Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ramius_Mordale 06-23-05, 02:54 AM	So I'm not trying to start a war with my fellow PCs but I apparantly won't be able to play a paladin with a mostly chaotic good party. Why? Because the other PCs say so without even playing or roleplaying with my paladin yet. Heck I haven't even rolled up his ability stats yet and they already told me it wouldn't work. Let me rephrase, the only two PCs have said this and the most so-called experienced players in our gaming group. Now normally I try to be understanding of people's concerns but this was just an all out gang up on me and squash my concept before they even have seen my character in action. They already made up their minds they are going to do things that would **** off a paladin so much that even if I did play one he would have to leave because they would constantly insult his code. Granted I'm not one to cause unnecessary waves, but this is rediculas to the extreme with these two guys. They seem to think this game is theirs and no one elses and everyone else plays by their rules. Making a long and boring story short about the argument they basically said that a paladin won't fit in the group and if I did play one even if my character was compassionate and tried to convince them to use more ligit ways of interrogating without bashing the enemies skulls in or ambushing and beating people needlessly that it wouldn't work out. You know what I thought in my head, apparantly they don't get the definition of what the good part of their alignment stands for. Hey I know Chaotic and Neutral Good characters are a little more lacks on the issue of lying or cheating in order to do the greater good in their eyes but I still don't see why a paladin wouldn't work. So they purposely the whole session I watch, and they did every act imaginable to insult a paladin to prove their point it wouldn't work. Personally, I didn't see any Good in their characters, more neutral than anything. And the guy playing the Chaotic Neutral Rogue acted like Chaotic Evil. All in all, I made up my mind long ago I wanted to play a paladin, and that's what I'm going to play. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but I always hear them say they like to have conflict in the group and that they want to make an adventuring guild with this group, but they don't want anyone lawful good in it because they think it will cramp their style or keep them from being able to ambush characters. Oh and get this the reason why they don't want a paladin in the group is because they told me they would be ambushing all the time, and I told them paladins do use ambushes as a justifiable tactics that wouldn't be against their code of conduct, then they added in they would be jumping good people and bashing them over the head. You tell me here, do you think they are even playing a good character at all? Personally I just think they don't want to even try to have a great story, with any conflict whatsoever even though they love conflicting with the group when its them doing it. This is just outright bullying in my opinion and trying to tell me how and what character I will be allowed to play in the group. One more thing before I close I want all of you to know that we were all in agreement that no one would know anything about the others characters before we played and that we were supposed to make whatever character we wanted. Huh, apparantly everyone gets to but me I guess. Sorry for the rant, but I just needed to get this off my chest and see if anyone else thought this was just a pile of you know what. Thanks for your patience. -Ramius-
Derren S. 06-23-05, 02:59 AM	Law and chaos are equal opponents than good and evil. They are right, a paladin in a CG party will not work.
Terraneaux 06-23-05, 03:07 AM	Thats not true; the very fact that a paladin is in the party makes it a party that isn't wholly "chaotic good." That said, I think i understand what you're saying in that many times the law/chaos axis is portrayed as being less important than the good/evil axis; in my games i prefer to put them on an even footing. However, the characters in the campaign that ramius described really seem to be acting in an evil manner. I would really suggest talking to the dm and seeing if you can get him to either talk to the pcs or change their alignment because ambushing and killing random good-aligned people (or anybody really; just because someone's evil doesn't make it a good act to kill them) is most definitely an evil act.
Dragen White 06-23-05, 03:08 AM	Sounds to me like the DM of the group needs to be more strict on alignments, if he would penalize you for doing the same things constred as evil without just cause, then he should definatly change their alignment. Now normaly i would say that being a paladin doesn't mean you have to be a prude, you should explain to them that a Lawful Good alignment, means you follow the code of your deity and try to peacefully co-exist with the laws around you, such as stealing for profit is bad, but to steal to return somthing stolen or etc is borderline but ok with the code. Any time they walk that line dosn't mean you have to preach , only when they cross it, such as kicking and spitting at homless people, in wich case you should alarm the Dm of their behavior. In any case, ive hand my bands of partys that hated working with the holyer than tho paladins but with good roleplaying anyhting is possible, if the rest of the group intends to be evil, i sugest you either get on board and just game or find another group that has less, paladin issues...gogo Paladin!!!
stealth_monkey 06-23-05, 03:11 AM	I agree (with Derrin S). Although it may be all well and good for the first couple of sessions, in the end I'd doubt it would work out. The pc's are allowed to shift alignment. If they want to club baby seals over the head they are allowed to. Paladins aren't, and if the pc's continue their current trends a fallout will be inevitable
Cymraegmorgan 06-23-05, 03:16 AM	Sounds like your fellow players have absolutely no idea of what CG, much less LG, is. This is the sort of immature attitude(theirs, not yours) I prefer to avoid in my games. If the DM is allowing them to run roughshod over you, then he is not worth gaming with. Find another group, one that will at least listen to your character concept.
Torack 06-23-05, 03:17 AM	I would talk to the other players in the group(How many are there, anyway?) and the DM and see if you cannot get these two guys to act more in accordance with their character alignment. From what I make up from your story, I tend to agree that they aren't playing their alignments correctly. A Chaotic character might be considered a rogue bullet, however the Good part of their alignment would prevent them from knocking out innocent bystanders and torture IMHO. Unlike the first poster I don't see a real problem with a Chaotic Good and Lawful Good person travelling in the same party. Lawful Good and Chaotic Neutral I could see, and ofcourse any evil wouldn't work either, but as long as half the alignment(Good or Lawful) is in the other party members alignment I hardly see any realistic problems. Talk to the other players and DM and explain your situation. You are correct in assuming other players cannot dictate your choice of class or alignment. And remember you could always use the variants in Unearthed Arcana(I think there's a Chaotic Good Paladin in there...)
HappyDragon 06-23-05, 03:38 AM	Sounds like your fellow players have absolutely no idea of what CG, much less LG, is. This is the sort of immature attitude(theirs, not yours) I prefer to avoid in my games. If the DM is allowing them to run roughshod over you, then he is not worth gaming with. Find another group, one that will at least listen to your character concept. This is a bit harsh, but I would have to agree. IMO LG and CG work fine in adventuring groups. It can lead to some of the most entertaining and memorable roleplaying. No they wont always see eye to eye, but that isn't a necessisity for any group.....especially when the argumement is being soley based off alignement. If that was the case no one could adventure with anyone else and CG characters....c'mon, just because they are the same alignment certainly wont nean they should see eye to eye all the time either. It really sounds like the other players simply don't want to have to deal with the reporcusions of their actions, which by the way, do not sound very GOOD in the frst place. If you can't find another group to play with, you may have to change, because chances are a LG Paladin will be very short lived in the campaign.
Ramius_Mordale 06-23-05, 04:18 AM	Well you are talking to the DM and trying to dump off DMing to one of the two guys making the big deal about the paladin not working. And yes I'm planning on enforcing their alignments next session if I see them do the same stuff again I'm going to drop their alignments one notch. First off let me clearify on why I'm DMing, I thought it was going to be temporary, but I found out temporary is until 9th level which they also believe will take 6 months to a year to make. :eek: Okay I'm not big on handing out much xp myself so I can see after 6 months and just hitting 9th level as acceptable but not roleplaying a whole year, unless there is a plan not to do it regularly that I'm not aware of. And now about temporary, when I thought of temporary I thought maybe 3rd to 5th level not 9th level. If I'm going to DM until 9th level I might as well just DM the whole campaign, plus I was going to solo run my paladin on the side and then I'm being told by them that I should always be 2 levels below the group even if I did join later as a PC and one of them took over DMing at 9th. Listen I know the group and here is the make up and you decide from that if the paladin would or wouldn't work from what I have witnessed so far. Halfling Bard (AL NG)- (One of the PCs that has a problem with paladin concept) Has asperations of starting (and has) an adventuring company and catagoring and finding lost treasures. Has no problem lying and cheating and using apparantly light forms of torturing but will allow those to live after they give him the information he needs. Human Ranger (AL CG)- (other PC with the problem against the paladin) He is an outdoors type of guy that is a mix of Crocidile (sp?) Dundee and Indiana Jones. Basically a typical hunter and trapper of the wilds. Shares the same idea for torturing. Human Rogue (AL CN)- This character I think is being played CE mainly because he stabbed a corrupt guard in the back because he thought (bad appraising of a gem) got shorted on his payment (the guard did pay him the correct price). Try to hunt him down to finish him off and was the only one willing to cut off parts of the person they captured that they were torturing. Lies a lot and steals from whomever without remorse and only looks out for himself. Granted I know CN is a hard alignment to judge versus CE and so far he hasn't crossed the line much into evil acts but if he gets anymore careless and just goes around stealing and attacking people all the time he is probably going to shift to CE. Yes I think a paladin would conflict with this PC the most, but I think it would have a potential for some awesome roleplaying of the paladin trying to redeem him from his wicked ways (or at least show him temperment and patience) Wood Elf Fighter (AL CG)- A typical elven warrior what can I say about it. Elves I have noticed still can muster the ability to work with paladins knowing full well that even though they tend to be strict with laws and regulations still work on the same side. Again I can see some slight friction here but nothing overly serious than idealological differences. Guy doesn't know about me wanting to play a paladin but him and me have had conflicting characters before and its worked out just fine. Half-Orc Fighter (AL CG)- Again typcial half-orc warrior here and not very stealthy at all (huh, kind of shoots that stealthy attack group out of the water doesn't it? Note they have no problem with this character.) I think this guy is playing CG the most correctly, he went out and handed out his meager earnings from the bard and gave it to the poor in the city and gained a lot of popularity because of it. Not very well liked at first and not very charismatic but I think he so far has played CG the best. Again he may have problems with the paladins strict views about laws but I don't think he would overly conflict with a paladin. (He actually shares a guard company's leadership duties and gets along alright with the NPC paladin there.) That's the group make up as it is, the group did leave the guy alive they captured and interrogated but again they did use torture needlessly in my opinion just to find out information they could have found out later in town (and after they tortured the guy they didn't even follow up finding out anymore of what they did get from the guy). So I'm going to let this group continue to run, but interesting enough the PC playing the bard wants to change to a different character because they banked off of their last adventure with treasure and a little bit of luck. Granted they found some things I didn't want them to find until later, but I can't penalize PCs for just getting lucky. (Well at least for now, eventually their enemies will find a way to get to them as always). Hope that helps out a bit and yes I'm the not so strict DM with alignments. :P ;) But only for now, I'm keeping track of how many infractions they commit because I am loathe to change alignments without being absolutely certain they aren't playing their alignments correctly. Again if you need me to explain further just ask. -Ramius-
HappyDragon 06-23-05, 04:36 AM	The main thing that leaps out IMO is why would a Bard have to resort to torture? Of all the classes out there, a Bard is the most likely to get information without having to resort to such methods. If he needed a little extra help in extreme circumstances just have the Half-Orc in the background flexing his muscles. The average person should be crumbling by that point if for some strange reason they were able to resist the bard's persuasive diplomacy/gather information attempts. No torture necessary.
Radijs 06-23-05, 04:53 AM	It can work pretty well. I know it works in our party. The paladin is LG (of course) and most of the rest are CN or CG. The paladin is frustrated when she has to stop us from slaughtering through a horde of kobolds who are literally ******* themselves out of fear because we're hoping to find loot in their keep. (we already smashed the silver altar of an evil deity and are now in the blessed posession of a lot of evil silver. The DM wants us to tell him what we spend the silver on. (Bad stuffs gonna happen! :D)
Thorak 06-23-05, 09:01 AM	It can work pretty well. I know it works in our party. The paladin is LG (of course) and most of the rest are CN or CG. The paladin is frustrated when she has to stop us from slaughtering through a horde of kobolds who are literally ******* themselves out of fear because we're hoping to find loot in their keep. (we already smashed the silver altar of an evil deity and are now in the blessed posession of a lot of evil silver. The DM wants us to tell him what we spend the silver on. (Bad stuffs gonna happen! :D) repeated. My current character is a Paladin/Kensai, in a group that has one NG, and two CNs. The NG isn't a major character; his player started working game nights, and he was NPCed and then given to one of the other players (he's the cleric and only source of healing, so it's hard to just dump him). Is there conflict? Hoo boy is there conflict. But you know what? Conflict is what makes things interesting. Show me a movie or story with no conflict. You can't. Because that's what's interesting. Without conflict, you've got an incredibly boring time. And there's nothing about inner-party conflict that makes it worse than any other. If the players are mature enough to not take it personally, and just enjoy how the characters are interacting.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-23-05, 09:24 AM	If you ask me, here's one possible view on alignment: Good vs. Evil = the goal Law vs. Chaos = the approach So CG and LG are different approaches towards the same goal. Works for me. Your players are being immature if they think a paladin can't get along in a mostly chaotic good party if the DM is willing to accomodate it. Your DM has the final say, not your fellow players. In fact, you have the final say - whether you'll play in the game or not.
High Octane 06-23-05, 10:01 AM	I agree with Eliza on the alignment issue. On the issue at hand, a paladin with a mostly CG crew is not only accpetable, but makes for GREAT roleplaying between characters. Both are good, but they disagree on all else, so they in the end have to respect each other even though they barely ever agree on anything. For the record, if you are DM say this, and I mean it. TORTURE IS AN EVIL ACT. That bard is Neutral. He isnt evil, but he certainly isnt good. Lying and cheating are not good acts unless they serve an almost direct greater good (i.e cheating rich nobles out of evilly aquired funds to give to the poor) The ranger is also neutral, but sounds chaotic. Again, not evil, and the ranger actually sounds like hes being roleplayed well for his class, but not his alignment. The rogues actions are evil. He should be CE. If the player REALLY wants to ward off becoming evil, I would put him on probation, but DAMN, his actions would NEVER be tolerated in a good group. The Wood elf sounds like hes being played well and the half-orc sounds like he is being played brilliantly.
KoboldSlayer 06-23-05, 10:06 AM	I have a paladin in my current campaign mixed in with a bunch of other good characters...none of whom is lawful. (About equally mixed neutral and chaotic.) This has not caused a problem. Of course, my "good" characters aren't ambushing good people and bashing them in the skull for their money. That is not a good act, no matter how you look at it. So maybe the problem is not that CG and LG won't work together...but that the rest of the party is not playing CG?
Callista 06-23-05, 10:29 AM	I've played a Paladin in a CG group--Exalted paladin, no less. It worked out fine. What usually happened was that the party tended to think my character was stodgy and annoying; I got pranks played on me on more than one occasion. However, being Chaotic, the characters also tended to respect my character's dedication to her oath; being Good, my character saw that we had common goals and was quite willing to work with them. On a few occasions, on matters of honor (Law), my character would refuse to be a party to some sort of dishonorable tactic (bluffing, for example), but grudgingly allow her party to use it. A Paladin's prime dedication is to Good; working with chaotics is sometimes necessary. The big thing for a Paladin in a Chaotic party is that the character should realize that, while she has taken an oath to be honorable, her companions have not. And, while a Lawful nature doesn't appreciate chaotic acts, they don't represent the breaking of an oath if those people never took an oath to begin with. Unless you *want* conflict, your character should not attempt to force other characters to act honorably. Leading by example (remember that Charisma score?) is the primary way for your character to cause others to follow her ideals. Don't expect to become a party leader right away. Chaotics often see leaders as equals, not superiors; so they won't allow you to lead them, rather seeking a party consensus when the big decisions are made. Also, they will see your methods as limited. Don't play an extremely Lawful paladin in a Chaotic party. The Paladin I played in a Chaotic party started out as a NG halfling rogue and didn't think ambushes (on enemies, in enemy territory, while in a state of war) were dishonorable, though she did frown on the use of invisibility and poison. She would occasionally play pranks; and she liked a glass or two of wine when she was off-duty. Don't get me wrong--if you are a Paladin, you must still be lawful, honorable and dedicated to your superiors. You do not, however, have to be extremely lawful. In a nutshell: Let them do what they want, as long as it isn't evil. Lead by example, not by command. Don't try to hold them to your code and oath. If you do that, and if the CG characters are truly Good, then you can work together. If if it doesn't work, agree that you will prepare a second character, retire your first, and have the DM work him in. (For such compromises, you can usually get the new character in with no level loss, if you make the proper sort of puppy eyes at the DM. :) Well, it works for females, anyway.)
eudas 06-23-05, 10:46 AM	It's not that it doesn't work, but it can be difficult. LG is already a Boy Scout alignment, and when you combine it with the Paladin Code of Conduct requirements it can be quite stringent. However, there are several important things to realize: 1) The code only applies to the paladin. 2) The paladin is under no such requirement to convert his party members to his complete methodology and/or religion -- he doesn't have to be a proselytizing cockmaster. 3) while (1) and (2) are true, this doesn't give the party members free reign to be complete dick holsters themselves; if they do, in fact, care to have the paladin with them then they must reign their 14-year-old impulses in. they can't be overly cruel to prisoners, they can't slay people randomly, they can't just steal and take what they want. but they can ambush, they can make plans, and they can act as a coherent group. basically, each party member just has to bear in mind that the other characters have very different outlooks on life, and when they are trying to solve a problem, they need to negotiate until they find a solution that is satisfactory to all, and not just go "well, i'm tired of talking to you, i'm going to do X, and if you don't like it, screw you". If the other characters aren't tied to the Paladin by emotion (ie they like him and are willing to work with him in order to keep him in the party) or by some other external force (geas, need, etc) then yeah, the party is going to inevitably break up. People who aren't willing to listen to each other generally don't stay friends for long. eudas
Bonzai 06-23-05, 10:49 AM	With proper RP, and a little DM plot devices, any alignment combination can be possible. Take the famous Dragonlance party (guessing aligments but I bet their close). CG Fighter NE Wizard NG Ranger LG Paladian CG Rogue LG Fighter CG Barbarian CG Cleric No one got along with Raistlin, but he was Caromons (sp?) brother, and frankly they needed him. They knew he was evil, (well everyone but his brother), but at least he was low key about it. Flint seemed to be a lawful good type, but Tass was more chaotic. That didn't stop them from being friends, (despite what Flint would say). THe Palidan had a strick code of conduct, which annoyed the party some times, but they would work around it. It all depends on the maturity of the players and RP. But since your DM, you have the club. Do what you want. They don't like it, they can dm.
Sir Knight 06-23-05, 10:51 AM	The problem is twofold... 1) Paladins are not "I smite thee villain!" and holier-than-thou characters. They "can" be, but they don't have to be. 2) I think the entire group needs an Alignment check... none are really following the spirit of the "Good" alignment. None are acting as heroes that they should be. I usually run Lawful or Neutral Good characters. My wife usually runs Chaotic Good or Neutral characters. We have little to no conflicts but sometimes our characters believe the other's approach is "wrong". It seems to me that your group's approach is to the extreme. I take Alignment as guidelines, for example: Lawful Good Paladin - Always acts for Good (doesn't torture, doesn't lie but will evade and not answer, etc) and always follows the Law (JUST laws, not evil or misguided laws). Lawful Good Fighter - Always acts for Good (doesn't torture because he feels it is immoral, but his personal moral code he'll lie if it is the right thing to do) and usually follows the Law (follows major just laws but will fudge minor ones if the need is great). See... two different takes on LG that are basically the same. Neutral doesn't mean that one day they are heroes and the next day villains. Neutral isn't an excuse to commit evil acts. Also, Chaotic Neutral doesn't mean crazy at all... that was a function in previous edition (that I thought was awful) and has changed in 3e. I suggest re-reading the section on alignment. There should be nothing wrong with your Paladin adventuring with other good/neutral people. He wouldn't associate with Evil (with SEVERAL of them are in danger of shifting to) and he might be the moral compass that the group needs to get back on the heroic path.
pres_man 06-23-05, 11:28 AM	Human Rogue (AL CN)- This character I think is being played CE mainly because he stabbed a corrupt guard in the back because he thought (bad appraising of a gem) got shorted on his payment (the guard did pay him the correct price). Try to hunt him down to finish him off and was the only one willing to cut off parts of the person they captured that they were torturing. Lies a lot and steals from whomever without remorse and only looks out for himself. Granted I know CN is a hard alignment to judge versus CE and so far he hasn't crossed the line much into evil acts but if he gets anymore careless and just goes around stealing and attacking people all the time he is probably going to shift to CE. Yes I think a paladin would conflict with this PC the most, but I think it would have a potential for some awesome roleplaying of the paladin trying to redeem him from his wicked ways (or at least show him temperment and patience) One thing to keep in mind is the PCs opinion of whether an act is evil or not is irrelevant (the players opinion though should be considered, even if finally rejected by a well played DM). Either an act is evil or it is not. So when he tried to kill the guard for a perceived wrong, but was not actually wrong (in this case the guard was innocent) the act was evil. From the alignment section: People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. As soon as a PC starts not having compunctions about killing (or torturing, IMO) innocents, they are leaving neutral for evil. My suggestion was originally to play a ranger (holy warrior without all the alignment restriction), you might also consider a cleric/fighter or better a NG druid/barbarian. When they start to step out line, "I said stop! (smacks guy with sap)" When they complain, say, "He's a barbarian, he doesn't have good manners. Its not like he is trying to kill your PC or anything." :D ------------------------ Edit: Almost forgot. It is fine to play chaotic and lawful as polar opposites, but be careful, otherwise wouldn't the CG and LG gods be at war with each other? Also if being chaotic is truly opposite of lawful, then wouldn't most people dedicated to chaos just be breaking laws for the heck of it, with no other purpose then to just do it? In my game, the difference between lawful and chaotic is more about the difference between society's rights/needs vs the individual's rights/needs. LG tend to be more of the ideal conservative type (caring, nurturing, but willing to sacrifice some personal rights so society can be mantained), where as CG is more of the ideal liberal type (caring, nurturing, but does not allow society to unreasonably restrict personal freedoms).
Ragey 06-23-05, 12:21 PM	Your group is... complex. The Ranger and Bard should have dropped alignments for Torture. Even if they agreed to let the person go free, its still torture. The Bard could of done MANY things to get it out of the person, hell, you guys could of just grouped your money together and bought a 'Charm Person' spell and let the Bard talk to that person. Itimidation and Fear is how most chaotic good characters get information out of a person. That Rogue is definitely evil though. Cutting off limbs and fingers is a hideous act of evil. (Especially if you don't plan on healing it back.) Have you thought of trying the Paladin Variants. Paladin of Freedom sounds right up your ally. Its in the Unearth Arcana Book.
High Octane 06-23-05, 12:36 PM	(For such compromises, you can usually get the new character in with no level loss, if you make the proper sort of puppy eyes at the DM. :) Well, it works for females, anyway.) I hate to tell ya deary, but most of the time, its not the eyes they are looking at.
Maerdash 06-23-05, 12:59 PM	I'm sorry but i now hate the people you play with, play an evil wizard, raise armies of undead, have said armies follow one day behind you,have them attack in the night, take to the air, kill all the pc's and use their bodies in your army of the undead. Rinse and repeat with their next characters, let them know that their character doesn't fit in YOUR group because these guys are being jerks. And yes a paladin in a CG party can be played and played well, but the kinda crap they pull isn't CG.
LadyCreator 06-23-05, 01:24 PM	Yikes, your party is short on casters! Maybe you should play a wizard or cleric and moot the whole issue. Your situation sounds complicated; you're both DM and player? It sounds like you're not real pleased with most of what your group's doing...pressuring you into DMing longer than you wanted, playing their alignments on the evil side, objecting to your character... Are you going to be able to DM this group? Are you going to have any authority with your rulings or will this turn into nothing but squabbling? It doesn't sound like a particularly promising group; is it possible for you to find another?
Shard Avengard 06-23-05, 02:43 PM	2 things to keep in mind 1) lawful good does NOT = Lawful stupid. 2) Chatoic Good is NOT a free license to be a jerk. From yer description of their intentions, they don't plan on being Chaotic Good. Sounds like Chaotic Neutral at best. That being said, Lawful Good and Chaotic Good CAN co-exist. Anyone who says different doesn't understand the alignments.
eudas 06-23-05, 02:54 PM	I hate to tell ya deary, but most of the time, its not the eyes they are looking at. i hear a lot of people make that complaint, but when push comes to shove, that sure doesn't stop them from taking advantage of it... eudas
Andrew_980 06-23-05, 03:35 PM	this is simply a group that doesn't want a paladin interfering with their (evil) way of doing things i hear a lot of people make that complaint, but when push comes to shove, that sure doesn't stop them from taking advantage of it... You mean like the women who cry about sexism and guys looking at them untill it is in their favor, then it's all good to them! :mad:
Ty 06-23-05, 05:16 PM	You know, I have to agree with both sides here. Normally, a Paladin can work just fine in a CG group as long as everyone agrees that they are doing 'good.' They may disagree about methods but in general, they'll both reach the same conclusion that X action has to result. I currently play the LG holy counterpart to a CG priest of luck. Our characters don't see eye to eye on the implementation of things; he trusts to luck and instinct, my character plans out strategies and tactics. The bigger problem I foresee for any paladin in this group is the EVIL actions that are resulting from a few of the characters. Sorry, but torture? If you want to play a paladin, this is not the time or group to do it in. I have a distinct feeling this group will slide through to the CN quickly and thereafter race at light speed to CE. You're better served by playing some CG/CN/N/NG caster of some sort. To any extent, keep in mind it looks as those the majority of your compatriots don't want to be bothered with 'morals' or 'laws' or things that would otherwise typically represent heroes as opposed to anti-heroes.
snowlynx 06-24-05, 10:04 PM	You tell me here, do you think they are even playing a good character at all? One more thing before I close I want all of you to know that we were all in agreement that no one would know anything about the others characters before we played and that we were supposed to make whatever character we wanted. Huh, apparantly everyone gets to but me I guess. Yikes, this is why I make people create characters together....people are allowed to have their secrets, but when it's the whole bleeping concept you don't know....how can you make characters that work together, except by coincidence or luck? I can't tell (based on what you say) if the characters are good or evil. Obviously, they have some evil tendencies based on what you've said, but that doesn't mean they are evil....an evil character can have good tendencies and vice versa of course.
Cymraegmorgan 06-24-05, 10:14 PM	I'm sorry but i now hate the people you play with, play an evil wizard, raise armies of undead, have said armies follow one day behind you,have them attack in the night, take to the air, kill all the pc's and use their bodies in your army of the undead. Rinse and repeat with their next characters, let them know that their character doesn't fit in YOUR group because these guys are being jerks. :clap: :clap: :clap: :evillaugh :evillaugh :evillaugh :plotting: :plotting: :cheer: This is obviously the best solution to the problem.
Owatkiam 06-24-05, 10:41 PM	Alright gang... two points to make before I start rambling... 1) Alignment DOES NOT EQUAL PERSONALITY! A LG character could be the biggest partier in town at the same time. A CN character could actually be completely rational and not insane. 2) Just because you adventure together doesn't mean you need to be on the same side! I was in a campaign back in the day where there were at least three factions in a 7 player party. The DM was skilled enough to give everybody long term missions that forced them to be together. And just about everybody, in the end, turned out to have different alignments than everyone else thought they did! The Neutral cleric turned out to e an evil cleric then turned out to be wizard/cleric and was LG... but on a mission since lvl 1 to find an evil artifact and so he was under cover. I had a ninja that everyone thought was CN, but was actually NG with lawful tendencies...but was in service to the queen and was constantly trying to keep the various factions semi focused so that I could get them to help my missions for Her Majesty while not letting them know they were doing missions for Her Majesty. The reason everyone was screwed up about alignments is because... Alignment is not Personality! That said, I agree with the posts that actions dictate alignment, not what the Player says alignment is. This can have one of two effects: 1) The PC's alignment changes over the campaign to reflect their actions. or 2) The DM decides that roleplaying means picking out the behavior in your character early and then you have to stick to it unless you consult with the DM to make changes as a result of events that happen to your character. IF you deviate away from the character, then you take an XP hit in relation to how far you deviate. This is uber-roleplaying and its a good way to play, otherwise you find that Players have PCs with the same personality all the time...they start out different than the last one, then drift back over time. Also, in line with #2, it is perfectly acceptable in my games for a PC to attack and kill another PC. That said, I also tell them that being a jerk is not acceptable. If PCs end up on different sides of the fence, I tell them to roleplay the same way as if this were two NPCs. If the CE thief cuts the purse off the belt of the NE barbarian, then the thief should not be surprised when the barbarian cuts his head off of his neck. Likewise, if the CN fighter starts torturing the villager to get info on where the rebels are hiding, then the CG ranger can do to the fighter whatever would come naturally. Its rough, and if teh CE Barbarian just decided he was ****** and was going to kill the halfling wizzie in the party because he could, I would step in as the DM at that point and invoke the "no - fun" rule. If the players make themselves enemies, though, I see no reason I should step in, at least at first. You will find out who is mature and who isn't in the group real fast, and you don't need the immature ones.
High Octane 06-25-05, 02:57 PM	Wow, point 1 there is probably the best advice I have seen on these boards ever.
was_fired 06-25-05, 04:47 PM	The way I see it the biggest difference between chaos and law is a chaotic person believes the ends justify the means, and lawful person believes they do not. The degree they believe this is a test of how lawful or chaotic they are.
Ramius_Mordale 06-25-05, 09:56 PM	Let me say first off, I bear in mind that you don't roleplay alignments you roleplay your character, which is partly my point here. If a paladin comes into a party of people with chaotic tendencies then you the player (just as an example not saying anyone in perticular) shouldn't be opposed to showing manners and respect to the paladin. Actually, even if someone completely thinks the paladin is crazy with his strict adhereance to his code would still respect his choice, such is the definition of a CG aligned character, and try his best not to offend it as much as humanly possible. Of course, personality plays a part in how someone views any perticular class or person as well. Even someone had a sour history with paladins then yes I can see them not getting along well with a paladin, but the likelihood of everyone hating a paladin is first off idiotic to say the least. Who wouldn't like a man/woman who has a strong chrismatic presence, does good deeds, tries to be just and fair and uphold the law to the best of their abilities with tempering justice with mercy and kindness. I don't care what alignment you care to play, most, if not all, alignments besides truely evil creatures and people, would still see the person as a beacon of hope at the very least or a reminder that good people, whether or not their actions help or not greatly, try to do their best to help people. I'm not saying I'm right, but I have never been one to shy away from a challenge or a great story, but it appears that the campaign is falling apart very rapidly I am sorry to say. We tried to play a party to allow everyone to play the characters they wanted to play with just stating a focus for the campaign, which was to be an adventuring group starting up an adventuring guild. People decided to play characters not well with business and one person did, others decided to play the same sterotypical characters they always play, and the last few did play their characters correctly and had no problems but are being punished for the lack of, I call imagination, on the parts of the others. Maybe its my fault as DM maybe it isn't, but it was never my intent to start an argument of whether to play alignments or roleplay character personality before alignments. I have a tendency to act rashly, but I was merely wanting to see what others thought about whether or not a paladin can play in a group of primarily CG characters. I don't like to portray anyone in a negative light, so I'm sorry if some of you think the people I play with are not likable or not mature. It may be true, it may not be true, but whether or not they agree with me on a roleplaying stand point they are good people, just not necessarily having the ability to think outside the box in certain things or situations. That being said, I want to thank all of you for your input and your opinions on the subject. While I may not totally agree with everything all you said, I still respect your courage to say it, and I did give it heavy consideration and have even taken all or part of all of your advice to help me be a better roleplayer and DM. I thank you all for your time. -Ramius-
Cyber-Freak 06-25-05, 10:38 PM	Human Rogue (AL CN)- This character I think is being played CE mainly because he stabbed a corrupt guard in the back because he thought (bad appraising of a gem) got shorted on his payment (the guard did pay him the correct price). Try to hunt him down to finish him off and was the only one willing to cut off parts of the person they captured that they were torturing. Lies a lot and steals from whomever without remorse and only looks out for himself. Granted I know CN is a hard alignment to judge versus CE and so far he hasn't crossed the line much into evil acts but if he gets anymore careless and just goes around stealing and attacking people all the time he is probably going to shift to CE. Yes I think a paladin would conflict with this PC the most, but I think it would have a potential for some awesome roleplaying of the paladin trying to redeem him from his wicked ways (or at least show him temperment and patience) -- if the character thought that the guard cheated him, there could have been a bluff check made (for any of the PC's who were there at the time) to determine if the guard was lying or not... in a way, torture is not evil... see crocodile dundee, is relativly CG... he's blown up fish in NY, he's hung people upside down several stories high to get a proper answer... those are being chaotic... infact based upon bioware (neverwinter nights), lockpicking a chest of some farmer is chaotic (not actuing lawfully) stealing is essentially chaotic... evil is to see destruction of things (towns, houses, wagons etc), murder, and even mass murder in your situation with the guard... if he were to bluff and say that he was going to cut off the fingers and not do it it'd be more chaotic... if he were to actually follow through and cut the guards fingers off that would be an act of evil... Backstabbing a guard (esp. a city guard) is evil... backstabbing a guard outside of a base of some evil empire, though, is essentially good.
totoro 06-26-05, 12:33 AM	Alignment is not the issue in this group. Two players forced a DM to run a campaign for a long time, then insist that he join up at 2 levels below the rest of the party. The same two players refuse to let a paladin join in because they want to act CN (or CE). I think the unwillingness to accomodate another player is more disturbing than the desire to be bad (lot's of people play evil games). The unwillingness to reward the DM by allowing him to start in at the same level as the rest of the party is also rude. I don't think this group will end up being rewarding to the paladin wannabe or the DM. These two should recognize their predicament and work together to come up with a mutually satisfying solution. When the experienced player becomes DM, you should expect his friend to dominate your group. So find a better group before that happens.
Cymraegmorgan 06-26-05, 02:48 AM	I have a tendency to act rashly, but I was merely wanting to see what others thought about whether or not a paladin can play in a group of primarily CG characters. To pull a good tv example for you, how about Stargate SG1? Jack O'Neil, Paladinesque, adventures along side his very CG friend, Daniel Jackson. Not the perfect analogy, but a fine example of how two completely views of "the Rules" can co-exist in the same party and bonds can still form. And then add the LE Harry Mayborn into the mix, one can see how the philosophy of alignment can become secondary or even tertiary to the bonds of friendship and comaraderie.
Milandros 06-26-05, 11:54 AM	As always, alignment issues cause massive debates as people always try to read alignments through their own real-world biases. The only "proper" approach is for the DM to describe how he sees alignments and the players to choose their own based on that. Personally, I agree with both Eliza about Good/Evil being the world outlook of the character and their goals in life, whereas Law/Chaos is the approach they take and the attitudes they have, and with Cymraegmorgan with his examples. To add some more: Luke Skywalker (NG, converts to become a LG paladin (well, what else would you call the Jedi?)), Leia (LG as it gets) and Han Solo (CG) get on fairly well. Sure, the LG Leia and the CG Solo have their differences, but not only do they work well together, they actually fall in love. Richard Rahl from the Wizard's First Rule series is a paladin, IMO. He's good, and follows an absolutely rigid code of conduct, even when it is most definitely not in his own self interest. LOTR: Aragorn (LG), Sam (LG for sure), Merry and Pippin (CG). For that matter, Treebeard (LG) and Merry and Pippin get on pretty well together. And many more. Literature, Film and comics are full of groups of people with different approachges to life who work together for their common goals. The following is, of course, only my opinion (it's not right or wrong, simply how I look at it): Paladins aren't crusaders for *law*, that's Justicars. Judge Dredd is not a Paladin. They are crusaders for *good*. However, to do good, they follow a strict moral code, usually dispensed by the god who empowers them, and will normally have a organised outlook on life - mostly because organised "lawful" good societies usually have a better level of protection for the weak and meek they are sworn to protect than chaotic societies that emphasise self-reliance. I'm always horrified at how so many players seem to run on the principle that "I am good because I say so, I'm the hero, now I'm going to murder, rape and loot my way through life, it's OK, I'm chaotic good". Just as bad are the "I kill anyone I want - including the other PCs - but you musn't get angry with me, I'm CN". I would rule CN to be a James Dean-style "rebel without a cause", individualist who doesn't really have any guiding morals except his own influences, not a dangerous psychopath. Maybe it's popular because so many players really are surly teenages, rebelling without knowing what they are rebelling against :) [joke, don't leap on it, I know most teenagers reading this aren't idiots, but we've all known people like this - heck, some of us *were* people like this].