My character is a paladin of St. Cuthbert traveling with a Cleric of the same faith on a "crusade" to bring justice back to the world. Now the moment we see the other players in a tavern, I know that 2 of 5 are evil and immediately suggest to my companion that we should kill them, he is LN and suggests a more pragmatic approach by waiting for the oppurtune time. This sounds heartless for a paladin, but if the scenario was different and I came across a camp of goblins and decided to wait for the oppurtune time to attack, i doubt anyone would complain. All because I am a paladin the group wants me to take a handicap in combat and tactics.
The party is then hired for mercnary work to go save a town from orc raiders, and we follow them as if were just a priest and a fighter, though I never said I wasn't a Paladin I just am not dressed like one. So we set up camp, I wait for my time to strike, but keep a safe distance from the rest of the party, but still close the the priest. The next morning, gnolls attack I let the evil people take some damage and then flank one of the evil half-orc players and try to stab him in the back. The fight continues even after the gnolls are gone and the cleric comes to my aid and assists in the kill of the half orc.
So then everyone finds out OOC that I am paladin and says, you can't do that and blah blah blah. I say this, I am not about the letter of the law, that is what the Cleric is for. I am about the spirit of the law, so I am against those who would break the law, CE, and those who would comprimise the laws integrity through misusing it, LE, and everyone in between. FYI: this is not societies law, but the law as defined by St. Cuthbert, so if I am in a town that says "no paladin may enter" I may enter if St. Cuthbert as told me to do so.
Also they say I have to wait till these characters do something to offend me in order to seek retribution. But again that is the cleric, I am also about mitigation (prevention). There are two types of sin commission and omission. Commission would be something like, commiting murder. Omission would be like allowing a murder to happen and doing nothing to stop it or correct it. And I know their evil so I know they will go against what the law stands for. So it is like this, I know they will commit murder and I then preemptively counter that crime with justice, inorder to fulfil both my obligation to protect someone from being murdered and to punish a murderer in the process.
The other thing my DM said was that I had to give him the oppurtunity to repent, but I am a fatalist, I don't believe people can change. Just as I was called to be a paladin, so he was called to be evil. Why is it that I must give him the oppurtunity for redemption when I already know he cannot be redeem?
As I've hinted to earlier with the goblin camp, Why do I have to give Evil a fair fight? I know he is evil, he does not know I am a paladin, I take advantage of that because I am described as being merciless toward evil. Now if it was say a poor woman who to make ends-meat is prostituting herself, my character will obviously be merciful to her because of her predicament. But in this scenario we have a Evil half-orc mercenary who would be just as likely to kill is own kind as he would any other sentient being, just in order to make some gold.
What do you think am I out of line as a paladin?
I'm also going to file this as yet another 'this is why you don't allow evil PCs' story.
As far as whether or not evil people/creatures can be redeemed, the point is moot. A paladin of St. Cuthbert would not be interested in redemption; s/he would only be interested in dispensing justice in a measure befitting the crime.
So are you out of line? Yes. My question to you: do you really want to be in line with your character concept, or do you just want an excuse to go around smashing heads?
I think Ophan's paladin isn't stepping out of line as a paladin, however I don't understand why he would have a Good character in a campaign with Evil characters, I don't think this could be construed as "fun."
My argument for the paladin's actions are pretty simple. No one hesitates to kill an evil goblin. We don't have to stand there and wait for it to commit some sort of crime before we kill it, we just assume it's evil and that's good enough. I think that in this situation we're giving the Evil PC a lot of leeway. He's Evil, that alignment means he has done evil things or will do evil things. That's how the alignments work. They are not interpretations of a moral system, they are absolute. If you character kills evil creatures then it seems perfectly reasonable that he would kill this particular evil creature. Now, if your character is all about justice than this is a completely different story. If so, I would argue that the appropriate alignment (In 3.5) would have been LN. If your paladin was LN, then yes, there might be an issue here. The cleric should probably have an issue here.
Also, wall of text. Sorry.
I'm also going to file this as yet another 'this is why you don't allow evil PCs' story.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with Salla here. Evil characters, IMO, cause problems.
However, I also want to point out that this is also a problem of someone putting his fun before the groups by using the excuse, "It's what my character would do".
I think Ubercop is way more LN then LG, as they care more for law then good.
Also, I think the idea that evil can't break the law a bit wierd. LE can be lawful citizens, and St. Cuthbert himself didn't neceasarily want to kill evil.
Through he does preach about honesty and truthfulness. So hiding one's paladiness isn't something I would think out of line for paladins in general, but maybe not if they follow a god that believes in being honest.
But then again, I've played in games were even goblins were given the chance to surrender and not treated to whole sale slaughter at every given oppurtunity.
evil themed party doing evil stuff. ok.
good themed party doing good stuff. ok.
neutral themed party walking the line of nuetral actions and helping eachother out? tough, but ok.
never allow that one jerk who wants to play the exact opposite because he likes to stir the pot for stories sake. the story will come as it will come with no need for players to add thier own mix of futile and fruitless.
I am not entirely sure if the blame rests with the OP, because many times I've played DnD no player tells each what they are doing because they think its the DMs job to create a party and plot and don't want metagaming.
Especially consider that someone else is a follower of St. Cuthbert. He could have only been told/known that player, and made a PC accordingly.
What do you think am I out of line as a paladin?
No, at least not yet. It was a battle with an established foe who was also evil. That is different than sneaking up on the same person and stabbing them in the back or just wacking a guy because you don't like them.
I would have punched your face in for trying to kill my PC.
I'm talking player to player.
The stupid thing about your character, Orphan, is that he/she is played by a meta-gaming player. How does your Paladin know that the other PCs are evil. Did you cast Detect Evil? Did you do it in front of them because you need LoS? Hell, how does your character know they are evil? Did they try to do any evil acts in front of you? If this was something "Your character would do" then why even align yourself with those characters?
Your character is NOT a Paladin. Your character is NOT Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral.
Lawful Good, has most Paladins are, acts with compassion, and always with honor and a sense of duty. They may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or good when the two conflict - for example, upholding a sworn oath when it would lead innocents to come to harm - or conflicts between two orders, such as between their religious law and the law of the local ruler.
Lawful Neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Characters of this alignment are neutral with regard to good and evil. This does not mean that Lawful Neutral characters are amoral or immoral, or do not have a moral compass; but simply that their moral considerations come a distant second to what their code, tradition or law dictates. They typically have a strong ethical code, but it is primarily guided by their system of belief, not by a commitment to good or evil.
St Cuthbert's alignment has been variously interpreted as lawful neutral (lawful good tendencies) and lawful good (lawful neutral tendencies). Saint Cuthbert hates evil, but is more concerned with law and order, with converting the uninformed, and preventing backsliding among the faithful.
Paladins of Saint Cuthbert, known as Votaries or Communicants, seek to convert people into their faith and to fight enemies of the faith.
Your Paladin of Cuthbert meets a group with a couple Evil player characters which through Meta-gaming you know of. Obviously you try not convert these uninformed lambs and decide to conceive an EVIL plan of backstabbing them when the time is correct. Instead of talking to them you do the DISHONORABLE act of trying to kill them without provaction or just cause, nor do you even attempt to help them repent.
Yeah, you need to re-think your character.
and while not communicating for the sake of not 'metagaming' was i thought a thing of the past in second edition, i never understood it.
the first thing i tell players at the table is for them to come up with a theme for thier party. that way they come up with a reason to adventure together and stay together and not to backstab eachother for the sake of loot.
the player is responsible for his character. if his character is soley there to cause trouble for plot/party/players and not to progress the story then i see that as a problem. the tone of the opening posts message is that he was simply playing his role to kill a player for the sake of his story, and his personal fun. killing a player for any reason other then advancement of plot with the players cooperation makes for an angry player who now must role up another sheet and be out of the action.
I'm also going to file this as yet another 'this is why you don't allow evil PCs' story.
I disagree, this would be yet another "Lawful Stupid character" story. From the information we've recieved; the paladin was the problem, rather than the evil PC in this case
Evil PCs=Bad!!!! is a common misconception. A campaign can involve Evil PCs(and not just evil only parties) and be just fine, loads of fun and quite entertaining(provided of course that it's done right).
I agree, getting themes or getting people to stick near an alignment (Say, good-ish) works tremondously better.
But yeah, killing someone without OoC permission is a lack of communication, but definitely one that is a fault of the player.
In other news: stop being a prick, OP. You're ruining the game for other people so you can play what you want. Either find a way that you can all play the characters you want without anyone's fun being ruined or compromise and just shelve your not-really-lawful-or-good-anyway paladin for another game.
It is absolutely possible for LG to team with CE; just make them allies against something bigger than the both of them. The baddie will have to get a little clean and the goodie will have to get a little dirty (behaving a little bit and looking the other way a little bit, respectively), but it works.
Unless, y'know, you're not throwing the ridiculous and absurdly hamfisted alignment mechanics of older editions out the window. Since you're obviously using the game-killing abomination that is Detect Evil, you probably aren't. Ah well. Enjoy your suck.
Just the three most dreadful sins for now:
1. "Lets act as if we'd play along and backstab them when they are down."
Basically the paladin and the cleric decided on a murder and waited for the most oppurtune time to strike. I wonder why he didn't slit the half-orcs throat while he was asleep...
It really isn't any more evil than double-crossing them in the middle of a fight or even after a fight before there was time to rest.
If you want to do it hardcore I'm-Paladin-and-what-other-players-want-doesn't-matter-style you generally have to options upon finding out that the other character is evil.
Either you refuse to associate with them or challenge evil outright in a fair fight knowing that righteousness prevails. Both options would have had the additional benefit of your DM knowing about your character's resent before anyone HAS to die.
2. "Letting a crime happen is just as bad as commiting it yourself."
So you have set yourself up to justifying the eradication of a small town whose inhabitants obeyed evil laws out of fear. They might have been theoretically capable of an uprising but they aren't heroes after all or just lacked a leader.
There is a significant difference between commiting a crime yourself and just letting it happen. One is actively propagating evil in the world (assuming that no 'good' crimes are viable) while the other is just being incapable in any sense to actively oppose evil even though your moral compass might be well intact.
3. "I am a fatalist, thus redemption is incompatible with my philosophy."
The fatalist view does indeed imply that people can't really choose or even influence their destiny. However that doesn't mean that a person cannot repent. It just means that whether an evil creature has the ability to sway from evil is set in stone. However that doesn't mean fate hasn't a good few evil people in mind that are destined to convert to goodness and bring more light into the world than they had created darkness before.
Especially as a fatalist Paladin it would be your highest duty to make sure, every creature's destiny is fullfilled and to release a sinners potential he or she would have to be given an oppurtunity to repent.
All in all I think, you constructed yourself a philosophical castle as an excuse to just be a murderous assassin and a Paladin in one character...
All in all I think, you constructed yourself a philosophical castle as an excuse to just be a murderous assassin and a Paladin in one character...
Each character belongs to the player who created it, or at least to the person who runs it the most often (under the sense of possession is 9/10th of the law). Each player is entitled to create any character they choose. If he wishes to create this kind of character, then that is his business.
Nor does this character seem lawful stupid - he wasn't smiting people for poor table manners.
This story is an excellent example of 4e's brilliance in not reprinting that wretched mistake of game design, Detect Evil.
In other news: stop being a prick, OP. You're ruining the game for other people so you can play what you want. Either find a way that you can all play the characters you want without anyone's fun being ruined or compromise and just shelve your not-really-lawful-or-good-anyway paladin for another game.
It is absolutely possible for LG to team with CE; just make them allies against something bigger than the both of them. The baddie will have to get a little clean and the goodie will have to get a little dirty (behaving a little bit and looking the other way a little bit, respectively), but it works.
Unless, y'know, you're not throwing the ridiculous and absurdly hamfisted alignment mechanics of older editions out the window. Since you're obviously using the game-killing abomination that is Detect Evil, you probably aren't. Ah well. Enjoy your suck.
This has nothing to do with Detect Evil but rather the player being a jerk. This is no different than in a thread of a different forum of someone who's character died but his new character will be a doppleganger made to look like him, and he wants help in building a character that can screw over the party.
In both cases the player purposely chose an avenue of me-firstism determined to ruin the fun of everyone else. This issue is irrelevant of game system. Please keep your 3E bigotry to yourself.
Gerald Katz
The issue I have is with the preemptive strike. There are lots of ways to be evil. Not all evil characters are baby eating devil worshippers. Maybe they're just all about "the end justifies the means". In any case, you shouldn't be punishing them for a crime that you don't know they've committed. The only way a preemptive strike would be ok is if you have a credible reason to believe they are going to do something wrong (through their actions like pulling out an axe and stalking towards the helpless prisoner, or they start planning something, etc).
The other issue I have is why the DM even allowed this to happen. I've seen parties of good and evil characters mixed together before, but the evil characters always hid their intentions while the good ones were around so as to not force their hand. In most cases, mixing good and evil, especially in a pre-4e game where there's dozens of ways to figure out someone's alignment, is a bad idea.
Evil characters can co-exist in a campaign with good characters. But they have to be intelligent evil characters. Too many people seem to view evil characters as being stupid first and evil second. On balance though, with most groups it is not wise to have evil characters in a good party. It just turns into a buzz kill for the whole party. And that's not fun for anyone.
All in all I think, you constructed yourself a philosophical castle as an excuse to just be a murderous assassin and a Paladin in one character...
Each character belongs to the player who created it, or at least to the person who runs it the most often (under the sense of possession is 9/10th of the law). Each player is entitled to create any character they choose. If he wishes to create this kind of character, then that is his business.
Nor does this character seem lawful stupid - he wasn't smiting people for poor table manners.
But a player does have an obligation not to create a character that would ruin the fun for everyone else. Purposely playing a character that is disruptive to the rest of the group is being a donkey cavity.
If you knew in advance there would be evil PCs, or knew it was a possibility, then it's being disruptive to others to make an inflexible "kill evil on sight" (waiting or not) Paladin who can't possibly get along with the other PCs.
Your friend the priest seems to be a pragmatic hero able to work for the greater good even if it means overlooking the lesser evil in front of you, and so a campaign can develop. But you're just a vigilante who should travel alone. EDIT: I can see your character as the crazy guy the "normal" party of PC adventurers has to stop.
It's a group game chief, you specifically went out of your way to ruin that.
I'm also going to file this as yet another 'this is why you don't allow evil PCs' story.
Sounds more like "why you don't allow good PCs." The evil ones aren't the ones out of line.
The evil ones aren't the ones out of line.
Define "out of line" for purposes of this discussion. You should not have to catch, say, an evil cultist sacrificing people to his god to stop him, to kill him. A certian knowledge of past sins and crimes is sufficent. A knowledge of high likely future sins and crimes is sufficent. The paladin was not out of line here. The evil characters were not out of character which means, almost by definition, that they were out of line in the eyes of the paladin, which means the result (i.e. his attack of them) was a product of everyone playing in character.
Sounds more like "why you don't allow good PCs." The evil ones aren't the ones out of line.
The only character who committed an evil act here was the Paladin. He committed premeditated murder of someone else because of their belief system. For all we know about the "evil" half-orc he had never done anything evil and at the moment he was murdered was actually in the middle of doing something good.
I also agree with the posters above who wondered why the DM allowed this. He should have nipped it in the bud as soon as he started attacking the half-orc and had a long out of charcter discussion about whether everyone in the group was ok with it. Its one thing to have party dynamics grow over time to evenutally result in PVP violence. Its another to have a player resolve right off the bat to murder fellow pcs.
I think the OP needs to apologize to his group and retire his paladin.
The evil ones aren't the ones out of line.
Define "out of line" for purposes of this discussion. You should not have to catch, say, an evil cultist sacrificing people to his god to stop him, to kill him. A certian knowledge of past sins and crimes is sufficent. A knowledge of high likely future sins and crimes is sufficent. The paladin was not out of line here. The evil characters were not out of character which means, almost by definition, that they were out of line in the eyes of the paladin, which means the result (i.e. his attack of them) was a product of everyone playing in character.
The game is a co-op game. You're out of line if you initiate group conflict without discussion because of what other players write down on their character sheets.
It really doesn't matter if it's "in character" or not. If in character is to be a douchebag, you're behaving out of line.
He committed premeditated murder of someone else because of their belief system.
Characters do this all the time. All The Time. It is a big part of why they kill orcs, dragons, cultists, despots, bandits, drow, illithid, demons and devils. It is a defining characteristic of adventurers. As such, there is nothing out of line with a paladin doing the exact same thing. Unless the rules change for everyone, it is hypocritical for the paladin alone to be condemned for this.
I think the OP needs to apologize to his group and retire his paladin.
Nothing doing. That is a wild and unjust over reaction. Gross behavior listed elsewhere in these boards (for example, in “Egreious Sins” and “Kicking a Player Out?!”), forcing him to beg for forgiveness and ashcan the character is out of line and even ridiculous.
He committed premeditated murder of someone else because of their belief system.Characters do this all the time. All The Time. It is a big part of why they kill orcs, dragons, cultists, despots, bandits, drow, illithid, demons and devils. It is a defining characteristic of adventurers. As such, there is nothing out of line with a paladin doing the exact same thing. Unless the rules change for everyone, it is hypocritical for the paladin alone to be condemned for this.
Except he's doing it to the other players at the table, not the DM set up monsters. Players (and the DM) should be working together. This player (or two, counting his cohort) decided to stop playing together and to start antagonizing the others.
co-op gaming trumps player killers using class fluff to gank fellow players.
and at least two apologies: to the players killed, and to the table for being a _________. (insert your derogatory statement here)
However, since the OP is asking, there seems to have been a problem, and in that case, he, the player, is quite clearly out of line. The character can stay. The player should go, barring true attempts at playing nice.
Characters do this all the time. All The Time. It is a big part of why they kill orcs, dragons, cultists, despots, bandits, drow, illithid, demons and devils. It is a defining characteristic of adventurers.
I would think that any character who backstabbed a mercanary he saw defending a town from evil invaders would be committing murder. With monsters the vast majority of the time the player violence is in response to the orcs "invading the town" or committing/actively planning an evil deed. This time he killed the half-orc while in the very act of defending the town. How is this any different than if he had killed a lawful good human PC in the same manner?
If he had either seen the half-orc commit an evil act or at the very least had good information that he was planning to commit an evil act, then I would have had much less problem with it. Generally good PCs do not go around killing sentient creatures on the premise that someday they might do something bad when they have no evidence that they have done or plan to do so.
forcing him to beg for forgiveness and ashcan the character is out of line and even ridiculous.
No one is "forcing" him to do anything. He came here asking for advice so I gave him the advice that I think is best for his group since it sounds like his fellow players are mad at him for murdering their characters.
There was a good point earlier; players do not hold NPCs to the same standards as they do PCs. There is an orc encampment outside town, hrm, they're evil, KILL. Orcs don't have to do anything evil. They could be there just chilling. Don't matter. They are also sentient beings, etc etc.
To the OP: Get the entire group together and all of you talk about building characters that work together. As the DM, I would illustrate this as a *perfect* reason as to why building evil characters can be dicey. You get the good guys AND the bad guys out to get you. It also illustrates why having evil and good in the same party is generally a bad idea.
That was a **** move, attacking the other players and killing them. Personally, KO'ing them, put 'em in a hogtie, and dragging them across the mud all the way back to town to answer for their crimes would have been way more effective. I understand you're trying to be in character, but game > character.
The players need to come to an accord of not having diametrically (or even opposing) alignments in this game. Take care of that, restart, and carry on.
i would love to hear from the opening post member to see if he thought killing the other players character regardless of his own characters "motivation" would in any way enhance the other players enjoyment? or the table who now has to wait and write up a sheet.
(granted. if both players agreed that this is how the half orc should go out, it was planned and signed... then kudos for a sending off everyone can agree with, if not... then why?)
The evil ones aren't the ones out of line.
Define "out of line" for purposes of this discussion. You should not have to catch, say, an evil cultist sacrificing people to his god to stop him, to kill him. A certian knowledge of past sins and crimes is sufficent. A knowledge of high likely future sins and crimes is sufficent. The paladin was not out of line here. The evil characters were not out of character which means, almost by definition, that they were out of line in the eyes of the paladin, which means the result (i.e. his attack of them) was a product of everyone playing in character.
He attacked them just because he knew they were evil.
That is how he was "out of line."
Characters do this all the time. All The Time. It is a big part of why they kill orcs, dragons, cultists, despots, bandits, drow, illithid, demons and devils. It is a defining characteristic of adventurers. As such, there is nothing out of line with a paladin doing the exact same thing. Unless the rules change for everyone, it is hypocritical for the paladin alone to be condemned for this.
And what are orcs, dragons, cultists, despots, bandits, drow, illithid, demons and devils usually? NPCs, rather than other PCS.
Nothing doing. That is a wild and unjust over reaction. Gross behavior listed elsewhere in these boards (for example, in “Egreious Sins” and “Kicking a Player Out?!”), forcing him to beg for forgiveness and ashcan the character is out of line and even ridiculous.
There is a big difference between making an apology and begging for forgivness. And if the character is indeed being a disruption to the rest of the party, it should be retired.
i am certainly confused, the paladin was the antagonist here, yet there is a rally cry against no evil pc's as if the paladin pc did the right thing by ganking the other players in a co-op game.
It's due to a common misconception(which alot of people seem to have) that, Evil PCs = automatically bad no matter what!!!
All in all I think, you constructed yourself a philosophical castle as an excuse to just be a murderous assassin and a Paladin in one character...
Each character belongs to the player who created it, or at least to the person who runs it the most often (under the sense of possession is 9/10th of the law). Each player is entitled to create any character they choose. If he wishes to create this kind of character, then that is his business.
Nor does this character seem lawful stupid - he wasn't smiting people for poor table manners.
I'll agree with you on that one.
However, I doubt that the OP is actually aware of that lest he wouldn't be inclined to check back on the community for opinions.
People can create antagonist characters, disrupt the game by smiting half the party and congratulate themselves on a job well done e.g. making a change all by themselves. But then there's those who create a character with a set of narrow principles that must never be diverted from and wonder how it comes that they feel compelled to commit acts that seem to disrupt the game for reasons not entirely understood.
"I just played my character, how can it be wrong." I think, our OP belongs to the category and thusly I answer "It is wrong because you made your character such that he will inevitably disrupt the game if you abide by your misconception of the philosophical line you set up for him"
He complains about being told to wait until the evil players, actually - you know - do evil things before murdering them. He's about prevention though. They're coming up as evil, so it's only a matter of time before they murder some innocent bytstander. Also, letting a crime happen appears to be as bad as committing the crime - or at least it's close.
(So, I only kind of skimmed this topic, but it's planted a hilarious image in my head. What if we gave modern-day cops Detect Evil?)
-----
So here you are, driving in your car with a friend. You're going 50 in a 45. You get pulled over. The cop walks over to your driver-side window. You roll it down and ask "Is there a problem, officer?" You are shot in the face. 3 times. The cop asks your friend if he tried to wrench the wheel out of your hands when you exceeded the posted limit. Your friend, covered bits of your temporal lobe, pees himself. The cop empties the clip into his torso. The cop walks back to his car, filled with satisfaction.
You broke the law. Clearly, this means that you have no respect for the law. Clearly this means that you have no respect for any law. Clearly, this means that you would have firebombed an orphanage later that day. Why, no, I didn't find a bomb in your car. But I shouldn't have to wait for you to actually murder a child before I punish you for it, right? That's just efficiency in the justice system. Your friend sat by while you metaphorically burned down several orphanages, so he also needed to be served some 45-calibur justice.
-----
Alright, that's enough of that. Seriously, though, DnD (like most of society) is a group excersize. Why was this allowed to happen?
I strongly advise you to actually read the DnD books descriptions of evil, Paladin codes, and then add in a generous lump of common sense, but let me just instil one small piece of information to you.
Evil =/= Murderer.
In DnD, Evil can simply mean that you're the cold hearted bastard who price gouges at the market and kicks a puppy every Sunday. Using Detect Evil as an "If they detect, kill them" meter is the first sign that you should not be playing a Paladin, and from this story you're just clearly not the kind of person capable of understanding how they should be played/
People like you are why Paladins have such a bad rap, and why players groan whenever someone says they're playing one.
People like you are also the players that inspire GMs to have evil people use Misdirection on commoners just to see how many times you have to lose your powers before you clue on.
It's due to a common misconception(which alot of people seem to have) that, Evil PCs = automatically bad no matter what!!!
I think it's because a lot of people play Evil PCs as a license to be murdering nutjobs who think they can get away with everything and have the "He's a PC" shield protect them from PC and NPC retribution.
Those kinds of horror stories make people not want Evil PCs, just like horror stories like the OPs make people not want Paladins in their groups.
As a GM I've had one evil PC in one campaign who was just a power-hungry Wizardess who didn't really care who she trod on to get power, but didn't outright try to be EVIL!!! at every opportunity. I've also got a couple of PCs in my current campaign who are sliding towards evil, but through actions like deals with devils, and attitudes like "Yeah, that'd be the good thing to do, but I don't want to". Again, not actually going out to fulfil everyone's stereotype of the evil lunatic all the time, but still obviously Evil aligned.
I also played an Evil PC in another game, specifically a hired Assasin. He wouldn't normally have had anything to do with the other PCs, but circumstances threw them together and he opted to try and stop the other evil that was going on. He was stil evil, and had a habit of slitting throats of enemy guards that were caught unawares, and didn't like the other PCs that much (too 'goody goody'), but there wasn't much in the way of conflict.
When he found out that members of his Order (church of Mask) were behind the evil, he decided his loyalty was to his Church (Lawful Evil) and left the party (and turned up as an antagonist after I brought in my new PC).
Evil PCs can definitely work in a campaign, even with Good characters in it, they just need to be the kind of Evil who can still work with others, not the kind of Evil who "has to" randomly kill people "because I'm evil".
Of course it has to be the right kind of campaign too, Evil PCs aren't likely to want to help out in the "Church of Pelor's Great Quest to find the Item of Making People Not Be Evil Anymore!", but most Evil PCs would be quite happy to tag along and help stop "The Great Devourer of Souls" from eating the world. It's hard to be evil if the world is destroyed after all.
There is a party which contains evil PC's. Not a huge deal but is something of an additional challenge upon a DM and certainly limits options for future PC's coming into the party. Then we have a player who decides to insert a LG paladin into this party KNOWING that PC's in the party are already evil and therefore IRREVOCABLE conflict is part and parcel of the players choice of class. The DM allows this choice making the DM every bit as responsible.
The paladin players first choice upon all these PC's meeting up is to KILL the PLAYER CHARACTERS he already knew he would be in conflict with. Another player suggests waiting until they are most vulnerable before killing them. This causes consternation with the OP because it makes his paladin seem cold-blooded?!
The DM fails to STOP THE GAME IN ITS TRACKS and sort out just what the hell everybody is sitting at the table for.
The paladin kills the evil PC's and has the temerity to be surprised when THE OTHER PLAYERS ARE UPSET at having their PC's killed by the new guy.
And yet the ARGUMENT among the players and the DM revolves around the paladin not playing his alignment correctly?
The LEAST IMPORTANT aspect of this entire scenario is whether the paladin is being faithful to his alignment and I would completely disregard that entire part of this affair. It has everything to do with the game in question being run as a player vs. player free-for-all when the design of the game is now and always has been one of intended cooperation of player characters against external threats, not against the threat each PC poses to the others. The game, of course, results in EPIC FAIL when run directly opposed to that idea. It CAN be run that way but NOBODY at the table has a shred of standing to complain when this very kind of scenario is the result.
NOBODY at a D&D table has a right to be an ass. Nobody has a right to run a PC who is likewise an ass. Nobody has a right to disrupt a game this way, and when players have a DM who allows even one step towards it to occur - well you all deserve each other and whatever disaster results.
These players all need to sit down with the DM and re-examine what it is they want out of a game of D&D. Once they hammer that out THEN in 6 months come back and start asking questions about whether a character is acting appropriate for his alignment.
I think it's because a lot of people play Evil PCs as a license to be murdering nutjobs who think they can get away with everything and have the "He's a PC" shield protect them from PC and NPC retribution.
Those kinds of horror stories make people not want Evil PCs, just like horror stories like the OPs make people not want Paladins in their groups.
Which is a shame.
Evil PCs can definitely work in a campaign, even with Good characters in it, they just need to be the kind of Evil who can still work with others, not the kind of Evil who "has to" randomly kill people "because I'm evil".
Of course it has to be the right kind of campaign too, Evil PCs aren't likely to want to help out in the "Church of Pelor's Great Quest to find the Item of Making People Not Be Evil Anymore!", but most Evil PCs would be quite happy to tag along and help stop "The Great Devourer of Souls" from eating the world. It's hard to be evil if the world is destroyed after all.
Well said.
If I ever go back to 3.5 (and who knows, I might some day), I will never force Paladins to follow a code. Those who want a code can make one and follow it. Those who don't can live without it.
In character I'll give you your concept. You could come up with a reason for why you acted like so and that'd be that. And I'd say that St.Cuthbert would like a few guys like your character walking around, not all of his worshippers but some.
Also, from a neutral point of view. Party's attack goblins, orc, gnoll and such all the time. You have no idea if they deserve to die! Group of orc. Oh they raid and pillage and kill. Well they are also exiled from society. Why not give them a job? All I'm saying is that players have been killing things just because they were evil for a long, long time. How dare it be another PC?
Few post above says someone not want Paladins in the group. Doesn't have to be a Paladin to be a evil smasher.
That is an undeniably evil act, chaotic evil even.
I won't buy the "well we slay goblins all the time". Thats different, you don't just roam around murdering any random goblin you see. Goblins attack villagers, villagers say "heroes help us we need protection", heroes protect village by attacking goblins. Goblins have hurt/killed innocents, that makes lethal action agaiinst them acceptable.
If I was running a campaign and players met a goblin and they decided to kill him just because hes a goblin...that would still be an unquestionably evil act.
Murder is evil, killing for defense and protection, is good. Killing for justice or revenge, arguable, dependant on situation, but generally will co-incide with defense/protection.
I hope your DM is a rookie, because allowing Good and Evil PCs in the same party is a rookie mistake.
Not neccissarily, I have two evil players, two good players, and one lawful neutral in my party. They get along just fine. Its all about why they are evil. Also, detect evil and that crap doesnt exist in my campaign.
I hope your DM is a rookie, because allowing Good and Evil PCs in the same party is a rookie mistake.
This is a common misconception, Good and Evil PCs in the same party can work out quite well if done correctly. I am currently playing in such a campaign and it is quite fun.
I hope your DM is a rookie, because allowing Good and Evil PCs in the same party is a rookie mistake.
This is a common misconception, Good and Evil PCs in the same party can work out quite well if done correctly. I am currently playing in such a campaign and it is quite fun.
The rookie mistake is in allowing it to happen without first understanding that this sort of scenario is LIKELY unless everyone at the table is FULLY aware of the consequences of this approach and IS OK WITH IT.
Shes blatantly evil, even looks it.
But shes helping to stop the 'big bad' because *gasp* if he succeeds the entire plan collapses and my character dies too.
Working with the good people of the town also helps with learning new skills, and technology (its set in steampunk western, my character is a thrull from sarpadia, and goblins were the only technologists really, and they're exctinct) - so she can dominate her nation and take over.
Completely evil goal.
But shes able to work with the good people.
1. Get the right people, and it works.
2. Get douchebags anddisruptive players, and it doesn't.
It doesn't matter if the parties all good, all evil or a mix, both are true.
Yes, Good and Evil PCs can work together, but it takes an experienced DM -- or a very mature group -- to make it work.
Not really. What it takes is the people to be more neutral and the DM to make sure that there isn't anyone who expecting to play Chaotic or Lawful stupid characters.
For example the last 3.5 campain i played (we just finished last night.) I played the Evil Rogue, while everyone else played other good types. Granted, I never really got a chance to be too evil.. other than moving in to grant one party member flanking bonus against another party member. (Just a quick punch because he took her under the deck of the boat when she passed out.)
Our Dm this campain though was a rookie, but for the most part all the characters got along fine. My rogue even payed lip service for Pelor from time to time, as our cleric (Who apprently tried to have as many illigitimate children as possible) was pretty funny.
Basically, my point is that when making a party, if you have a fringe character (the one evil guy in an all good party) You just need to make sure that he isn't playing a too polarizing character. And that really falls heavy on the DM.
In this case if Ophan was playing in my party, he probally would have got along fine with them, while i of course was in his apprently evil party. If i was in his party with him, my biggest difficulty is that damned detect evil ability that radaraldins use without cause or justification. Esspecially in lower levels when we don't have the ability to really hide our alignment from the peering eyes of the radaralidn.
As long as he was never able to do that though, I'm pretty convinced i'd be able to fool his pally into thinking him a good guy, and even worship his deity. Because well, I'd never do an evil deed infront of him.
I did have a palidin who did use it as a sort of radar when the party was underattack by unknown assailants. But we were playing ravenloft, so the chaotic players showed up as evil. The palidin though knew they were good and figured it was the the mist.
He was a fun guy though, because he would flip a coin to see if he should take a course of action or not. So if the chaotic players didn't show up as evil, and one player did, he would have flipped a coin to see if he needed to punished. The DM then could use the mechanical flip or say it landed on yes/no. Basically the palidin thought his deity communicated through the coin.. which was actually a holy symbol.
He carried two bastard swords, one was to subdue and the other was to kill.
3.5 PHB, p44:
Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
As soon as the Paladin realized the other PCs were evil, he would have left or become an ex-Paladin.
Detect Evil is not a license to kill.
But detect evil came from my god. So my god says hes evil. And my god is good. So my god must want me to kill him.
And this is why I hate having any mechanical effects tied to alignment.
Detect Evil is not a license to kill.
But detect evil came from my god. So my god says hes evil. And my god is good. So my god must want me to kill him.
And this is why I hate having any mechanical effects tied to alignment.
Who says your god wants you to kill him? Maybe your god wants you to redeem him? Maybe your god is just warning you he's not trustworthy, but you still don't stoop to his level by doing evil things such as murdering people on sight just because some spell pings them as not trustworthy.
This is why I hate players misunderstanding what it means to be Lawful Good ruining it for the rest of us.
Who says your god wants you to kill him? Maybe your god wants you to redeem him?
He's a Paladin of St. Cuthbert. In 3.x, that's retribution and destruction. He teaches that evil must be destroyed where ever it is. If I'm a Paladin of St. Cuthbert and my detect evil reads as Moderate or higher, I would have no qualms at all about killing the creature.
Who says your god wants you to kill him? Maybe your god wants you to redeem him?
He's a Paladin of St. Cuthbert. In 3.x, that's retribution and destruction. He teaches that evil must be destroyed where ever it is. If I'm a Paladin of St. Cuthbert and my detect evil reads as Moderate or higher, I would have no qualms at all about killing the creature.
Destruction was one of his Domains, not the focus of his teachings. He is the god of retribution and punishment. However, doesn't someone need to have done something in order to deserve punishment?
The Paladin in question was neither Lawful nor Good.
He did not determine there was wrongdoing before formulating a plan to destroy the "evil in their midst." Without proof, slaying the characters in question is murder, which is against the law in every lawful society.
He also determined to use guile to commit these murders. The Lawful and Good thing to have done would be to confront the evil with their wrongdoing, and demand that they submit to justice. If they will not submit to the local justice, then they face his own.
In my campaign, the moment he concocted the plan to deceive the evil, he would have lost access to his Paladin abilities. The moment he acted upon his plan, he would have been busted to True Neutral, and become a Fighter. If he continued upon his path of murder for perceived, rather than proven, evils, he would have invited retribution of his own from the local law and his former church. The loss of abilities until atonement is the warning. Continuing without seeking atonement means that my warning, and St. Cuthbert's, was ignored. But then, I'm an experienced GM. The GM who allowed this to happen was new. I hope he learned his lesson from the experience and that it didn't destroy the gaming group.
Paladins are not Lawful Stupid, and I don't let players who want to be Lawful Stupid continue to be Paladins.
Who says your god wants you to kill him? Maybe your god wants you to redeem him? Maybe your god is just warning you he's not trustworthy, but you still don't stoop to his level by doing evil things such as murdering people on sight just because some spell pings them as not trustworthy.
This is why I hate players misunderstanding what it means to be Lawful Good ruining it for the rest of us.
Just playing devil's advocate there. That sort of thing I described is very common among new players. Personally, I was not sad to see alignment relegated to fluff and RP, which is really what it should have been all along rather than a tool for DMs to railroad players. But I'm starting to get off-topic so I won't launch into a full rant about alignment.
Really though, my problem isn't so much with the character (so what if he was somewhat deceptive, that's not inherently unlawful or evil, if every paladin announced himself everywhere he went, there'd be a lot of dead paladins). Players kill monsters, often for no more reason than that they are evil (I discourage unjustified killings, but again from what I've seen it's a common theme). I don't even have a problem with inter-party conflict and PvP if it is done right. But why did the DM think that all of this was ok? And while I don't think the character's actions were out of line, as a player I'd suggest not killing the other players if they are not ok with that sort of thing occurring (obviously they weren't if they were complaining about it).
I think the "problem" is the player used to always play the thief/rogue, starting back when he played 2E. That was the only class he ever played. He liked being the thief. However, as we've been playing over the years, in terms of game mechanics he finds he wants to fight more directly, thus for the first time ever in our current campaign he's not playing a rogue - he's playing a fighter/DM home made prestige class. In terms of roleplay, which he does very well, his larcenous side began to wane. He's not above pocketing gold that comes his way (He never takes from the party. All party treasure is shared equally. He only pockets gold that comes his way during his character's personal downtime.), but he he really gets into the main campaign plot point. He likes being the hero, and he now cares more about saving the world than increasing his pockets. However, he still thinks he's roguish and acting that way. He keeps seeing Lawful Good as pansies, despite the non-pansy staring right back in the mirror he keeps using to look around corners.
Another player and I were teasing him about this out of character last game session. He still insists he's not Lawful Good, but he isn't horror struck by the idea. He might yet come to the realization that he can play Lawful Good after all. It started already. Next campaign he's thinking about playing a cleric.
Detect Evil is not a license to kill.
Since when?
Some games permit P v. P and some game encourage it. The actions of the OP where not Lawful Stupid, but a working and thought out (and successful) tactic to battle evil. They were reasonable under the circumstances. If you don’t want a Paladin to kill you, then don’t play an evil PC.
Like it or not, violence is a very acceptable response in the D&D world. Think how often your characters open the door and the first thing the DM says after the description is "roll initiative". The fact that you respond differently in a tavern instead of a dungeon or to a PC instead of an NPC is, IMO, metagaming. Adventurers are not equipped with "strongly worded UN resolutions". They have weapons, and the game expects you to use them, as do most deities, good or otherwise. To a Paladin, anything showing up as worse than Minor on detect evil is probably a cleric of an evil god, a demon or devil, or undead. If they're not, they're still at least that evil. I don't know about you guys, but in every campaign I've ever played in all demons, devils, and undead are legitimately kill-on-sight for good characters.
In this case, the paladin player is proscribed from associating with evil characters. The DM erred in allowing this party composition to be played. If I were the player I'd ask the DM what I'm supposed to do. OOC I'd ask what the hell he was thinking, IC I'd ask what my church teachings tell me to do. Obviously, he can't adventure with evil characters so the whole situation is ridiculously lame.
Slap your DM, because this is an impossible situation for you.
You don't have to fight evil fairly, per se-- in fact doing so regardless of the situation is what I've always known as Lawful Stupid -- but you must act with honor. I'd probably give them a chance to surrender and turn themselves in and admit to their crimes, or suffer judgement in combat. Ambusing them in combat is treacherous, IMO, and therefore dishonorable. Your character should never have accepted a job where he would be required to travel with characters he knew were evil.
Suspect-and-smite!
The DM erred in allowing this party composition to be played.
Not if he and the game accapts PvP.
But detect evil came from my god. So my god says hes evil. And my god is good. So my god must want me to kill him.
It would depend on the character and diety. The deity may only be giving the character the ability to detect evil while leaving it up to the character what he/she does with the new found knowledge, with no requirement to automatically kill anything that registers as evil.
Since when?Some games permit P v. P and some game encourage it. The actions of the OP where not Lawful Stupid, but a working and thought out (and successful) tactic to battle evil. They were reasonable under the circumstances. If you don’t want a Paladin to kill you, then don’t play an evil PC.
You seem to be forgetting the fact that the paladin(as far as we know/were told) did not witness them commit/ing any evil acts. He just decided to kill them because he knew they were evil.
As for PVP/good and evil in the same party, it can be quite fun if done right. I'm playing in such a campaign currently and it's rather enjoyable.
As a DM I'd be pretty peeved because it means that all the work I just did was essentially for nothing and there's a good chance things will be strained...granted, if I was a DM in this situation I would have addressed the issue right away, but just because the dm isn't wise enough to step in doesn't mean you can't go hey this is a red flag situation, one of us needs to change our characters...or at the very least you could arrange it so your character isn't going to walk around murdering the pcs, I mean...did he really have to use detect evil in the inn? Yeah, it might make sense Icly if he's going to be adventuring with these people but...oocly, I think this is a situation where suspension of disbelief is in order.
Of course, if this is the type of game you guys like then...*shrugs* well, to each their own but really what's the point of having a dm? We've done a few PvP arena type things before and they are fun every once in awhile and since you go in knowing your pc is probably going to die it doesn't make things tense afterwards...and you don't have to worry about how you'll continue the campaign.
So in conclusion, icly yes, it made perfect sense and in any other situation it could have been an interesting character...you didn't roleplay wrong, or even badly for that matter, but out of game the situation was, IMO handled very poorly, but if you're group is used to that sort of play then...no harm done I guess.
You seem to be forgetting the fact that the paladin(as far as we know/were told) did not witness them commit/ing any evil acts.
It was not and is not needed. The paladin is a man of faith and his god informed him unequivocally that the target was evil – this is all the proof required for a man of faith. He did not need to let them go and continue to commit secret and hidden sins until such time as he caught them red handed. The condemnation of his god is all the he required.
You seem to be forgetting the fact that the paladin(as far as we know/were told) did not witness them commit/ing any evil acts.It was not and is not needed. The paladin is a man of faith and his god informed him unequivocally that the target was evil – this is all the proof required for a man of faith. He did not need to let them go and continue to commit secret and hidden sins until such time as he caught them red handed. The condemnation of his god is all the he required.
...Isn't that the definition of Lawful Stupid? Besides, I wouldn't say it really justifies the way the paladin went about it. It would have made much more sense if while in the town the paladin had simply gone to the guards and requested their assistance in lawfully bringing in the evil people...if there happened to be a temple of his deity in that town/some sort of higher ups then they'd be viable choices too. You don't adventure with them until they've gotten bloodied and battered then stab them in the back.
As for PVP/good and evil in the same party, it can be quite fun if done right. I'm playing in such a campaign currently and it's rather enjoyable.
Agreed.
How can you jump on the OP's case for stabbing the evil characters in the back if you would've just banned the characters outright? That's just downright hypocritical to tell a Paladin he shouldn't condemn evil PCs just for being evil and then say that evil PC should not be allowed.
The evil alignment is not the source of these kinds of problems, it's bad role-playing.
It was not and is not needed. The paladin is a man of faith and his god informed him unequivocally that the target was evil – this is all the proof required for a man of faith. He did not need to let them go and continue to commit secret and hidden sins until such time as he caught them red handed. The condemnation of his god is all the he required.
Indeed, a paladin is a man/woman of faith who's deity has given him/her the ability to know whether someone is evil or not, so that the paladin can be more aware of the world around him/her, who may need investigating and who may be a possible threat.
All detect evil is, is a means to find out if someone is evil or not. It is not a deity condeming someone to death.
If a paladin kills a merchant just because he detected as evil, that paladin is likly going to be striped of his/her powers and charged with murder.
The evil alignment is not the source of these kinds of problems, it's bad role-playing.
But sadly many people seem to be under the misconception that the evil alignment is indeed the source.
It was not and is not needed. The paladin is a man of faith and his god informed him unequivocally that the target was evil – this is all the proof required for a man of faith. He did not need to let them go and continue to commit secret and hidden sins until such time as he caught them red handed. The condemnation of his god is all the he required.
Really?
Does Detect Evil also tell you the nature of their crimes.
A merchant who cooks his books a little so that he doesn't need to pay as much in taxes, occasionally gouges his customers, and isn't above selling shoddy merchandise at premium prices would certainly be Lawful or Neutral Evil. So, the Paladin Detects him as such, and is justified in murdering him?
St. Cuthbert is about Justice and Retribution. Without knowing the crime, you cannot say what the just punishment is. In the case of the merchant above, death is not just punishment for his crimes (in fact, aside from tax evasion, all of his "crimes" are, in fact, legal).
Lawful Stupid is not an alignment supported by the game. It also isn't supported in my games (for the record, I don't support Chaotic Stupid, either).
Does Detect Evil also tell you the nature of their crimes.
Yes. It tells you they were evil acts. 'S the only way to get and stay evil.
A merchant who cooks his books a little so that he doesn't need to pay as much in taxes, occasionally gouges his customers, and isn't above selling shoddy merchandise at premium prices would certainly be Lawful or Neutral Evil. So, the Paladin Detects him as such, and is justified in murdering him?
Tax evasion is not evil at all. It's chaotic. Cheating directly is pretty much always chaotic.
A Lawful Evil merchant would manipulate the system so that they would be specifically exempt from paying taxes, or, if they were really good, be paid some of the taxes themselves. Perhaps they finance the King's extension to the castle, and as part of payment no longer need pay taxes. Perhaps they funded city council members who happened to fall on hard economic times (probably caused by the merchant himself) and in exchange the council members enacted a tax exemption which just happened to free the merchant of tax obligations.
But that's neither here nor there....
St. Cuthbert is about Justice and Retribution. Without knowing the crime, you cannot say what the just punishment is. In the case of the merchant above, death is not just punishment for his crimes (in fact, aside from tax evasion, all of his "crimes" are, in fact, legal).
Tax evasion is a captial offense currently in China. Historically, it was often effectively if not literally a capital offense as well.
I'd agree that any person who has a Minor aura of evil is probably not worth bothering about. There's simply too many targets to investigate them all, and such persons are almost always capable of being reformed (which is usually not the duty of an adventuring Paladin, but of an established church with non-adventurers).
Anyone with a Moderate evil aura is probably irredeemable, and you can likely follow them for less than a day to witness their evil. Most legitimate authorities have outlawed evil acts (this is circular reasoning, but it is nevertheless true), and using violence to stop an evil act in progress is often justified.
Demons, devils, undead, and anyone with a Strong or Overwhelming evil aura needs to be destroyed. Such creatures are an affront to Good.
ETA: As an aside, the original Paladin should probably require atonement to continue progressing as a Paladin. Attacking the party in the way it was done was a very chaotic act.
So that a 10th level character stealing candy from a baby would have a stronger evil aura then a 1st level commoner that just ate the baby?
This is one of the reasons Paladins in 3.5e were dangerous; you really have to understand the way everyone at the table thinks about alignment or the game will go to hell
It's really the other categories that are damning. Being undead, an evil outsider, or being a highly dedicated follower of evil or an evil deity (cleric, blackguard, etc.) make you a pretty strong source for evil in the world. Such creatures are literally evil incarnate as much as the Paladin himself is good incarnate. In D&D it's as real an element as fire, earth or water.
It's literally possible in D&D to create physical matter that is made of evil and then breathe intelligent life into it. It's not just something you discuss in an ethics class you're forced to take in college. In our world that's as possible as creating physical matter that is made of satire. Although The Onion is trying, dang it.
Pretty much the best argument for investigation is magical interference and fiendish possession. However, in most campaigns I've ever played in, Trial by Combat was accepted practice.
Ultimately, it's a game. D&D in particular is a combat game. Making a big deal out of alignment is stupid, as is punishing players. This is one of the reasons I'm very glad that 4E removed the code of conduct for Paladins. Individual players can still make their Paladins this way, but it is no longer required. It's win/win as far as I'm concerned.
It also depends on just what you define as "evil" I've had quite a few evil characters who by my own definition were evil but generally avoided things like stealing/needless killing and what not...the character actually only had single digit kill counts, he almost always did subduel damage and only a small handful of his kills were actually intended to be kills, the rest were accidents.
My best campaign has been an evil one, and wasn't actually intended to even be evil...the pcs just made some awesome decisions throughout the campaign that turned everything around and basically resulted in them joining the BBEG. That campaign has had huge effects and has actually been key for every campaign that I've run in the past 2 years. People just need to understand the difference between actually playing evil, and playing stupid evil.
Switching gears a moment...I just realized I played a "paladin" like this once before. The character was, for class purposes, a fighter, but he was rped as a fallen paladin for performing too many acts like these. It was a fun concept, and did require a bit of effort to keep the party together but we managed to pull it off. Unfortunately, whenever I do get to play the campaigns tend to just be a few sessions long since I'm the only one who ever wants to dm for anything more then a short length of time.
As for PVP/good and evil in the same party, it can be quite fun if done right. I'm playing in such a campaign currently and it's rather enjoyable.
Agreed.
How can you jump on the OP's case for stabbing the evil characters in the back if you would've just banned the characters outright? That's just downright hypocritical to tell a Paladin he shouldn't condemn evil PCs just for being evil and then say that evil PC should not be allowed.
The evil alignment is not the source of these kinds of problems, it's bad role-playing.
Should have read this before posting, but ah well. I wouldn't have banned the characters outright if this was happening at my table, but I would have brought up the point and more or less said we're going to have to find a way for these people to mesh without causing well...this.
Yes. It tells you they were evil acts. 'S the only way to get and stay evil.
This times infinity.
i think talking about alignment/detect evil is ignoring the real heart of the matter. player a takes the fun away from players b and player c by killing them and using a loop hole of the rules to try to justify it.
i think talking about alignment/detect evil is ignoring the real heart of the matter. player a takes the fun away from players b and player c by killing them and using a loop hole of the rules to try to justify it.
This. It isn't an alignment issue so much as it is a kill half the party in the middle of a group game issue...basically ending play for the night, potentially even the campaign depending on peoples feelings afterwards. Personally, as a dm I'd take great offense if someone entered the campaign for the sole purpose of disrupting and more or less ruining it. I don't mind campaigns going off in an unexpected direction, but this is a game ruining unexpected direction. It's even worse if people had to travel long distances etc.
It's like inviting someone to a BBQ, then having that person show up and start tossing the food on the ground.
player a takes the fun away from players b and player c by killing them and using a loop hole of the rules to try to justify it.
But that is the heart, soul and joy of PvP. If you don't like it, play another game where it is forbidden or at least don't provoke it.
player a takes the fun away from players b and player c by killing them and using a loop hole of the rules to try to justify it.
But that is the heart, soul and joy of PvP. If you don't like it, play another game where it is forbidden or at least don't provoke it.
Rule 0 of every game in existance (Ok, except perhaps Paranoia and Diplomacy): Do not be a donkey cavity. It's called common courtesy. It's called being respectful to other players. Roleplaying games are not something so special that your regard for other players should suddenly go out the window, because if you do feel that way, you should be going out the window.
player a takes the fun away from players b and player c by killing them and using a loop hole of the rules to try to justify it.
But that is the heart, soul and joy of PvP. If you don't like it, play another game where it is forbidden or at least don't provoke it.
Not everyone likes PVP or enjoys it, In my opinion, if a game is going to include the possibility of PVP, it should be discussed and agreed upon beforehand. Not a surprise/spontaneous thing that one player decides to include.
"A betrayal is often nothing more than an elaborate lie, but its implications are far greater. Such an act involves earning someone's trust and then using that trust against him or her. Common acts of betrayal include learning and then revealing secrets, or using trust to get close to one's enemies for an attack or theft. "
-Book of Vile Darkness, page 7
player a takes the fun away from players b and player c by killing them and using a loop hole of the rules to try to justify it.
But that is the heart, soul and joy of PvP. If you don't like it, play another game where it is forbidden or at least don't provoke it.
this game by definition is called a co-operative roleplaying game.
pvp isn't completely banned because roleplayers might choose to use a form of pvp to progress a story. but i never read in fourth edition that this was even close an exclusive pvp game or if it even catored to that target audience.
as far as im concerned, if i dont' like it... im not playing YOUR version of the game, but i am playing dungeons and dragons per players handbook.
also first things i ask the dm are rules at his table.
if i even smell a hint of retarded pvp garbage i walk.
player a takes the fun away from players b and player c by killing them and using a loop hole of the rules to try to justify it.
But that is the heart, soul and joy of PvP. If you don't like it, play another game where it is forbidden or at least don't provoke it.
this game by definition is called a co-operative roleplaying game.
pvp isn't completely banned because roleplayers might choose to use a form of pvp to progress a story. but i never read in fourth edition that this was even close an exclusive pvp game or if it even catored to that target audience.
as far as im concerned, if i dont' like it... im not playing YOUR version of the game, but i am playing dungeons and dragons per players handbook.
also first things i ask the dm are rules at his table.
if i even smell a hint of retarded pvp garbage i walk.
This sums it up pretty well. Pvp is just...difficult to make work in D&D and generally has to be known about beforehand otherwise it'll completely mess up everything the DM had planned/slow things down as someone has to make a new PC.
"A betrayal is often nothing more than an elaborate lie, but its implications are far greater. Such an act involves earning someone's trust and then using that trust against him or her. Common acts of betrayal include learning and then revealing secrets, or using trust to get close to one's enemies for an attack or theft. "
-Book of Vile Darkness, page 7
Oh yeah this is totally true.. Lucky for the pally he doesn't have any smart people in his group to rip his pally status away from him and turn him into a fighter that sucks worse.
This. It isn't an alignment issue so much as it is a kill half the party in the middle of a group game issue...basically ending play for the night, potentially even the campaign depending on peoples feelings afterwards. Personally, as a dm I'd take great offense if someone entered the campaign for the sole purpose of disrupting and more or less ruining it. I don't mind campaigns going off in an unexpected direction, but this is a game ruining unexpected direction. It's even worse if people had to travel long distances etc.
It's like inviting someone to a BBQ, then having that person show up and start tossing the food on the ground.
No, it's like inviting a vegan to a BBQ and not telling them it's not tofu until after they've taken a bite. And then yelling at the vegan for messing up the floor when he spits it out.
Presumably the DM was aware of two facts:There is no time when this situation is not putting the campaign on a railroad for PvP combat or -- at the very least -- the retirement of characters from play. You can't have anti-heroes in the same party as Paladins. Not if they actually have an evil alignment and lack something as basic to player suspension of disbelief as a ring of nondetection. This is not the player's fault because his character is mandated by his character class to not to associate with evil and to destroy evil of all kinds.
- Two players had evil characters.
- One player had a Paladin.
If the DM didn't see this one coming when he looked at the player's character sheets, he's an idiot.
Now, they players themselves may or may not have been aware that one PC was a paladin and two were evil. If they were, then in that case the players were also idiots for boarding this bullet train to Stupidtown.
I also find is suspicous that neither of the two players running evil characters were in the least upset about being killed until they found out the other player was a Paladin. And then they were only upset because the Paladin had "violated alignment"!
That's actually a much better example...apparently I used up all my creativity just thinking of a BBQ. Both the DM and the player are at fault...the DM for not catching it in the first place, but just because the DM isn't wise enough to correct a mistake doesn't mean that the players end up being responsibility free. It doesn't become right just because the wrong wasn't pointed out.
LMAo i mentioned a similar example before!
That's probably where I got it from. I can't remember which thread it was, but someone mentioned BBQ so I've decided that's the default setting for a "for example" post.
(this is from 3.0 rules, 4e might be different)wish
love the player
fear the character
Just to chime in:
What do you think am I out of line as a paladin?
I think you are out of line as a player.
-DF
If everybody follows that rule, anything goes.
My character is a paladin of St. Cuthbert traveling with a Cleric of the same faith on a "crusade" to bring justice back to the world. Now the moment we see the other players in a tavern, I know that 2 of 5 are evil and immediately suggest to my companion that we should kill them, he is LN and suggests a more pragmatic approach by waiting for the oppurtune time. This sounds heartless for a paladin, but if the scenario was different and I came across a camp of goblins and decided to wait for the oppurtune time to attack, i doubt anyone would complain. All because I am a paladin the group wants me to take a handicap in combat and tactics.
At this point, it is fortunate for your character that paladins are only stripped of their powers when they perform evil acts, and suggesting that you want to murder someone is not strictly an evil act. Had your cleric companion been the responsible type, he would have suggested that you curb your enthusiasm, and reminded you that mindless punishment is tyranny, not justice.
The party is then hired for mercnary work to go save a town from orc raiders, and we follow them as if were just a priest and a fighter, though I never said I wasn't a Paladin I just am not dressed like one. So we set up camp, I wait for my time to strike, but keep a safe distance from the rest of the party, but still close the the priest. The next morning, gnolls attack I let the evil people take some damage and then flank one of the evil half-orc players and try to stab him in the back. The fight continues even after the gnolls are gone and the cleric comes to my aid and assists in the kill of the half orc.
So, you:
a) Betray the trust of your companions, however briefly you knew them,
b) Murder a man who's trying to save people's lives
c) Murder a man on the sole basis of the condition of his soul, rather than for any crimes commited
Just making sure I got that straight.
So then everyone finds out OOC that I am paladin and says, you can't do that and blah blah blah. I say this, I am not about the letter of the law, that is what the Cleric is for. I am about the spirit of the law, so I am against those who would break the law, CE, and those who would comprimise the laws integrity through misusing it, LE, and everyone in between. FYI: this is not societies law, but the law as defined by St. Cuthbert, so if I am in a town that says "no paladin may enter" I may enter if St. Cuthbert as told me to do so.
As I'm seeing it, your character has perverted the laws of St. Cuthbert to mean "Death to everyone." You are what you hate the most, and should be lawful evil. I'm not saying the character isn't an interesting one, what with the whole moral paradox of doing evil to fight evil... but he's not suitable for a standard paladin, and he's not appropriate for a typical D&D campaign.
Also they say I have to wait till these characters do something to offend me in order to seek retribution. But again that is the cleric, I am also about mitigation (prevention). There are two types of sin commission and omission. Commission would be something like, commiting murder. Omission would be like allowing a murder to happen and doing nothing to stop it or correct it. And I know their evil so I know they will go against what the law stands for. So it is like this, I know they will commit murder and I then preemptively counter that crime with justice, inorder to fulfil both my obligation to protect someone from being murdered and to punish a murderer in the process.
By this logic, you must necessarily kill everyone and everything physically capable of murder, because you know with just as much certainty that they will. Evil ≠ Hannibal Lecter meets Hitler.
Standing by and allowing someone to do evil is a sin of omission. Giving someone a chance to do good is not. Killing someone because they might do something sometime in the future is a sin of commission. That is where you are guilty.
The other thing my DM said was that I had to give him the oppurtunity to repent, but I am a fatalist, I don't believe people can change. Just as I was called to be a paladin, so he was called to be evil. Why is it that I must give him the oppurtunity for redemption when I already know he cannot be redeem?
What you believe is irrelevant. Killing someone because he might do something evil later is not justice. It is murder, and your character has some serious mental problems.
As I've hinted to earlier with the goblin camp, Why do I have to give Evil a fair fight? I know he is evil, he does not know I am a paladin, I take advantage of that because I am described as being merciless toward evil. Now if it was say a poor woman who to make ends-meat is prostituting herself, my character will obviously be merciful to her because of her predicament. But in this scenario we have a Evil half-orc mercenary who would be just as likely to kill is own kind as he would any other sentient being, just in order to make some gold.
You are arbitrarily handing out your own brand of "justice" to whomever you see fit, based on almost no information, and making that "justice" the ultimate price for every crime... unless it suits you to show mercy, based on your whims. You are evil. You are a tyrant.
What do you think am I out of line as a paladin?
In every conceivable way.