up with the party. When I'm introducing a player's new character to my party, I make sure to explicitly tell them that they do have the option to leave them behind, and make the new PC introduce himself and try to justify joining up.
Obviously, because we're all friends and they know out of character that this is the new PC, they don't usually spend too much time discussing whether or not they should let the new PC join them, but there has been at least one case where it was a very close thing between combat or joining up.
In this case, I'd say "Why is this paladin different from any other paladin" and attack him on sight. If you really want to keep him around, then during the fight, you can possibly find a reason to capture him instead of killing him (perhaps he has knowledge you need?), and drag him along as a prisoner for a while. From there, it's a role-play thing as to what happens to him - can he justify working with you despite his code? Can you corrupt him to be an anti-paladin?
Side thought: Why is the vampire, out of all the other players, not evil?
As I said, I don't use paladins; they're outright banned. IMHO, if there's only one way to play a class, it shouldn't be a base class, which are intended to be broad archetypes encompassing multiple concepts, plus the inherent conflict with the Paladin's code, which spawns self-righteous bossy jerk characters who think they have the right to tell other people how to handle their business.
If you think there's only one way to play a paladin, you're not thinking broadly enough. To be fair, it's very easy to play the lawful stupid paladin, but there's plenty of threads here discussing alternative ways to do so.
Either way, the paladin is obviously, to me, too narrow a concept to be a class, and this thread demonstrates the problem with the ridiculously rigid code; in a black-and-white morality game, it could work, but I don't care for that.
Besides, the Paladin is so intertwined with alignment mechanics, and since I don't use those, it really just has no place in my game.
A Lawful Good fighter could totally party with this League of Calamitous Intent, and if/when his alignment shifted from the straight and narrow for being the accomplice of Evil- nothing mechanically would happen. The difference with a paladin is that they are actually powered by an aligned force- the ,mechanics of their class is based on Goodness- therefore deviation from that path causes mechanical penalties. With clerics, it's all about your deity's approval (more or less), and the mechanic of being within one step of said deity's alignment reflects this.
I'm wagering a guess that Zhayne prefers a game without the mechanical handrails of alignment, and tracks such infringement as much as needed by other means, yes? Remember, rules are made for those who need them, and every rule is written in answer to such a need somewhere.
I like Bardess' creative solution very much!
You have three evil people in the party. Your paladin will either fall pretty much immediately or he'll end up getting stomped out by the three evil people. You need to talk to your buddy and warn him that the paladin isn't going to work with that party, if he persists be an evil necromancer and kill him and reanimate the body.
It's everyone's responsibility to make sure the party can work well together (unless you're playing a PvP game and the OP is very clearly not). Evil characters, come up with a reason why you'd get along with (or at least tolerate) a Paladin. Paladin, come up with reasons why you'd get along with (or at least tolerate) the evil characters.
Don't tell me "The differences are irreconcilable" because that's horse s~&%. You control literally everything about your characters, down to their entire personal histories (which can be retroactively retconned if need be) and motivations. The only way it can't work is if you're just being stubborn and refuse to budge, or if you're just terribly uncreative.
Maybe the Paladin is your necromancer's brother/sister, and wants to put you on a better path even though they're disgusted by your current behavior, but they still love you enough to protect you with their life (and you'd do the same for them).
As for falling... the paladin code is stupid anyway, and if the DM actually enforces it then a Paladin is screwed no matter what, even in an all-paladin party, because the code is self-contradictory and impossible to avoid breaking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how being Lawful Good is a ridiculously unkeepable code, but perhaps you've only encountered "Lawful Stupid" paladins or bad GMs. Same defense I used for the necromancers in the thread suggesting they should be banned.
True, under the right circumstances a paladin could work with evil creatures/characters, aiding and abetting evil actions will definitely (quickly if not immediately) violate even the most lax code.
Summary:
Paladins and necromancers? Possibly difficult if they follow stereotypes, but possible
Paladins and Chaotic Evil necromancers? VERY difficult, but not impossible, given good RP reasons (see Bardess' post above)
Paladin in an all Evil party? Unless HE is the captive, or some extreme situation (which would be a lot more interesting a topic and more on the OP) I can't see it.
Before you ask how such a party would or wouldn't work, ask yourself how such a party would even happen!
(An evil dwarf, minotaur, and necromancer walk into a bar, when along came pally...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are allowed to work with evil individuals if it is in service for what they feel is the greater good. In fact, this is even noted in the class description. The question becomes: What stops the evil characters from laying down a coup de grace on a paladin in its sleep?
One possible reason:
'Cause they want to use the Paladin's "Good" association to make people think they are also good, and thus be allowed access to stuff without trouble./cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how being Lawful Good is a ridiculously unkeepable code, but perhaps you've only encountered "Lawful Stupid" paladins or bad GMs.
Being Lawful Good is not impossible.
By a strict reading, however, the Paladin Code nearly is.
Fall or Fall scenarios are quite easy to engineer even by accident. A favorite is "Lie or get someone killed", both choices force a Fall.
See also atonement
That makes sense, Cevah, but what's the paladin's motive?
|
|
See also atonement
That makes sense, Cevah, but what's the paladin's motive?
... Charm person. LOL
Oh wait, aren't paladins immune to that? Well then.
See also atonement
Requiring periodic define intervention to stop your class from being a Warrior (the NPC class) is not what I call well designed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The design intends for paladins to be...(wait for it)...GOOD!
The fact that the rules enforce this (and have since Gygax) frustratyes those who want it otherwise.
The design intends for paladins to be...(wait for it)...GOOD!
It fails. Miserably.
It wants Paladins to be perfect.
Problem: People aren't perfect. Players aren't perfect. Characters who try to BE perfect come across as either pathetic, or hopelessly arrogant.
Paladins can be Good without being straitjacketed by a Code that more often than not forces their players to choose between actually playing their class, and playing their character.
And you'll find that I care less than nothing if something "has been since Gygax". Gygax is dead. Gygax's game has evolved beyond him. His opinions hold little to no weight currently, because they were based on a very different game with very different goals.
My point here is that the Code as strictly interpreted doesn't really allow for a Paladin to partner with a Necromancer.
Yes, he can associate with evil characters in pursuit of the greater good, but he is essentially at some point going to help the Necromancer with something "Evil or Chaotic" just by virtue of being around a guy whose main contribution relies on evil acts (since Necromancy spells for the most part are inherently evil acts).
It's a strain on the party for no good reason. The Necromancer was there first. He is not obligated to accommodate a character who is the least compatible with his character in particular, and really the party as a whole.