Hi guys, i'm going to DM for the first time with Rise Of The Runelords in a group of 6 players (I will adjust the CR of each encounter by adding 1CR point to the normal) but one of the players is an Aasimar paladin with a daughter in Sandpoint and another one is an Antipaladin of Lamashtu.
I thought that this couple could play a more important role in the AP.
Maybe instead of kidnapping Ameiko, Tsuto could kidnap the Aasimar paladin's daughter on Nualia's command, in order to lift her "curse" by sacrifying her to Lamashtu.
On the other hand, why should a follower of Lamashtu be interested in stopping Nualia?
I came with an idea, maybe i could tell him that Lamashtu himself told him in a dream to come to Sandpoint and join in a group of "mighty adventurers" in order to find one of his worshippers (Nualia) and help her in her quest. He won't know who is the one that he's looking for, Nualia will ask him herself something similar to "And you, would you stop be like a dog for them and show your very self?!" in order to let him join her in the fight against the others.
I don't think he would have a chance to win the fight and, if he loses, he'll get killed or sent to Magnimar for a trial, in any case he'll need to do another hero.
What do you think about these ideas? Please feel free to give me advices and to call me an idiot if you think these ideas are just stupid, as I said, this's my first time DMing, so I could have easily misundestand something.
P.S.: Oh, and sorry for my bad english!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not consider having a Paladin and an antipladin in the same party, roleplayed properly one of them dies in the first session.
Also Antipaladin of Lamashtu , really bad idea I would ban that straight off for this campaign.
If you want your players to have a fight and end the campaign in session 1 this would be a good way to go about it.
No, no, no, no, no. I mean, really, no.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cant' believe what I just read. It's simply inconceivable. I refuse to believe I live in a world where someone with even the vaguest idea of what "aasimar paladin" and "antipaladin of lamashtu" mean could suggest one of each could be in the same pc party. Let alone in Book 1 of RotRL.
This has to be a troll of some sort, yes?
This has to be a joke doesn't it?
Doesn't it?
Please. Someone tell me this is a joke.
First off.. its his first time dm'ing. Cut the guy some slack.
Well, i think i learned the lesson at least, i just told him to do another non-evil character for this adventure.
Thank you all for the help, as long as there's constructive criticism i'll always accept it, sorry for hurting your feeling with my ideas :D
While we discarded the antipaladin, i believe there's no problem with kidnapping the paladin's aasimar daughter instead of Ameiko, am i right? I opted for this in order to give the players a more intense hook to the story.
Thanks again for all your help, it's very appreciated.
Just have him kidnap Ameiko and the paladin's daughter. :) <---That is a serious suggestion btw.
The more sacrifices the better, kidnap them both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogar, of course, is correct, but I think it's a fairly strong warning: Properly GM'ing PvP is nigh-impossible, and even close friends can become alienated as their PCs betray each other.
I think forcing "Mr. Antipaladin" to roll a new character is really the only option -- I cannot imagine an antipaladin of any sort wanting to help a party in this AP.
So congratulations! Your first "big call" as a GM and you got it right!
(And yes on Valandil as well -- kidnap EVERYONE! Whee!)
Rogar, of course, is correct, but I think it's a fairly strong warning: Properly GM'ing PvP is nigh-impossible, and even close friends can become alienated as their PCs betray each other.
I think forcing "Mr. Antipaladin" to roll a new character is really the only option -- I cannot imagine an antipaladin of any sort wanting to help a party in this AP.
So congratulations! Your first "big call" as a GM and you got it right!
(And yes on Valandil as well -- kidnap EVERYONE! Whee!)
why not force the regular paladin to reroll their character?
Paladin Paladin Paladin, its always about the Paladin. (Brady Bunch Reference)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it takes a LOT maturaty to play an antipaladin in this AP and not make it horribly for everyone.
And although I have seen about 10 very well played paladins in my life and I gamed for 22 years, I have not once seen one antipaladin played well!
I admit I have even knocked out one player playing a paladin in a larp for his behavior. But thats another story.
And I must add that one of those well played paladins was in another larp who after being charmed by succubus enchanted his other sword and yelled "Holy"with each thrust!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogar, of course, is correct, but I think it's a fairly strong warning: Properly GM'ing PvP is nigh-impossible, and even close friends can become alienated as their PCs betray each other.
I think forcing "Mr. Antipaladin" to roll a new character is really the only option -- I cannot imagine an antipaladin of any sort wanting to help a party in this AP.
So congratulations! Your first "big call" as a GM and you got it right!
(And yes on Valandil as well -- kidnap EVERYONE! Whee!)
why not force the regular paladin to reroll their character?
Paladin Paladin Paladin, its always about the Paladin. (Brady Bunch Reference)
Because, in my opinion, it is impossible to come up with a situation in which an antipaladin of Lamashtu would not fall for assisting the party, unless said antipaladin will betray them in-game, and early in the AP to boot.
So you have:
(1) Allow the antipaladin, requiring PvP or abandoning the as-written AP. (Yes, the OP said the antipaladin would betray the party and be removed at the end of Book 1, but that's still PvP.)
(2) Disallow the antipaladin, avoiding PvP and allowing the AP to proceed.
To me, that's a bit of a no-brainer...
Nothing wrong with having a characters daughter kidnapped, as long as you think the player will respond to it well in character.
I had the Aasimar Paladin in my game , be the sister of Nualia which produced a satisfying degree of angst, and had Nualia come back to plague the party for the entire campaign
why not force the regular paladin to reroll their character?
Paladin Paladin Paladin, its always about the Paladin. (Brady Bunch Reference)
I could also do that and follow the RotRL AP as an evil campaign as descripted in the Wayfinder 7 as "HEIRS OF THASSILON:“RISE OF THE RUNELORDS” AS AN EVIL CAMPAIGN" but i just don't want to do that, maybe in the future.
Anyway I told the antipaladin guy to reroll the character but he didn't take it good, he was like "Do we have to do the happily holding hands guys?" :).For the kidnap problem i'll follow your lead, but i was wondering how to kidnap the paladin's daughter. Tsuto lures Ameiko to the glassworks with a letter and there's no way he could convince her to take the child with her (At least it's what i think) so maybe Tsuto could send a goblin to kidnap the child the night before Ameiko's disappearance?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway I told the antipaladin guy to reroll the character but he didn't take it good, he was like "Do we have to do the happily holding hands guys?" :).why not force the regular paladin to reroll their character?
Paladin Paladin Paladin, its always about the Paladin. (Brady Bunch Reference)
I am honestly really concerned about your antipaladin guy. He seems to really *want* PvP in your campaign. As a first-time GM, this would be astonishingly hard for you. You can't imagine what it's like until your first PvP moment, when emotions are high, the players are pissed at each other, and everyone turns to you asking, "Well, what are you going to do about it?"
And you correctly respond, "Nothing! I'm the GM, and this is a player issue," and yet you watch your game disintegrate as one selfish player destroys the whole party.PvP. Just. Sucks. I've been a GM for... oh gods!... 37 years now. Every. Single. Campaign. That allowed PvP fell apart. Because the players can't help but take it personally. Sitting at the table, listening as another player says, "Well, yeah, I let them have the gold, the silver, and the copper, but I pocket most of the platinum, a couple of the gems, and this magic item," makes other players unbelievably resentful. They'll manage to stay in character for a while, but quickly develop a strong dislike for their "sticky-fingered friend", and it *always* ends up with someone walking away from the table pissed off. In 37 years, I have *NEVER* completed a campaign with an active PvP player.
Honestly, if that was your response from the antipaladin player, I would ponder simply uninviting that player from the group. I've dealt with too many such players over the years to have much sympathy for them. "You want to screw over other people because it makes you feel big? Go play World of Warcraft."
There. I said it. I feel better.
EDIT: And just don't get me started on the whole, "Well, my guy's a gritty antihero. He says, 'F*** the rest of the party! I'm doing what I feel is right!' And it's OK, because he's 'Good'. He's just not 'Lawful' Good or a 'Goody two-shoes', and if the rest of the party doesn't like it, they know where they can stick it!"
They're the worst, because they screw over the rest of the party and act self-righteous when doing so... "I'm just being 'realistic'!!!"
At least this guy knows you have to kill his character at the end of Book 1. But I still vote, "No!" If I'm in Chicago, I vote, "No!" 137 times...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Warning* This may be the concussion from banging my head repeatedly against the wall, of course this was my second head of the day as my previous one exploded:-p
Okily Dokily,
so while everyone doesn't have to play nice and hold hands as you say, i really don't see the point of having two completely opposed character concepts in the same party , not only are they opposed because of alignment but also due to wildly opposed Class codes, there is no way in hell or any other plane that these two guys would spend more then 30 seconds with each other, no way.
Look, i get sometimes people from opposite sides can get along, i'm as hippy as hippy gets while taking regular showers but my Best Friend is stereotypically Conservative.
but this is way different as neither one of us is religiously devoted to our respective causes, your PC class choices are religiously fanatically devoted to causes that will always be opposed as long as either them or their respective deities are still living:-)
it should also be said the only group of people that hate getting played for chumps more then Chaotic Evil people is no one!
people will die when he finds out, painfully.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it should also be said the only group of people that hate getting played for chumps more then Chaotic Evil people is no one!
people will die when he finds out, painfully.
Yeah, I was going to add that, but decided I'd done enough editing already.
You take one of these "jerkwads", for lack of a more polite term, and treat them the same way: They can only get 25% selling items because they have a "reputation", while their more "noble" friends get the full 50%, and you explain that as a GM you're just "balancing loot", and they hit the ceiling! If another PC steals from THEM, they kill that PC outright without regards for consequences, saying, "They deserved it!"
It's pretty much a fundamental rule for which I've never seen an exception: The player who wants to screw over the other players is the one most offended and most likely to quit the game if he himself gets screwed over.
Another reason my sympathy for such players is actively negative. (They complain, they get booted. Period.)
I think that my players are just unexperienced and they doesn't really know what to be a paladin and an antipaladin means, we started playing 1 year ago but we still have a lot to learn, me first.
The antipaladin especially is at his first time, he probably doesn't have a clue on what he should do and what he shouldn't.
I think that my players are just unexperienced and they doesn't really know what to be a paladin and an antipaladin means, we started playing 1 year ago but we still have a lot to learn, me first.
The antipaladin especially is at his first time, he probably doesn't have a clue on what he should do and what he shouldn't.
Fair enough, but have him re-read the antipaladin code and explain just how he's going to get around
An antipaladin's code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals..
without screwing over the other party members...
You would have to provide an overall goal for the antipaladin that aligned with the other PCs. I quite frankly cannot envision such a goal in this AP.
In Crimson Throne there's a GREAT example of a LE cleric of Zon Kuthon who will work with LG paladins or clerics because they have the same end goal -- "Lawful" is an awfully useful tag. But once you get "chaotic evil", you really run out of possible goals for the antipaladin very quickly that don't involve betraying the party at some point.
|
A potential evil option is a LE fighter or other martial class who is aspiring to be a Hellknight. Of course that offers it's own problems when they find out that any of the party members have committed crimes of if the local Varisian authorities eventually find out that there is a Hellknight running around the countryside.
Actually I don't know their stance on that.
Still potentially catastrophic to party cohesion.
I think that my players are just unexperienced and they doesn't really know what to be a paladin and an antipaladin means, we started playing 1 year ago but we still have a lot to learn, me first.
The antipaladin especially is at his first time, he probably doesn't have a clue on what he should do and what he shouldn't.
The names Paladin and Antipaladin weren't the first clues they might not get along so well.
sounds like they both or just one has a plan and they aren't cluing you in to it.out of curiosity what age range we talking here? high school (or younger), college, post college, older, so old they remember when Reagan was first elected.
To be clear *You* didn't almost screw things up, someone made a bad choice for a class, these things happen, i started a Pirate campaign with a few brothers and specifically said No Paladins!, i believe 3 people showed up with Paladins:-\
as long as everyone ends up having fun no harm done:-)
glad you could work it out.
edit: wait where did he go?
edit 2: there he is:) alas i only have 16 years experience in DnD (however thats spread out over nearly 40 years, did the Reagan joke give me away:-p)
The names Paladin and Antipaladin weren't the first clues they might not get along so well.
sounds like they both or just one has a plan and they aren't cluing you in to it.out of curiosity what age range we talking here? high school (or younger), college, post college, older, so old they remember when Reagan was first elected.
We are all 20 years old, you're far more experienced as D&D players than us as humans :)
Anyway i already told him to reroll his character with a non-evil one, he will use him in another campaign.
Let me thank you all again for the help you provided me, you saved me from screwing things up and improved our experience :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it's a home game, and the kind of stuff that goes on in home games can be the stuff of legend, causing apoplectic fits in "experienced" GMs.
I'm usually on the, "If it works for you, good on you!" side of things, but that young whippersnapper Cap'n Yesteryore (tee hee) stole my thunder: Paladin/antipaladin with an INTENTIONAL conflict at the end of Book 1 is going to leave everyone sore.
Yeah, it seems really cool to the player right now. But 2 months from now, after he's invested dozens of hours into building a personality for this character, only to have to be required to betray the party and either die trying to kill them or win and end the AP?
Not a good recipe for success...
EDIT: I know you've already changed your mind about allowing it, but having lots of reasons you can pass on to the player in question never hurts...
If your character still wants to play an evil character, it is still probably doable. Mainly if its a LE one.
|
|
On the other hand, why should a follower of Lamashtu be interested in stopping Nualia?
Lamashtu, Mother of Monsters and Madness, does not actually care for the well-being of her children, she only cares about their propagation and subjugation of the rest of living creation. As such she avidly supports culling the 'weak members of the herd.' The antipaladin could want to stop her as part of letting Lamashtu's twisted Darwinism be fulfilled.
That said, having a Paladin and an anti-paladin is just begging for disaster.
|
|
As an addendum to my previous post, you could honestly extrapolate the "Living up to the Dog-Eat-Dog World" attitude to the entire campaign. The Antipaladin wants to cull the weak, and in the adventure path, that means Nualia and the Goblins, Skinsaw Man and the Ghouls, Ogres and Barl Breakbones, all the way through to Runelord Karzoug. He's not killing evil people to save good people, he's killing weak evil people so that Lamashtu's next batch of demonic spawn are better. If he never accepts an enemy's surrender, he'd have a bit in common with a Paladin of Iomedae or Torag. Shelyn and Sarenrae would have issues though.
The names Paladin and Antipaladin weren't the first clues they might not get along so well.
sounds like they both or just one has a plan and they aren't cluing you in to it.out of curiosity what age range we talking here? high school (or younger), college, post college, older, so old they remember when Reagan was first elected.
We are all 20 years old, you're far more experienced as D&D players than us as humans :)
Anyway i already told him to reroll his character with a non-evil one, he will use him in another campaign.
Let me thank you all again for the help you provided me, you saved me from screwing things up and improved our experience :)
I'd suggest a conversation with your players about their motivations and how they the think they'll relate to each other and the various people in the game world.
The pc's don't have to be altruistic and self-sacrificing but at some level the pc's should want Sandpoint to avoid destruction and generally feel the various monsters threatening it (and other mortal enclaves) should be dealt with sternly. It's okay to have a mercenary outlook (visit strange and exotic locales, meet new and exciting creatures, kill them and take their stuff) but the targets should be the various creatures making trouble in the AP. It's okay to be paid to take risks but not okay to become a monster. Or it is and that's the kind of campaign you're willing to run and the others to play in. (In this model, an antipaladin is by definition a monster.)
And to NobodysHome's point - they should all have the same view on whether it's okay to rob each other or stab each other in the back or otherwise cheat or harm each other in pursuit of their individual pc's goals. Differing expectations here can create real world problems or at least significantly impact the campaign (players quit, etc.)
I'm a firm believer in consequences. I also believe in warning players with an "Are you sure you want to do that?"
If the former-antipaladin player wants to play a disruptive character? That character will pay for those disruptions. This will do one of two things. First, it could drive the player off. You have six players in an AP designed for four. It won't hurt things too badly.
Second, it may get the player to play SMART, plan things out to do crimes when no one is around, pin the blame on others, and the like. If the player goes that route? Let him. Because when a player uses cunning and sneakiness, it helps and will likely result in the player prevailing against the enemies later in the AP.
I believe the problem with an evil character it's not only limited by his objectives (Why should he help the party), but also by it's attidude: he wants to punish innocent people, impose himself, be a thief if he have the chance and so on, so there will be a lot problems with the guards in towns, especially if he kills someone (Think about the shopkeeper's daughter encounter, how would it end if i choose him?).
At least it would be a fine way to get rid of him once and for all :D
And if he doesn't do this kind of evil stuff, i should change his alignment and force him to become an ex-antipaladin
Just for the saying, i just found out that he has never read a manual of Pathfinder, he was getting his information from a site similar to "http://www.d20pfsrd.com/" but in our language, -facepalm-
Isn't there some sort of test to see if he knows the basic rules at least?
I can think of a few ways to make an Antipaladin of Lamashtu work within the framework of this AP, but it would require a particular group of players to pull off, and it could be interesting.
The Paladin being in the group sort of made it be a deal breaker, glad you decided against allowing that mix, flipping the coin on weather or not you got a either,
1. an awesome legendary game experience
- or -
2. multiple player angry and upset at each other
is not so good.
IF you had gone with your original plan for PvP at the end of Burnt Offerings that could have been cool too, but it would require letting the player in on it:
"OK, you are with these other characters, but when the time is right you will be forced to betray them. Assuming that they kill you, or you manage to escape, you'll be able to roll up a new character."
At least then the blame can be put all on you, and was, in fact part of the campaign (and not Bob just being a jerk).
Lamashtu on Lamastu action is pretty much out the window as far as combat goes, at worst they would avoid each other, they tend to recognize each other as part of the same bad guy team.
Lamashtu's church is scattered and lacks an overall hierarchy, yet it is rare for two priest's to come into direct conflict, as they recognize each other's shared devotion and the hostility visited by those outside the religion.
Creating the morale dilemma for the player could have been interesting, but as new(ish) players and DM, I agree with NobodysHome, it would be a quagmire.
PvP. Just. Sucks. I've been a GM for... oh gods!... 37 years now. Every. Single. Campaign. In 37 years, I have *NEVER* completed a campaign with an active PvP player.
This is purely anecdotal, on both my part and NobodysHome, but I've been running games a similar amount of time, I've seen PvP cause lots of problems, but I've also seen it cause plenty of fun - amongst the 4 players in my current game, 3 of them I've been playing with for...well since 2e was new, and all three of them have, at some point over the years, killed each other in game, stole from each other, swiped the choice loot, ect. The fourth is a new player to the group. My players take what happens in stride, when PvP happens, it usually isn't a suprise.
|
Unfortunately, Lorax, I'd label your experience as "anecdotal evidence," and echo Yesterday and NobodyHome - for first time players (and especially first time DMs), having a paladin and an antipaladin (of Lamashtu, no less) in the same group mixes like lithium and water. An experienced DM with experienced players can run into PvP and have it work, but that would be the exception to the rule, in my experience. The guy playing the antipaladin, especially with his response, seems to have built his character specifically to bully players and play the game the way he wants. This is just about as bad as the paladin who forces PCs to give away money to charity and refuses to let them loot tombs. Actually, it's worse, because the rest of the PCs signed up to be heroes. There is nothing heroic about being an antipaladin.
Look, if the player wants to be an antihero, that's one thing. But there's a very fine line between antihero and villain, and I'm really reluctant to let a new player walk that line.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re-echoing Misroi and being very specific:
- I HAVE seen PvP campaigns where the players had lots of fun roleplaying their PvP shenanigans.
- I have NEVER seen a PvP campaign make it all the way to the end. Eventually, the PvP gets tiresome and the PCs kill each other/disband/otherwise wreck the campaign.
Short-term, it can work. Long-term, if you're trying to run a full 6-book AP, you need to squish it.
My $0.02.
Or, have the paladin's daughter take the place of Nualia (with a similar backstory or new one). You could work up a redemption story into the final confrontation (or throughout).
-Doomn
Allowing a PC to play an antipaladin in anything other than a campaign designed from the beginning as an evil campaign is a terrible idea, and even then the antipaladin should be either houseruled to work as LE or be the Lord of Darkness archetype from Fire Mountain Games' Way of the Wicked. (can be found on d20pfsrd.com)
Playing a bog-standard chaotic evil antipaladin as their primary character pretty much only appeals to people who delight in ruining everyone else's fun. If they really want to play a villain, they should GM and run the BBEG, as long as they can enjoy setting up their character to be defeated.
Unfortunately, Lorax, I'd label your experience as "anecdotal evidence," ...
I agree, that's why I said "This is purely anecdotal, on both my part and NobodysHome..."
In this particular case, I think the player wasn't playing nice and was bound to cause a problem. Paladin and AntiPaladin in the same group is a BAD BAD plan. The game will not even get the chance to develop before PvP occurs. I'm only saying there are ways for PvP to occur and still be fun, and ways to use a follower of Lamashtu and still be fun.- I have NEVER seen a PvP campaign make it all the way to the end.
End? End is when people stop playing. Even if I take a multi-year break while someone else is DMing, my campaign world hasn't reached it's end, and the actions of players from 1983 still have an impact on the existing game.
In terms of running a complete AP? I can certainly see PvP action derailing an AP, but I've seen such be derailed by other things more often, such as people moving away work schedule changes, children being born, Lots of things can derail an AP.
Unfortunately, Lorax, I'd label your experience as "anecdotal evidence," ...I agree, that's why I said "This is purely anecdotal, on both my part and NobodysHome..."
In this particular case, I think the player wasn't playing nice and was bound to cause a problem. Paladin and AntiPaladin in the same group is a BAD BAD plan. The game will not even get the chance to develop before PvP occurs. I'm only saying there are ways for PvP to occur and still be fun, and ways to use a follower of Lamashtu and still be fun.- I have NEVER seen a PvP campaign make it all the way to the end.End? End is when people stop playing. Even if I take a multi-year break while someone else is DMing, my campaign world hasn't reached it's end, and the actions of players from 1983 still have an impact on the existing game.
In terms of running a complete AP? I can certainly see PvP action derailing an AP, but I've seen such be derailed by other things more often, such as people moving away work schedule changes, children being born, Lots of things can derail an AP.
Yeah, I think we're fairly in agreement, we're just looking at things differently. Our campaigns run once per 1-2 weeks, and we try to finish all 6 books of an AP, which takes 1-2 years per AP.
The PvP stuff gets old for us in 6 months or less, killing that particular AP. So at this point I just disallow it outright.
Different players, different styles...
Well, I'm not sure how you would CONTINUE PvP for 6 months.
Most of what I've seen involves 1 or 2 deaths and then that's it.
At that point there may be a character kicked out of the group, and new characters brought in, and play continues.
Running an AP has actually be a rarity, and so play continues until it seems like the right time to start a new group. My group is mostly people who have been playing together for a long time - a little PvP isn't going to alienate anyone. Others almost certainly have a different experience. Truth be told, the PvP action has been pretty rare - the players know that even if they "Win", its entirely possible that the rest of the party will leave them behind (and thus the character probably won't get run).
You've got plenty of input on the whole Anti-paladin in the party issue. I will respond to this bit about the antipaladin and his end.
I don't think he would have a chance to win the fight and, if he loses, he'll get killed or sent to Magnimar for a trial, in any case he'll need to do another hero.
And what happens when he betrays the party when half of them are at single digits or unconscious or entangled, and wins. Those little pieces of plastic can be funny sometimes.
Okay. Here is my experience with PvP.
First, back story. My old AD&D group decided once, while we were playing on an April 1st, to pull a prank on one player. I proceeded to kill off nearly everyone in the group but his character. He's horrified as all this is going down... and as he's the last person standing we all turned to him and said "April Fools!"
Fast forward half a year later or so. He wants revenge. I agree to let him get it. At this point he's running two characters (one of his characters had died and after a quest they managed to get him brought back to life (I didn't believe in easy resurrections in my game - death isn't cheap by any stretch of the imagination)) and I tell them that when they wake up in the morning, his other character is missing. That's when his first character (who'd been brought back from the dead) says something ominous to the party leader, and then backstabs him for enough damage to bring him to -30 hit points.
His next attack is on that player's apprentice (one of several NPCs). He breaks a magic item which causes a wild surge, transforming the apprentice into a rust monster - and the party front-line fighter freaks, being full of metal, and proceeds to try to kill the rust monster. Instead of, you know, sacrificing say a shield or something and dealing with the REAL threat, the now-evil player.
It is soon apparent that this is going to become a cakewalk. He took out the one player with brains outside of him, the one character who was a potential threat was turned ineffectual due to fear of an NPC under a polymorph, and no one else was able to touch him. Realizing it was going to become a situation of the NPCs vs. his character at the end, I allowed the party leader to be brought back to -9 hit points and use an existing Dominate Monster on a Giant Troll they had befriended to use the Troll to fight the evil PC.
The PvP player got quite angry at that. He got angrier when the Party Leader managed to use a spell to cause damage inflicted on him to instead hit the evil player... and finally I had everyone wake up - it was all a bad dream (as planned).
This was a simple prank (which should have warned me of the player's personality - he could fake being nice, but when push came to shove later on, he turned on me and my best friend and lied about things). It turned out poorly. And it was with a group of people, some of whom had been gaming for years and had been in this group for well over a year.
This anti-Paladin scheme? It would kill the game. It doesn't matter if the anti-Paladin died without taking out a single other character... it would disrupt the environment and cause the group to break into factions that don't get along.