PDA

View Full Version : Devoted to Good in the neutral party - or "the Paladin problem"



WarKitty
2010-10-27, 01:14 PM
We're all familiar with the paladin problem. The character that seems to have an iron rod firmly implanted up their butt. Needless to say this isn't good roleplaying or fun for anyone. Nonetheless, the character that is firmly devoted to an ideal or set of ideals is a long-standing trope, and one that many players find attractive.

The problems come when not all the party shares their ideals. Putting the devoted paladin or cleric in the party with the neutral kill-them-before-they-kill-me rogue naturally results in conflict. Now, I'm not opposed to a bit of in-character conflict. However, it seems in my experience to lead to one of two outcomes. One, the Good character ends up looking like the anal goody two shoes that's always getting in the way of everyone else's fun (or sense of self-preservation). Two, the Good character backs off and ends up looking wimpy and not really devoted to his ideals, as he stands by and watches his less devoted allies violate his code repeatedly. Either way one ends up wondering why this party is still together.

How do you play a devoted character like this while avoiding these issues?

Zansumkai
2010-10-27, 01:25 PM
Not sure if this'll be helpful, but I'm playing a paladin in a friend's game (a pretty heavily customized version of BESM, basically D&D modern on mars), and I've found that a sort of wild west lawman attitude is pretty functional as well as keeping with his paladin's code. Sam (the paladin) is plenty ready to strap on his sword and shield and get to work, but against most intelligent creatures he'll give at least half a chance for them to be taken peacefully. I think the other thing to keep in mind is lawful good doesn't necessarily mean lawful dumb. Sam's not going to walk into obvious danger or eschew a good sneak attack unless there is a good reason. Now throw some innocents into the mix and that attitude changes obviously, but for the most part he's not going to deny what it takes to get his job done, i.e an aggressive attitude towards wrong-doers and knowing his own moral code is what keeps him from sinking to their level, even if his methods might not be much better. It's all for the greater good after all :smallamused:

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 01:25 PM
One option might be to come up with an array of selfish justifications for not committing objectionable acts, or for helping others.

If the Neutral characters have a reason to not "kill them before they kill me" in their own paradigm, that you can all be acting in roughly the same way- but the rest of the party are doing it for selfish reasons, and the paladin is doing it "because it's right".

Champions of Valor suggests that good characters do this- give the other party members a selfish or pragmatic reason to "do the right thing".

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 01:29 PM
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.
Emphasis mine.

"Okay, rogue, straighten up, or GTFO."

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 01:34 PM
Emphasis mine.

"Okay, rogue, straighten up, or GTFO."

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

Well, I wasn't thinking only of the paladin. The same problem comes up if you want to play any sort of devoted good character. In this case it's a druid going Lion of Talsid.

Anyways pretty much every DM I've played with has waived or relaxed that requirement. Otherwise it turns into "just don't play a paladin, you'll have to either leave the group or end up as a fighter with no bonus feats."

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 01:39 PM
Exalted characters, while sharing some similarities with Paladins, are not bound by as strict of a code, if bound at all. AFB, I don't think Lions of Talisid are specifically bound by a code, any more than any other exalted character. In this scenario, I'd probably have a down-to-earth chat with said rogue. Said conversation may include the fact that I could turn them into a toad at a whim (whether I actually can or not). Lying to preserve the greater good, IMO, is not a foul worth a fall.

jiriku
2010-10-27, 01:41 PM
I have two good angles I pursue, based on the authority my PC holds in the group: dominant leader or submissive follower.

If I'm the party leader or the most dominant personality in the PC group, I just push them around and even bully them a little in the direction of good. Think of it like this: "You're in it for the gold? Fine. Do it my way or you don't get paid." or ""This is my plan. We're going to follow my plan or we're all going to end up dead. You got a better plan, let's hear it."

If I'm not in charge, then I try to be a good follower. The group is going to do what it's going to do, and it's not my place to pre-empt the party leader, but I have my personal code and I'll live by it, even if the rest of the party lives by a different code or no code at all. Imagine something like, "You may kill the fallen, but I do not. Do as you will while you fight, but this one is my prisoner -- stand aside." or "Steal the duke's treasure if you will, but I will not rob a friend. I want no part of these ill-gotten gains."

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 01:41 PM
Exalted characters, while sharing some similarities with Paladins, are not bound by as strict of a code, if bound at all. AFB, I don't think Lions of Talisid are specifically bound by a code, any more than any other exalted character. In this scenario, I'd probably have a down-to-earth chat with said rogue. Said conversation may include the fact that I could turn them into a toad at a whim (whether I actually can or not). Lying to preserve the greater good, IMO, is not a foul worth a fall.

You are correct about the code. The issue is one of RP rather than falling or not falling.

I guess I should start putting ranks into diplomacy and bluff? :smallbiggrin:

Edit @ jiriku: Nice ideas there, although that sounds waaaay more organized than our party ever is. We're a pretty democratic group with no clear leader.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 01:43 PM
I guess I should start putting ranks into diplomacy and bluff? :smallbiggrin:

That's how I'd roll.

gbprime
2010-10-27, 01:45 PM
Yeah, "be good" is a much more flexible approach than a Paladin's strict vows. That allows a lot of leeway, and lets you be the moral point in an amoral (not necessarily immoral) group. Their follies cause arguments and face palm moments, not crises of faith.

overall it's good role play. :smallsmile:

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 01:45 PM
That's how I'd roll.

This would be a lot easier if I had charisma. :smallredface:

Jolly
2010-10-27, 01:46 PM
I have two good angles I pursue, based on the authority my PC holds in the group: dominant leader or submissive follower.

If I'm the party leader or the most dominant personality in the PC group, I just push them around and even bully them a little in the direction of good. Think of it like this: "You're in it for the gold? Fine. Do it my way or you don't get paid." or ""This is my plan. We're going to follow my plan or we're all going to end up dead. You got a better plan, let's hear it."


My DM's generally don't allow PvP, but I'd have a nice IC chat with Mr Paladin about how I know where they sleep and if they want to continue to wake up every morning they'll calm the hell down.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 01:48 PM
This would be a lot easier if I had charisma. :smallredface:

With enuff skillz, you don' need no stinkin' cha-ris-ma. :smallwink:

Jayabalard
2010-10-27, 01:51 PM
Needless to say this isn't good roleplaying or fun for anyone. Why not? Sure, it's easy to turn out terrible, but that doesn't mean that it always does.

Marnath
2010-10-27, 01:51 PM
Well, I wasn't thinking only of the paladin. The same problem comes up if you want to play any sort of devoted good character. In this case it's a druid going Lion of Talsid.

Druids, even good ones, can party with just about anyone. Remember, that from their point of view, the whole "look out for number one, kill your enemies before they kill you" thing is a prefectly acceptable law of nature. A good druid might personally hold to a higher moral standard than that, but they'll be more than accepting of pretty much anyone who isn't a violent pyschopath.

HenryHankovitch
2010-10-27, 01:51 PM
Lead by example, not by lecturing or moralizing. A truly paladin-esque, capital-g Good character would see his Neutral allies as people capable of redemption, of being "saved," or at least of serving the greater good. In-character, it's best to think of this as a long-term project (and probably something that's never even mentioned openly, just a motivation in the player's head).

Being Good in a non-Good party is like any situation where your moral code clashes with your companions (evil in a non-evil party, tree-hugging druid in a KILL THE BEARS FOR XP group, etc.). Actually pulling it off with require some pretty good roleplaying chops. You have to know when to make a stand and when to let things slide, and most importantly you have to know how to be diplomatic and persuasive when dealing with your companions in-character. You can supplement your persuasion with skill rolls, but don't ever try doing the diplomancy thing on other PCs. Try to highlight the benefits of doing good work ("if we help these villagers, we'll have a much better reputation when we try to get that mercenary contract from the Duke.") Appeal to their enlightened self-interest. And never, ever ask anyone to sacrifice something that your player isn't already giving up. Be willing to forego treasure/rewards in order to bribe your fellow party members. ("Taking out these bandits is so important to me, I'll do it for free--you guys can have my share.")

You don't want to be that guy who constantly wants us to do goody-two-shoes stuff. You want to be that guy who we like having on our side, because he's a righteous bro.

Chen
2010-10-27, 01:52 PM
My DM's generally don't allow PvP, but I'd have a nice IC chat with Mr Paladin about how I know where they sleep and if they want to continue to wake up every morning they'll calm the hell down.

So no direct PvP but that would just cause any reasonable paladin to leave. Or attack considering you effectively just threatened to kill him in his sleep. Who the hell would stay in a group where someone made a threat like that unless you're massively metagaming?

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 01:57 PM
In theme with my current obsession with old-school gaming, it seems like this is a real holdover from ancient editions of D&D, where typical gameplay would have each player with multiple possible characters.

In those situations, it's pretty easy to deal with the paladin problem - when putting together a group, the paladin only gets put in compatible groups. No problem.

It's an interesting problem in more modern styles of gaming where each player typically has one character. I don't know if it's really solvable with RAW.


Lead by example, not by lecturing or moralizing.

This is good advice, but doesn't address that, RAW, a paladin may not associate with individuals that are evil. If another player wants to play an evil character (or even one that violates the Paladin's "association" rules), there's an inherent conflict. The Paladin falls, leaves the party, the evil character changes, or the evil character leaves. There's no way, RAW, for both players to get the characters that they want to play.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 01:57 PM
@WarKitty: Don't forget to throw in the fact that after you've turned them into a toad, the party wizard would be happy to have a familiar. :smallbiggrin:

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 01:59 PM
Druids, even good ones, can party with just about anyone. Remember, that from their point of view, the whole "look out for number one, kill your enemies before they kill you" thing is a prefectly acceptable law of nature. A good druid might personally hold to a higher moral standard than that, but they'll be more than accepting of pretty much anyone who isn't a violent pyschopath.

That is one possible interpretation of the laws of nature. It's not the only one. The specific situation where this came up was a party member deciding to off a prisoner (a low-level minion) after we'd already killed his boss.


My DM's generally don't allow PvP, but I'd have a nice IC chat with Mr Paladin about how I know where they sleep and if they want to continue to wake up every morning they'll calm the hell down.

So how would you suggest playing a good character then without being a total pushover?

BardicDuelist
2010-10-27, 02:02 PM
With enuff skillz, you don' need no stinkin' cha-ris-ma. :smallwink:

Intimidate: I got mad skillz.

Callista
2010-10-27, 02:03 PM
You have a good talk with the rest of the party and figure out ways to make it work. If you can't make it work, then somebody picks a different character.

If you're going to play a character in conflict with another character, you should always have a backup (and so should they) so you don't miss out on the adventuring if one PC kills the other or if a PC leaves the group. In general, the paladin problem would be solved by the paladin leaving the group more often than not; the best way to get around that is to give them a common enemy and a reason for the paladin to stick around. And the non-paladin players have to understand that their characters would know that some things have to be hidden from the guy who would probably smite them (or, more likely, lecture them for two hours) if he knew what they'd just done.

It's not just paladins, really; it's also greedy rogues in an altruistic party or necromancers in the same party with the barbarian who's freaked out by the undead, or an evil character in a neutral party, or a lawman in a party full of rogues. If you're gonna play a party with characters who won't like each other, then make sure you can make it work first, instead of just jumping in and figuring you'll find an answer somehow. That way leads to fractured parties, PVP, or at least people who are playing their characters out of character because they don't want to rock the boat.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 02:03 PM
Intimidate: I got mad skillz.

I have negative charisma. :smallwink:

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 02:07 PM
Intimidate: I got mad skillz.

*facepalm*

Jolly
2010-10-27, 02:17 PM
So no direct PvP but that would just cause any reasonable paladin to leave. Or attack considering you effectively just threatened to kill him in his sleep. Who the hell would stay in a group where someone made a threat like that unless you're massively metagaming?

Well, generally I don't play in parties where people make characters designed to not like each other so I don't see this coming up. And really, "Stop being a jerk and acting like I'm a slave and you own me, or else" is hardly an unreasonable request.


So how would you suggest playing a good character then without being a total pushover?

Appeals to enlightened self interest, discuss it with the people OOC during char gen so that they don't make blatantly evil chars, turn a blind eye to low level thievery etc (you respect that they don't hold your moral viewpoint, they respect that you don't want to know about their shady actions). Generally, I just have a rule that I don't make a character designed to conflict with the party.

HenryHankovitch
2010-10-27, 02:19 PM
This is good advice, but doesn't address that, RAW, a paladin may not associate with individuals that are evil. If another player wants to play an evil character (or even one that violates the Paladin's "association" rules), there's an inherent conflict. The Paladin falls, leaves the party, the evil character changes, or the evil character leaves. There's no way, RAW, for both players to get the characters that they want to play.

For one, we're discussing the problems of being good in a neutral party, rather than being good in an Evil party. And no, neutrality doesn't mean "I only do evil things half of the time."

Additionally, I tend to presuppose that paladins exist in a world where there are real, capital-e Evils. Bloodthirsty demons, genocidal tyrants, monsters that literally eat babies. Those are the evils that divinely-powered characters are expected to fight, not jaywalkers and tax evaders. As far as I'm concerned, "hey, you just picked that guy's pocket" isn't something a paladin ought to approve of, but he shouldn't be subject to divine wrath for failing to SMITE AND CLEAVE the thief.

But I do realize that my non-douchebag attitudes are not shared by everyone. :smallbiggrin:

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 02:22 PM
Well, generally I don't play in parties where people make characters designed to not like each other so I don't see this coming up. And really, "Stop being a jerk and acting like I'm a slave and you own me, or else" is hardly an unreasonable request.



Appeals to enlightened self interest, discuss it with the people OOC during char gen so that they don't make blatantly evil chars, turn a blind eye to low level thievery etc (you respect that they don't hold your moral viewpoint, they respect that you don't want to know about their shady actions). Generally, I just have a rule that I don't make a character designed to conflict with the party.

See I find that ends up with "you must play this type of character whether you like or enjoy that personality or not." IC conflict is fun, as long as you keep it within bounds.


For one, we're discussing the problems of being good in a neutral party, rather than being good in an Evil party. And no, neutrality doesn't mean "I only do evil things half of the time."

Additionally, I tend to presuppose that paladins exist in a world where there are real, capital-e Evils. Bloodthirsty demons, genocidal tyrants, monsters that literally eat babies. Those are the evils that divinely-powered characters are expected to fight, not jaywalkers and tax evaders. As far as I'm concerned, "hey, you just picked that guy's pocket" isn't something a paladin ought to approve of, but he shouldn't be subject to divine wrath for failing to SMITE AND CLEAVE the thief.

But I do realize that my non-douchebag attitudes are not shared by everyone. :smallbiggrin:

The point isn't about falling or not falling, or incurring divine wrath, or whatever. The point is how to roleplay such a character in the party.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 02:23 PM
Those are the evils that divinely-powered characters are expected to fight, not jaywalkers and tax evaders. As far as I'm concerned, "hey, you just picked that guy's pocket" isn't something a paladin ought to approve of, but he shouldn't be subject to divine wrath for failing to SMITE AND CLEAVE the thief.

But I do realize that my non-douchebag attitudes are not shared by everyone. :smallbiggrin:

No, but he should attempt to stop him and turn him in to the appropriate authorities.

Oomblek
2010-10-27, 02:28 PM
I would go with what was said before, its usually easier to oust a bad member of a party of the dynamics get all buggered up. not saying that having a moral head to a party is bad.

but, like in real life, some things just dont work when put together; at least not without some give. i've personally have had no luck with lawful good in the games that i've run, mainly because being evil tends to be more fun for the group i DM for, buuuut the main point is keeping the game rolling, loosing a char sucks, expecially if its one your fond of. but in my thinking, its better to loose a finger and not a hand, if conflicts like this are popping up, as ya level its bound to get worse as the rewards are larger and the chars become more powerfull.

so my 2 cents is this, toss the lawful good and work in something else, a chaotic good can still have moral standings... just not so... "firmly rooted"

Terumitsu
2010-10-27, 02:29 PM
The Gitper by the name of Psycho has this in their signature. I think it's both applicable and awesome:

"When I first became a Paladin, I thought in terms of black and white. I see now that it's really a spectrum of greys, and that plenty of people stradle my arbitrary line between good and evil.

But you know what? Those people aren't my problem. My job is to sniff out those who live their lives far enough away from that line that I need to squint to see any light, and then kick their ass in a manner most righteous."

jiriku
2010-10-27, 02:30 PM
My DM's generally don't allow PvP, but I'd have a nice IC chat with Mr Paladin about how I know where they sleep and if they want to continue to wake up every morning they'll calm the hell down.

If you'd kill a fellow party member because you don't like the tone of his voice or because taking reasonable orders from him is a pride issue for you, that probably places your character firmly in the "Evil alignment" zone. At which point, the paladin is bound by his class restrictions to either a) kick you out of the group, or b) leave the group himself. Which would solve the problem, either way.

Neutral characters, OTOH, are probably going to either a) contest the Good PCs authority and assume leadership themselves, in which case my character defaults to the "be a good follower" mode, or a) follow their chosen leader, even if they're not wild about his principles, because they don't want to try to replace him.

Warkitty makes a good point though, that such a model doesn't work well in a democratic party. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to obey you, there's no clear leader to follow, and you can't just sit back and let others do what they wish, because the group expects you to contribute ideas and strategy. I'd say IC/OOC diplomacy+bluff is the best way to go there. If you have low Charisma, just role-play that you're ineffective at getting your point across and tend to lose the debates. :smallbiggrin:

shadowmage
2010-10-27, 02:41 PM
Myself I would work with the other person and hope the other person would work with me. Because I am the goodie goodie does not mean I have to use OOC knowldge to go looking for what the rogue is going behind my back and the rogue should make some effort to hide what he is doing from me. If he is a good rogue I should be, "He where is Rob the Roge?" AS he steps out of the shadows. "OH I am over here I was up ahead scouting and found the site of a battle." Never mind that all of the dead have stab wounds in the back, they must have been cowards and were running away from a worthy foe. :smalltongue:

If the paladin catches the rogue doing bad things as other have said he letures him and tries to show him the path of right. But if he is a good rogue he should not get caught that much, but should get caught some times for the Roleplay of it. Just like the rogue can bring up some flaw the paladin might have. "No Mr. Paul the Paladin we shoudl not charge head long down this road to attack that army of orcs, if you follow me quitely down this side path we will reach the true big evil guy leading this army kill him and avoid all the mindless blood shead you want to get us killed trying to do."

Jolly
2010-10-27, 02:48 PM
If you'd kill a fellow party member because you don't like the tone of his voice or because taking reasonable orders from him is a pride issue for you, that probably places your character firmly in the "Evil alignment" zone. At which point, the paladin is bound by his class restrictions to either a) kick you out of the group, or b) leave the group himself. Which would solve the problem, either way.

Well, that's assuming rather a lot isn't it? The way it was presented, the G character would "bully" and attempt to force the other party members into accepting his plans. I don't like bullies, and refuse to be forced into risking my life to fulfill moral and ethical obligations I do not personally feel. If the paladin in question was just being an annoying jerk, well, that's what paladins do isn't it? :smallwink:




See I find that ends up with "you must play this type of character whether you like or enjoy that personality or not." IC conflict is fun, as long as you keep it within bounds.


Well, within certain very broad strokes yeah I do refuse to play with people who can only have fun / are only able to roleplay certain personality types. If your characters are always Chaotic Stupid (regardless of IC Int/Wis scores, personality, alignment etc) then you don't get invited to games. If your characters are always Lawful ###hole then you don't get invited to games. So, if you can't have fun roleplaying a character capable of at least minimal co-operation with a party then you can find another game. /shrug

It's kinda like how I never allowed Evil alignments, hardline anti-social loners, or any other party disrupting character ideas in my games. If all your char ever does is go off by themselves to brood, there isn't much fun in that for everyone else.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 02:52 PM
It's kinda like how I never allowed Evil alignments, hardline anti-social loners, or any other party disrupting character ideas in my games. If all your char ever does is go off by themselves to brood, there isn't much fun in that for everyone else.

Evil characters do not necessarily disrupt the party. There's also the "insidious evil" whose goal is to corrupt the rest of the party. Just thought you should know.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 02:54 PM
Well, within certain very broad strokes yeah I do refuse to play with people who can only have fun / are only able to roleplay certain personality types. If your characters are always Chaotic Stupid (regardless of IC Int/Wis scores, personality, alignment etc) then you don't get invited to games. If your characters are always Lawful ###hole then you don't get invited to games. So, if you can't have fun roleplaying a character capable of at least minimal co-operation with a party then you can find another game. /shrug

It's kinda like how I never allowed Evil alignments, hardline anti-social loners, or any other party disrupting character ideas in my games. If all your char ever does is go off by themselves to brood, there isn't much fun in that for everyone else.

Which is basically the question. :smalltongue: I would really like to play the devoted hero character. But in the interest of getting along with the party any character with a strong moral code seems to end up being a total wimp that goes along with whatever the party does, regardless of his desires. That imposes a pretty severe limit on the types of character you can play.

Jolly
2010-10-27, 03:05 PM
Evil characters do not necessarily disrupt the party. There's also the "insidious evil" whose goal is to corrupt the rest of the party. Just thought you should know.

Yeah, in theory this is true. I have not seen it played out IRL.


Which is basically the question. I would really like to play the devoted hero character. But in the interest of getting along with the party any character with a strong moral code seems to end up being a total wimp that goes along with whatever the party does, regardless of his desires. That imposes a pretty severe limit on the types of character you can play.

Technically, it makes one type of character concept more difficult to play, which is not really the same thing.

Anyway, in my experience it boils down to a shades of grey/Boondock Saints type attitude on your part, a DM who won't make you fall for silly reasons, and playing with people who IRL want to make it work.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 03:09 PM
Technically, it makes one type of character concept more difficult to play, which is not really the same thing.

Anyway, in my experience it boils down to a shades of grey/Boondock Saints type attitude on your part, a DM who won't make you fall for silly reasons, and playing with people who IRL want to make it work.

My point was more you end up with "every character must have the same view on morality and what is and is not an appropriate action."

Perhaps the question would be better put: where is the line between insisting on your own moral principles and not annoying the hell of out of the rest of your party?

Telasi
2010-10-27, 03:13 PM
Which is basically the question. :smalltongue: I would really like to play the devoted hero character. But in the interest of getting along with the party any character with a strong moral code seems to end up being a total wimp that goes along with whatever the party does, regardless of his desires. That imposes a pretty severe limit on the types of character you can play.

You are only responsible, morally, for your own actions. So long as you refuse to compromise yourself, then you at can least have a clear conscience. If the party wants to do something that goes against your beliefs, then object, and explain why. If they do it anyway, then you're not responsible for their actions. Nobody can make you do anything you believe is wrong (except with magic, which means you aren't responsible anyway).

Being good is hard, and means you have to make hard choices. Don't back down on the big issues, and don't lose track of the greater good.

Chen
2010-10-27, 03:13 PM
Well, that's assuming rather a lot isn't it? The way it was presented, the G character would "bully" and attempt to force the other party members into accepting his plans. I don't like bullies, and refuse to be forced into risking my life to fulfill moral and ethical obligations I do not personally feel. If the paladin in question was just being an annoying jerk, well, that's what paladins do isn't it? :smallwink:

Your initial statement very heavily implied the paladin would be killed in his sleep if he were to continue acting in that manner. The only reasonable response would be to leave said group or ask the person doing the threatening to leave. Just accepting that kind of threat is an absurd in character decision to make (though many will metagame to accept it just to keep the group together).

Jolly
2010-10-27, 03:48 PM
Your initial statement very heavily implied the paladin would be killed in his sleep if he were to continue acting in that manner. The only reasonable response would be to leave said group or ask the person doing the threatening to leave. Just accepting that kind of threat is an absurd in character decision to make (though many will metagame to accept it just to keep the group together).

Read the comment I was responding to. Why is it ok for the good char to threaten me to force me to follow his moral precepts, but threatening him back is so horrible and awful and party destroying?

As for not leaving after being threatened, it'd depend on the situation. Ever have a friend acting really inappropriately and tell him "X behaviour is really wrong, knock it off or I'll beat your ass down"? Saw it done all the time back in the .mil, and no one ever got all aflutter over it. Maybe the G character would realize forcing his morals on his party was an idiotic and wrong headed thing to do and stop? Hey look, personal growth through role playing...

Warkitty: these are supposed to be real people, so just use a little common sense. IRL, do you constantly "insist on your morals" to all your friends? So why would your character feel that need? I hate thievery IRL, but I have friends that pirate music.

So, if you want to play a hero with strong moral convictions, a little consideration from the other players and moderation/common sense on your part is all that's needed. There's no logical reason why a strongly good char can't peacefully co-exist with a non-overtly evil party.

Fallbot
2010-10-27, 03:52 PM
I think I'm about to run up against this very conflict - I've been asked to introduce a comparatively moral character to the classic party of murderous hobos. The big problem is that one of the most amoral and torture happy characters is already being played by me. IC conflict is great, but less so when it's with yourself...

Kylarra
2010-10-27, 03:55 PM
There's a pretty notable difference between "we do this my way unless you've got better ideas" presented strongly and "I'll knife you in your sleep unless you do what I say".

Callista
2010-10-27, 04:00 PM
I think I'm about to run up against this very conflict - I've been asked to introduce a comparatively moral character to the classic party of murderous hobos. The big problem is that one of the most amoral and torture happy characters is already being played by me. IC conflict is great, but less so when it's with yourself...Awkward. Do you have to play both characters, or can you drop your old character to go off by himself for a while?

Suggestion: Play a diplomatic character that can convince people rather than intimidating or forcing them.

Frosty
2010-10-27, 04:01 PM
This is good advice, but doesn't address that, RAW, a paladin may not associate with individuals that are evil. If another player wants to play an evil character (or even one that violates the Paladin's "association" rules), there's an inherent conflict. The Paladin falls, leaves the party, the evil character changes, or the evil character leaves. There's no way, RAW, for both players to get the characters that they want to play.Depending on how the Paladin views his code, by RAW he might not even be able to associate with Grey Guards. After all, GGs can cheat, lie, ambush, etc on a regular basis to go Good's dirty work.

Really, most adventurers probably regularly do things to offend a paladin's moral code.

"We kill things and take their stuff"

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 04:08 PM
For one, we're discussing the problems of being good in a neutral party, rather than being good in an Evil party. And no, neutrality doesn't mean "I only do evil things half of the time."

Additionally, I tend to presuppose that paladins exist in a world where there are real, capital-e Evils. Bloodthirsty demons, genocidal tyrants, monsters that literally eat babies. Those are the evils that divinely-powered characters are expected to fight, not jaywalkers and tax evaders. As far as I'm concerned, "hey, you just picked that guy's pocket" isn't something a paladin ought to approve of, but he shouldn't be subject to divine wrath for failing to SMITE AND CLEAVE the thief.

But I do realize that my non-douchebag attitudes are not shared by everyone. :smallbiggrin:

Actually, I generally agree with you. There's no real reason that Paladins have to be played as the sanctimonious type - a good Paladin player focuses far more on *their* actions, and leading by example, than they do on preaching. That's how you play a Paladin in a neutral party. The Knights of the Cross in the Dresden Files are, to me, excellent examples of Paladins, even if you disagree on some of the fine points.

My point was just that the association rules may be remnants of an older style of game, and probably need more fine-tuning to be playable in a modern game. Roy, if he were a Paladin, would fall. A Paladin *cannot*, RAW, remain in a party with an evil character. Not even as a long-term conversion project. This means that someone has to bend on their character concept. Again, this is RAW, and I'm arguing not in favor of this, but that it's a relic and really, really needs to be tweaked for an enjoyable experience in a more modern game.

IOW, RAW encourages douchebag attitudes, and should be re-interpreted so that wonderful, non-douchebag attitudes can be had by all. :smallbiggrin:

Fallbot
2010-10-27, 04:09 PM
Awkward. Do you have to play both characters, or can you drop your old character to go off by himself for a while?

Suggestion: Play a diplomatic character that can convince people rather than intimidating or forcing them.

I'm stuck with both - another player is leaving and we need a leader replacement (4E)

Pretty much what I'm going for. The...unpleasant character is easy to manipulate, and is more lacking a moral compass than devoted to being a jerk,so will back off without too much disruption. It's just going to be a little awkward having the initial arguments with myself :smalltongue:

HenryHankovitch
2010-10-27, 04:14 PM
The point isn't about falling or not falling, or incurring divine wrath, or whatever. The point is how to roleplay such a character in the party.
It was a specific response to a specific argument. Feel free to read my first post in the thread, which attempts to address your OP.


IOW, RAW encourages douchebag attitudes, and should be re-interpreted so that wonderful, non-douchebag attitudes can be had by all. I'd agree with that. I personally think the six or seven words in question are open to a more player-friendly interpretation; but the whole point is that this is the sort of thing that needs to be Rule Zeroed into a reasonable and playable moral position.

Bugbeartrap
2010-10-27, 04:25 PM
I too feel like I'm going to run into this problem. I'm playing a Chelish Devilbinder in a PF game with a Paladin. My character is Lawful Neutral with slight evil leanings, so I'm fond of pointing out that we have more similarities than differences. However, I can't ever really go full LE without the Paladin or me needing to leave the party (a toss up since the rest of the group is CN, CN, and LN).

I feel like the hard restrictions of "No adventuring with evil" is rediculous, and meant mostly to stop paladins from being buddy buddy with Psychotic evil PCs. I think we would create a much better story by testing each others beliefs, while we work towards a similar goal (right now saving a town).

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:28 PM
Defenders of the Faith phrases it as

"will not associate on a continuing basis with evil characters"-

and allows for periods of temporary cooperation- where you weigh up the risks of being corrupted yourself, against the possibility of doing greater good together, and redeeming an evil character.

BoED says something similar.

So there is some rules support for paladins and evil characters adventuring together but for very short terms.

Jolly
2010-10-27, 04:28 PM
The OP is about strongly good in a Neutral party. "Neutral" alignment is not "I see a burning orphange. I flip a coin to decide if I risk my life saving the kids, or chain the doors shut and offer their souls as a sacrifice to gain dark powers." N parties don't have a very firm sense of morality, but shouldn't be murdering and raping their way across the landscape either.

That being said, some types of characters can't co-exist. A Paladin and a NE Lich Necromancer can both be fine character concepts, but just don't work together. Barring opposite extremes, actually Neutral chars can get along with either end just fine. But again, if your char concept is "Person who forces everyone to follow my morals" then yeah that won't work out too well.

Also, the "classic" murderous hobo party is generally a result of immature players and a bad DM not calling them to task for their actions.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 04:29 PM
I too feel like I'm going to run into this problem. I'm playing a Chelish Devilbinder in a PF game with a Paladin. My character is Lawful Neutral with slight evil leanings, so I'm fond of pointing out that we have more similarities than differences. However, I can't ever really go full LE without the Paladin or me needing to leave the party (a toss up since the rest of the group is CN, CN, and LN).

I feel like the hard restrictions of "No adventuring with evil" is rediculous, and meant mostly to stop paladins from being buddy buddy with Psychotic evil PCs. I think we would create a much better story by testing each others beliefs, while we work towards a similar goal (right now saving a town).

... which is why I'd houserule it to something like "Paladins must work to convert any Evil companions to the course of Good, and may not assist them in any evil plots. Associating with evil characters without attempting to help them change their ways will cause the Paladin to Fall."

It works much better in the modern game structure.


The OP is about strongly good in a Neutral party. "Neutral" alignment is not "I see a burning orphange. I flip a coin to decide if I risk my life saving the kids, or chain the doors shut and offer their souls as a sacrifice to gain dark powers." N parties don't have a very firm sense of morality, but shouldn't be murdering and raping their way across the landscape either.

Neutral characters primarily act in self-interest, without crossing the line into being aggressors. A Neutral character might ignore the burning orphanage, and they might actually risk their lives, but they'd be unlikely to actively help ensure the orphanage burned down.


That being said, some types of characters can't co-exist. A Paladin and a NE Lich Necromancer can both be fine character concepts, but just don't work together.

The problem is that the Paladin is the only class that is *mechanically* prevented from being in a party with other character concepts. A NE Lich Necromancer might not enjoy being in a party with goody-two-shoes, but won't lose their Lichiness from doing so. Not so with the Paladin.


Barring opposite extremes, actually Neutral chars can get along with either end just fine. But again, if your char concept is "Person who forces everyone to follow my morals" then yeah that won't work out too well.

And that's a very immature, naive way of playing a Paladin. (Yes, I realize it's also the most common).

Bugbeartrap
2010-10-27, 04:36 PM
... which is why I'd houserule it to something like "Reasonable Stuff."

It works much better in the modern game structure.

Which is what my group has been doing. Seeing as the paladin is also the New Guy, he hasnt questioned it too much yet. Alas this just brings up the point that it needs to be houseruled to be used. As a lawful-goodish-type in RL, Im trying so hard to stay in character. It's hard to keep saying "I guess I'll save the town since the pay is good" before I lose my evils, and then I've lost an aspect of the character.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 04:37 PM
The OP is about strongly good in a Neutral party. "Neutral" alignment is not "I see a burning orphange. I flip a coin to decide if I risk my life saving the kids, or chain the doors shut and offer their souls as a sacrifice to gain dark powers." N parties don't have a very firm sense of morality, but shouldn't be murdering and raping their way across the landscape either.

This, exactly. My party isn't rape and pillage evil. But they're the type that's certainly not above "let's stab the prisoner because I don't want to be bothered transporting him." Or "let's blow up the bad guy's stronghold even though it might burn down the houses of some innocent families, because we don't want to risk fighting through." They're not going out of their way to be evil, but if the path of least resistance happens to be evil they tend to take it.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:38 PM
The problem is that the Paladin is the only class that is *mechanically* prevented from being in a party with other character concepts. A NE Lich Necromancer might not enjoy being in a party with goody-two-shoes, but won't lose their Lichiness from doing so. Not so with the Paladin.

A nonevil lich necromancer (20th level Dread Necromancer- which can be Neutral, and automatically became a lich at 20th level without changing alignment) might get on better with the paladin.


This, exactly. My party isn't rape and pillage evil. But they're the type that's certainly not above "let's stab the prisoner because I don't want to be bothered transporting him." Or "let's blow up the bad guy's stronghold even though it might burn down the houses of some innocent families, because we don't want to risk fighting through." They're not going out of their way to be evil, but if the path of least resistance happens to be evil they tend to take it.

In Champions of Ruin, that's pretty much textbook normal Evil alignment.

"They (evil acts) are often the evil character's first choice rather than last resort, because committing an evil act can be easier and faster than acting in a moral way"

Jolly
2010-10-27, 04:41 PM
There's a pretty notable difference between "we do this my way unless you've got better ideas" presented strongly and "I'll knife you in your sleep unless you do what I say".

Yes, given the most generous possible interpretation of the first statement, and the worst possible implication of my response then it is uneven. Good for you, here's a cookie. I fail to see how dragging a discussion about a tangential comment out is terribly useful, however.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 04:50 PM
In Champions of Ruin, that's pretty much textbook normal Evil alignment.

"They (evil acts) are often the evil character's first choice rather than last resort, because committing an evil act can be easier and faster than acting in a moral way"

I will admit a few of them are borderline. Their motto seems to be "Respect innocent life as long as it doesn't increase the risk of me losing mine."

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 04:51 PM
In Champions of Ruin, that's pretty much textbook normal Evil alignment.

"They (evil acts) are often the evil character's first choice rather than last resort, because committing an evil act can be easier and faster than acting in a moral way"

Neither Good nor Evil have to be played as one-dimensional cartoon characters. Look at Belkar. Evil to the core, but he's not a moustache-twirling caricature of a villain. Nor is Roy a one-dimensional moral policeman.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:55 PM
I will admit a few of them are borderline. Their motto seems to be "Respect innocent life as long as it doesn't increase the risk of me losing mine."

Some Evil characters might have an even higher "respect for innocent life" than that- and commit evil acts for personal gratification only against those they deem "acceptable targets"- who never fit the definition of "innocent".

If Dexter from Darkly Dreaming Dexter existed in D&D, he might count as one of these.

Marnath
2010-10-27, 05:02 PM
Obligatory link True Neutral (http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html). A neutral person is perfectly capable of doing loving nice things for friends, and letting everyone else burn to death, because after all, who cares about those people? An evil person, however, might love their friends and family, but go out of their way to cause suffering in others.

That's the big difference, indifference versus enjoying the suffering of others. A paladin probably won't have trouble with neutrals most of the time, beyond the occasional "That was kind of mean, I don't really approve of that..." and "If you won't do this because it's right, I'll pay you my share to help out." Normally though, a neutral will probably follow the paladin, but because he's their friend, not because they give a dire rat's arse if it's moral.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 05:03 PM
Obligatory link True Neutral (http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html). A neutral person is perfectly capable of doing loving nice things for friends, and letting everyone else burn to death, because after all, who cares about those people? An evil person, however, might love their friends and family, but go out of their way to cause suffering in others.


Even Evil people can be nice to their friends :)

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 05:09 PM
An evil person, however, might love their friends and family, but go out of their way to cause suffering in others.

This is pretty much what Savage Species says about Evil alignment.

LE characters in particular are famous having various compunctions, like not harming certain subsets of the population (typically children).

If the category of "others" a Evil character "goes out of their way to cause suffering in" happened to become so narrow as to be "the non-innocent" would the character automatically cease to be evil?-

based on the theory that the statement "Evil people debase or destroy the innocent" automatically excludes anyone unwilling to do this from Evil alignment?

Or is "going out of your way to cause suffering" in anyone, a trait Evil enough on its own to potentially allow for an Evil alignment?

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 05:14 PM
This is pretty much what Savage Species says about Evil alignment.

LE characters in particular are famous having various compunctions, like not harming certain subsets of the population (typically children).

...

Or is "going out of your way to cause suffering" in anyone, a trait Evil enough on its own to potentially allow for an Evil alignment?

In my opinion, yes. Dexter is Lawful Evil. I'd find it hard to accept a morality system that would label him as Good.

Marnath
2010-10-27, 05:15 PM
Or is "going out of your way to cause suffering" in anyone, a trait Evil enough on its own to potentially allow for an Evil alignment?

This one. It doesn't matter if they're innocent or not, if you enjoy making them suffer, you are evil. Also, "innocent" is subjective. Innocent in the classic sense vs "are these people innocent of looking at me wrong? No? KILL IT!"


Even Evil people can be nice to their friends :)

I love how you ignored the main part of my arguement. :smalltongue:
But yes, you are correct. :smallsmile:

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 05:18 PM
I love how you ignored the main part of my arguement. :smalltongue:
But yes, you are correct. :smallsmile:

I didn't ignore it. I agreed with it so much I didn't need to respond :P

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 05:20 PM
In my opinion, yes. Dexter is Lawful Evil. I'd find it hard to accept a morality system that would label him as Good.

Some people might say something like:

"Dexter must be willing to harm the innocent under certain circumstances- despite his code prohibiting it- because only an evil character would regularly murder people for personal gratification- and all evil characters are willing to harm the innocent"

which seems like a case of ignoring the facts.

Or

"Dexter is Neutral- because he lacks respect for life, preventing him from being Good, and lacks willingness to harm the innocent, preventing him from being Evil- leaving Neutral as the only available option"


Personally though I think that both these solutions place too much importance on the PHB statement:

"Evil characters debase or destroy the innocent, whether for fun or profit"

-it may be a generalization, rather than an "always true, without exception" statement.


This one. It doesn't matter if they're innocent or not, if you enjoy making them suffer, you are evil.

It's possible that a great proportion of characters might momentarily manifest this trait when they have a sufficiently vile enemy in their power- people have a good deal of potential for sadism as well as compassion.

Enjoying inflicting suffering regularly, rather than just for a moment and feeling sorry afterward, might be a better guideline.

Marnath
2010-10-27, 05:24 PM
Both of those examples are wrong. Evil people can have codes against harming the innocent(which would be more likely to be LE, but whatever) and he's not neutral because even though he doesnt kill innocents, he does kill....Having not seen the show I cannot say for sure, but if he enjoys killing the ones he does kill, then he's evil.

*edit: If he doesn't enjoy killing, but does it out of a sense of duty, then he might be neutral.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 05:26 PM
Both of those examples are wrong. Evil people can have codes against harming the innocent(which would be more likely to be LE, but whatever) and he's not neutral because even though he doesnt kill innocents, he does kill....Having not seen the show I cannot say for sure, but if he enjoys killing the ones he does kill, then he's evil.

Yeah, he kills because he enjoys it. Even he is under no delusions that he's a good guy - he repeatedly refers to himself as a monster.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 05:26 PM
I've read the first novel, but not seen the show- so my view was based more on that novel.

Dexter isn't the only example though- in nearly any case where an antihero is inflicting suffering on an evil, "non-innocent" enemy as revenge, there will tend to be an element of enjoyment in the suffering of that enemy.

Marnath
2010-10-27, 05:27 PM
Yeah, he kills because he enjoys it. Even he is under no delusions that he's a good guy - he repeatedly refers to himself as a monster.

Then he is evil. You can do good things all you want, live the lifestyle a paladin would....and be evil to the core, if your motivations are evil.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 05:29 PM
I've read the first novel, but not seen the show- so my view was based more on that novel.

I've read all the books as well as watched the show.

I <3 Dexter.

In every iteration, he's a monster, he knows he's a monster, and he fully accepts that he's a monster and will be executed, and rightfully so, if caught.


Dexter isn't the only example though- in nearly any case where an antihero is inflicting suffering on an evil, "non-innocent" enemy as revenge, there will tend to be an element of enjoyment in the suffering of that enemy.

A Good person can still commit an Evil act - they just won't do it on a regular basis. But, yeah, most anti-heroes are firmly in the Neutral realm. Justice may be Good, but vengeance is closer to Neutral to Evil.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 05:33 PM
:smalltongue: No hijacking my thread with alignment debates!

In all seriousness, I've found it works a lot better if you use a sliding scale of innocence. A petty thief isn't exactly innocent, but killing him out of hand might still qualify as "hurting an innocent" because he was innocent of any crime deserving death.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 05:38 PM
:smalltongue: No hijacking my thread with alignment debates!

In all seriousness, I've found it works a lot better if you use a sliding scale of innocence. A petty thief isn't exactly innocent, but killing him out of hand might still qualify as "hurting an innocent" because he was innocent of any crime deserving death.

Yeah, even if defending the rights of others or in pursuit of justice, you should infringe upon someone's rights to the minimal extent safely possible.

So executing the petty thief would probably ping as Evil, unless he tried to kill you once you've cornered him.

Marnath
2010-10-27, 05:45 PM
To adress the OP:


A group of bandits have been robbing travelers. The party is watching them in their camp from a hidden spot.

Neutral character: We should wait until dark when their guard is down, and wipe them out. They've been hampering trade too long to be allowed to live.

Paladin: I agree they should be brought to justice, but I am uneasy with the thought of marching in there and slaughtering them. We should take prisoners so they can be judged by the proper authority.

N: Maybe. The bounty calls for them dead though. We might not get paid for live prisoners.

P: We might lose out on the money, but we'll have done the right thing.

N: Ah, but there's a few things you're missing. One, we might have trouble keeping them tied up long enough to get to town, since we have one rope. Two, who is to say they will not be set free by the authorities, or escape before their judgement? More people may come under their predations if that happens. No, we should kill them now to prevent any future crimes. If it helps, you can always give your share of the bounty to orphaned kittens or some damn thing.

P: You make a good point, there are a lot of them for us to bring back. I don't like it but you've convinced me. We can't afford for them to escape and harm more travelers.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 05:51 PM
To adress the OP:


A group of bandits have been robbing travelers. The party is watching them in their camp from a hidden spot.

Neutral character: We should wait until dark when their guard is down, and wipe them out. They've been hampering trade too long to be allowed to live.

Paladin: I agree they should be brought to justice, but I am uneasy with the thought of marching in there and slaughtering them. We should take prisoners so they can be judged by the proper authority.

N: Maybe. The bounty calls for them dead though. We might not get paid for live prisoners.

P: We might lose out on the money, but we'll have done the right thing.

N: Ah, but there's a few things you're missing. One, we might have trouble keeping them tied up long enough to get to town, since we have one rope. Two, who is to say they will not be set free by the authorities, or escape before their judgement? More people may come under their predations if that happens. No, we should kill them now to prevent any future crimes. If it helps, you can always give your share of the bounty to orphaned kittens or some damn thing.

P: You make a good point, there are a lot of them for us to bring back. I don't like it but you've convinced me. We can't afford for them to escape and harm more travelers.

P: I cannot force your actions, but I beg you to reconsider. I shall attempt to capture them, and I will defend any prisoners I take from execution. However, should they refuse to surrender or attempt to escape, I shall, with heavy heart, use lethal force as necessary. Perhaps by showing mercy on them, they will learn that the world is not out to get them, and will repent their evil ways. If they do not, the consequences must rest upon them, though I shall regret that circumstances forced our hand in this way. Your way is easier, I admit, but the path of righteousness often requires us to leave the trail of ease.

P: However, if they are as evil as they are reported, then I suspect they shall attempt to resist us with deadly force, and this entire debate will be moot. I will concede approaching them at night - if we catch them unaware, they may be more likely to surrender, allowing for a peaceful solution. However, I must insist that we give them the option to surrender - whether they do so or not is on their heads.

Marnath
2010-10-27, 05:56 PM
See? Now we're contributing Warkitty! ^.^

That ought to buy us a few more pages of offtopic alignment struggling, right? Joking :)

*edit for above: N: All right, we'll give them the option to surrender. Right after we've evened the odds some. Unless you have ideas on how to keep them from swarming us after you blow our cover?

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 06:08 PM
To adress the OP:


A group of bandits have been robbing travelers. The party is watching them in their camp from a hidden spot.

Neutral character: We should wait until dark when their guard is down, and wipe them out. They've been hampering trade too long to be allowed to live.

Paladin: I agree they should be brought to justice, but I am uneasy with the thought of marching in there and slaughtering them. We should take prisoners so they can be judged by the proper authority.

N: Maybe. The bounty calls for them dead though. We might not get paid for live prisoners.

P: We might lose out on the money, but we'll have done the right thing.

N: Ah, but there's a few things you're missing. One, we might have trouble keeping them tied up long enough to get to town, since we have one rope. Two, who is to say they will not be set free by the authorities, or escape before their judgement? More people may come under their predations if that happens. No, we should kill them now to prevent any future crimes. If it helps, you can always give your share of the bounty to orphaned kittens or some damn thing.

P: You make a good point, there are a lot of them for us to bring back. I don't like it but you've convinced me. We can't afford for them to escape and harm more travelers.

I think it was the orphaned kitties that won him over. :smalltongue:

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 06:08 PM
Actual event that triggered this:

We were on a rescue mission. We've just taken out the BBEG and are mopping up. There's one bandit left, a low-level mook.

G: Surrender now!

B: Ok, ok, I surrender! Just don't kill me! *drops weapons*

G: That was your boss, right?

B: Yes, yes, he's not the big guy though! Please don't hurt me!

G: Alright. *ties guy up*

--party conference out of earshot of the prisoner--

G: Now go tell your boss to leave us alone!

N: *stabs the guy as he runs past and kills him*

G: :smallsigh:

N: He would have turned on us.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 06:13 PM
Actual event that triggered this:

We were on a rescue mission. We've just taken out the BBEG and are mopping up. There's one bandit left, a low-level mook.

G: Surrender now!

B: Ok, ok, I surrender! Just don't kill me! *drops weapons*

G: That was your boss, right?

B: Yes, yes, he's not the big guy though! Please don't hurt me!

G: Alright. *ties guy up*

--party conference out of earshot of the prisoner--

G: Now go tell your boss to leave us alone!

N: *stabs the guy as he runs past and kills him*

G: :smallsigh:

N: He would have turned on us.

So, the "neutral" guy killed an unarmed man who posed no threat, had been freed, and was in fact running away from the party?

I'd say that slips a little past Neutral, meself.

Marnath
2010-10-27, 06:24 PM
So, the "neutral" guy killed an unarmed man who posed no threat, had been freed, and was in fact running away from the party?

I'd say that slips a little past Neutral, meself.

Yeah, I don't think that's neutral anymore at that point.


*edit@Dsmiles: Yep, lol. :smallsmile:

Kantolin
2010-10-27, 06:30 PM
One of my irritations is that, while a Paladin (or other devoted to LG character) does have to bend for other reasonable people... other people also have to bend for a reasonable Paladin, and people seem deathly allergic to doing that.

As an extremely mild example, I don't like swearing in real life, and thus my friends try to avoid swearing around me. Mildly annoying at best?

But something that's happened in a game of mine was that the party needed an artifact that was disguised as a rather mundane object, and was for sale in a store. The aprty's chaotic stupid rogue made plans to steal it, and I (A Paladin) caught wind of them.

I then tried patiently to suggest that, perhaps, we didn't have to steal the item in order to get it. He went off about 'You're not willing to take osmething to save the world?!'

When asked 'Do you have a better idea?!', I suggested that I could use my ties to the city's guard to obtain a warrant to possess the item legally, and with that on my person, go into the shop and attempt to buy it legitimately. That way best-case scenario, I buy it and move on, while if that doesn't work I have the resources to, well, take it.

He insisted that he didn't want to spend money on it, so I said I'll spend money on it.

...he then refused to come with me to obtain the warrant (an action which previous events had shown takes me ~5 minutes tops), presumably to go steal the artifact while I was going to do so.

Sigh. That's what I'm used to dealing with - almost everyone I've seen that complains about a Paladin complains because they refuse to do things the right way, not because of anything else. If, in fact, the only solution to save the world was to specifically steal the artifact, my Paladin would've helped steal it.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 06:37 PM
I think it was the orphaned kitties that won him over. :smalltongue:

But did the person that caused the kittens to be orphans commit an Evil act or not?

WE NEED TO KNOW!


One of my irritations is that, while a Paladin (or other devoted to LG character) does have to bend for other reasonable people... other people also have to bend for a reasonable Paladin, and people seem deathly allergic to doing that.


Yup. Compromise has to be a two way street. You mentioned swearing, and that's a good example - your friends compromise by trying to control their swearing in front of you, and you compromise by letting the occasional slip go without making a scene.

This is how reasonable people act.

For some reason, some people insist on playing RPGs as if their characters were complete psychopaths, and the only fun to be had is in doing every antisocial thing that they can't do in real life. I avoid playing with people like that, and frankly a group like that is incompatible with a "good" character.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 06:43 PM
The characters (there's 2 really that cause all this) are what I'd call a dirty neutral - not outright evil, but on the slope. Like I said, definite attitude of "kill anyone that hurts me."

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 06:45 PM
The characters (there's 2 really that cause all this) are what I'd call a dirty neutral - not outright evil, but on the slope. Like I said, definite attitude of "kill anyone that hurts me."

Looking for a justification to kill, and pouncing on it, regardless of necessity, is not Neutral. It's Lawful Evil. They're basically playing Dexter.

LibraryOgre
2010-10-27, 06:49 PM
I think this is, partially, a problem of "Why the heck do these people adventure together?" parties. When you have a large and diverse party, each made to individual personal standards with little guidance aside from mechanical (e.g. "No Tome of Battle"), you get a lot of individual characters who are not willing to actually work out interpersonal problems.

Some of the best parties I have seen in game have had character creation guidelines that were more than purely mechanical. "You all come from the village of Corm Orp." "Everyone has to be Coalition soldiers." While later characters in the group (added as a result of deaths) might violate that rule, everyone's initial characters have forged relationships that mean it's the new person's problem to fit in with the group.

So, what I would frequently ask is "Why do the paladin and the rogue adventure together?" Yes, they have different morals and ethics... why are they close enough that they'll trust each other with their lives? I find that a lot of these problems disappear once this question is answered.

However, from the Paladin's end, there are things that can done. I'm sure by now that someone has mentioned Rich's Making Tough Decisions (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), especially the section of "Decide to Act Differently". Making the exemplar Paladin, instead of the Party Policeman is an example. Making a rogue who is actually sneaky about his underhanded dealings, rather than blatantly flaunting them. My dystheist Barbarian keeps our Cleric around because she's useful... he doesn't like her (she's both Eladrin AND a cleric; she might as well be waking him up with barrels of acid), but she's his key to taking over the city. Choosing differently... making a character that works with the party, does constrain role-playing choices a bit, but there's two good reasons you should.

1) It's a game. I, at least, play to have fun with my friends. If my having fun can only happen at the expense of others... there's something wrong.

2) Most people DO constrain themselves a bit in the presence of others. You don't talk politics in mixed company. You don't curse in front of your grandma. You don't steal in front of the Paladin. Yes, there are points where you cross these lines... but part of getting along with people is letting some things slide. If you can't do that... or if you can't refrain from doing whatever you want, no matter how it will offend people... then you come across as a jerk (either sanctimonious or boorish, depending), and people will stop hanging out with you. And that means that they'll stop adventuring with you, too, unless something is forcing you to (ever watch Tony Curtis and Sydney Poitier in "The Defiant Ones?").

If the only reason you can think that X would spend any time with Y is because X is played by Dave, I think one of the prime things that needs to happen in the game is for X and Y to either part of find a reason that they're together.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 07:51 PM
Looking for a justification to kill, and pouncing on it, regardless of necessity, is not Neutral. It's Lawful Evil. They're basically playing Dexter.

Personally I don't think that one act, in context of that character's other actions, was enough to shift him to evil. But we could debate that all night, and anyways it's irrelevant to the situation at hand. I'm trying to fit an Exalted character in with a party of questionable morals, the most questionable of which is also a relative for whom I feel somewhat responsible. Mainly because he has the common sense of a drunk squirrel.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 07:53 PM
Personally I don't think that one act, in context of that character's other actions, was enough to shift him to evil. But we could debate that all night, and anyways it's irrelevant to the situation at hand. I'm trying to fit an Exalted character in with a party of questionable morals, the most questionable of which is also a relative for whom I feel somewhat responsible. Mainly because he has the common sense of a drunk squirrel.

Go with the toad conversation. It'll get his attention, at the very least.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 09:27 PM
Go with the toad conversation. It'll get his attention, at the very least.

I think threatening to coat him in ice so he can't set anything on fire would be a more effective threat. He'd probably think the toad sounded like fun.

Cerlis
2010-10-27, 10:14 PM
We're all familiar with the paladin problem. The character that seems to have an iron rod firmly implanted up their butt. Needless to say this isn't good roleplaying or fun for anyone. Nonetheless, the character that is firmly devoted to an ideal or set of ideals is a long-standing trope, and one that many players find attractive.

The problems come when not all the party shares their ideals. Putting the devoted paladin or cleric in the party with the neutral kill-them-before-they-kill-me rogue naturally results in conflict. Now, I'm not opposed to a bit of in-character conflict. However, it seems in my experience to lead to one of two outcomes. One, the Good character ends up looking like the anal goody two shoes that's always getting in the way of everyone else's fun (or sense of self-preservation). Two, the Good character backs off and ends up looking wimpy and not really devoted to his ideals, as he stands by and watches his less devoted allies violate his code repeatedly. Either way one ends up wondering why this party is still together.

How do you play a devoted character like this while avoiding these issues?


{{scrubbed}}

busterswd
2010-10-27, 10:15 PM
-Divine mandate: Long suffering Paladin is on a holy quest and nightly prays for guidance on why he's stuck with these amoral jerks.
-"For the greater good": Ends justify the means, quest to kill the BBEG means you can overlook some minor things.
-The Belkar method: Yes, they're sociopathic bastards, but letting them run loose without someone good watching over their shoulder would be far worse.
-Lead by example: Paladin sees the good things the neutrals do, believes with patience and wisdom they can be shown the light and eventually reformed (even if he's completely wrong.)


All of the above could be reasons the Paladin could let some things slide. It's not a ticket to completely ignore evil.

Kantolin brings up a great point: Why are the neutral characters adventuring with the Paladin? Assuming they have some common goal, would that goal be enough for them to behave themselves at least a little? "Because we need extra manpower, and the paladin provides that" is a perfectly valid reason to tone some stuff down.


Most people DO constrain themselves a bit in the presence of others. You don't talk politics in mixed company. You don't curse in front of your grandma. You don't steal in front of the Paladin. Yes, there are points where you cross these lines... but part of getting along with people is letting some things slide. If you can't do that... or if you can't refrain from doing whatever you want, no matter how it will offend people... then you come across as a jerk (either sanctimonious or boorish, depending), and people will stop hanging out with you. And that means that they'll stop adventuring with you, too, unless something is forcing you to (ever watch Tony Curtis and Sydney Poitier in "The Defiant Ones?").

This. There are certain things the Paladin should not forgive and the neutrals should be aware of that. Alignment is not a free pass to act boorish and without inhibition. Chaotic evil does not mean you stab a child to death in front of the town guards and ensure your own death. You do change your behavior based on the people you keep company with for your own vested self interest.


Why do you want to know. Its pretty clear from your first paragragh what your opinion is of the character of anyone who choses to play roleplaying character who isnt a murderer.

How bout a different topic? "Devoted to Sin in a Good party" or "How can do i do what the hell i want without having to deal with other people"

Jeez, that sort of came out of left field.

It's not like the thread creator is trying to malign paladins, he's trying to find an in-character way to break the "rod up slot a" stereotype.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 10:19 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Cerlis
2010-10-27, 10:21 PM
{{scrubbed}}

busterswd
2010-10-27, 10:23 PM
{{scrubbed}}

It IS in the original post.

WarKitty
2010-10-27, 10:35 PM
{{scrubbed}}

We're all familiar with the paladin problem. The character that seems to have an iron rod firmly implanted up their butt. Needless to say this isn't good roleplaying or fun for anyone. Nonetheless, the character that is firmly devoted to an ideal or set of ideals is a long-standing trope, and one that many players find attractive.

The problems come when not all the party shares their ideals. Putting the devoted paladin or cleric in the party with the neutral kill-them-before-they-kill-me rogue naturally results in conflict. Now, I'm not opposed to a bit of in-character conflict. However, it seems in my experience to lead to one of two outcomes. One, the Good character ends up looking like the anal goody two shoes that's always getting in the way of everyone else's fun (or sense of self-preservation). Two, the Good character backs off and ends up looking wimpy and not really devoted to his ideals, as he stands by and watches his less devoted allies violate his code repeatedly. Either way one ends up wondering why this party is still together.

How do you play a devoted character like this while avoiding these issues?

I did. Not specifically that it was a current party, but the question was in fact how to play a devoted character, implying that I am treating it as a valid option that I would like to explore.

huttj509
2010-10-27, 11:16 PM
You know, I rather like the situation of the rogue planning an elaborate theft of the item...

"Or we could just buy it..."

I mean, picture it, rogue ignores paladin, carries out theft, gets caught, and watches as the town guard hands it over to the rightful owner.

The Paladin.

Also reminded me of "new lamps for old". Want someone's secret genie lamp? Trade with his mother for a shiny new one!

Really, if the MacGuffin is FOR SALE, and you can reasonably afford it, buy it, bam, no guards on your tail, and if the secret society tries to steal it from you, the guards will HELP YOU.

Especially if the rogue doesn't have to pay a cent.

Marnath
2010-10-27, 11:29 PM
{{scrubbed}}"

I don't think you understand what this thread is about. Like, at all.:smallconfused:

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 12:41 AM
Do NOT taunt HappyFunWarKitty.

Shalist
2010-10-28, 01:48 AM
a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code

The most obvious answer for these sorts of things is to be shady behind the paladin's back--steal when he's not looking, use diversions while you torture the prisoner, and use bluff to say the prisoner did it to himself, etc. Just don't put too many ranks into sense motive and you'll be fine.

If the whole party's involved, using 'aid another' on the bluff rolls will pretty much guarantee success, and it's actually a pretty IC, realistic, and time-proven (ie, in literature/movies/etc) way of doing things.

edit: The party benefits, since whenever npc's start getting suspicious, the stalwart avatar of truth and justice will totally vouch for their innocence and outstanding character. Everybody wins.

Iceforge
2010-10-28, 06:09 AM
Now, as I see it, a paladin, or the Lawful Good character, no matter class, would want to convert and turn around his neutral party allies, lead them to the light, because for whatever reason, they are now his buddies and friends.

Many players makes the mistake of making their LG character condemn the neutral character, instead of giving a small speech which condemn the actions of the character while working with the knowledge they got the neutral character to make him feel good about him self, but bad about his actions.

Lets take an example which could spurr conflict.

For simplicity, lets use the thread starters example of a Lawful Good Paladin and a neutral rogue. What the paladin knows about the rogue already, is that the rogue got a huge ego and likes to think of himself as the big-shoot.

They encounter a villian, someone who has done evil and the party has set out to stop doing his actions. While things start as rather peaceful negotiations with the villian, the party rogue uses his first opportunity to surprise attack the villian with a stab to the back, killing him with his sneak attack before the villian is able to defend himself, clearly violating the morality of the groups paladin.

Bad thing to do: "Rogue, you're immoral, you are doing evil and vile acts, and I cannot party with you in the future, unless you promise never to do that again"
Not good because: You condemn the rogue, making (or attempting to make) him feel small and evil, which is something almost nobody wuold ever consider themselves to be, he was just using a smart opportunity to take care of the evil villian, in his own eyes, at least.

Good thing to do: "Rogue, while it is good that the world is finally rid of this evil villian, I think you are bordering a dangerous path, which you might have been lead to by your own insecurity. When you attack him in the back, with no ability to defend himself, it is like attacking an innocent. I know you did it to be cautious and to be sure that nobody of us was hurt while taking out this vile foe, and I can understand your motives are good, but I think you underestimate yourself and your friends, if you think we have to resort to such means to take out a scumbag like this evil villian. We could easily have taking him on in head to head combat, in which he would have known our intentions and we would have defeated him more honorably. You are good enough to sneak and surprise enemies, even when they are aware of the combat going on, that you could have easily sneaked around and stabbed his back, while he was engaged in combat with me.
What do you say to trying that the next time, and let the enemy know, in the second before they die, excatly how strong you really are?"

hamishspence
2010-10-28, 06:28 AM
Not good because: You condemn the rogue, making (or attempting to make) him feel small and evil, which is something almost nobody wuold ever consider themselves to be, he was just using a smart opportunity to take care of the evil villian, in his own eyes, at least.

Text in the PHB that might be used to support this position:

Good implies ... and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings
Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

So- from a certain point of view- the paladin should "help others" even when they are not-innocent, and maybe even when they are evil.

"Help" in this case, is interpreted to mean "gently steer them away from evil, thus giving them a more pleasant afterlife- better for the soul" (whereas in the evil afterlives the soul is often eaten by archfiends)

"Concern for dignity" is interpreted to mean being not aggressive and bullying when trying to correct the rogue's behaviour.

WarKitty
2010-10-28, 07:56 AM
The most obvious answer for these sorts of things is to be shady behind the paladin's back--steal when he's not looking, use diversions while you torture the prisoner, and use bluff to say the prisoner did it to himself, etc. Just don't put too many ranks into sense motive and you'll be fine.

If the whole party's involved, using 'aid another' on the bluff rolls will pretty much guarantee success, and it's actually a pretty IC, realistic, and time-proven (ie, in literature/movies/etc) way of doing things.

edit: The party benefits, since whenever npc's start getting suspicious, the stalwart avatar of truth and justice will totally vouch for their innocence and outstanding character. Everybody wins.

Of course I'm pretty much the designated "person who rolls sense motive checks" around the party. :smallbiggrin: Plus I don't think our troublemakers (at least one of them) has enough sense to do that. He's more the type that would do it and then be sort of mystified why anyone objected.

DrWeird
2010-10-28, 08:23 AM
I suppose this has been mentioned, but the few Paladins I've played (and I encourage my players to play them like this) as Medieval Spaghetti Western Sheriffs, with troubled brows, hand rolled cigars and big irons on their hip. Think of essentially any Clint Eastwood role, or The Magnificent Seven. In a sense, this is exactly what a Paladin is meant to be, and for the code, it works.

jiriku
2010-10-28, 08:24 AM
Warkitty: I think you have your hook in the fact that the disreputable character is your relative. You travel with him because a) you're trying to set a good example for him to learn from, b) you recognize that morally he's lost in the wilderness and needs a teacher, and c) he's the black sheep of the family, and someone has to follow after him making apologies and even restitution for all the harm he does.

Jolly: Re: pally things. My example wasn't intended to come across as bullying so much as a character with a hard-nosed attitude and the no-nonsense approach of someone attempting to maintain discipline in a combat unit that regularly faces life-or-death situations.

But even if we go with the example of bullying, I've been bullied before, and I've seen others targeted by bullying. Neither I nor the other victims of the bullying have ever threatened to murder the bully in his sleep. Cutting a man's throat in the night because you don't like how he spoke to you is pretty hardcore evil. And even just threatening to do it would pretty much break the party.

Callista
2010-10-28, 10:20 AM
Good thing to do: "Rogue, while it is good that the world is finally rid of this evil villian, I think you are bordering a dangerous path, which you might have been lead to by your own insecurity. When you attack him in the back, with no ability to defend himself, it is like attacking an innocent. I know you did it to be cautious and to be sure that nobody of us was hurt while taking out this vile foe, and I can understand your motives are good, but I think you underestimate yourself and your friends, if you think we have to resort to such means to take out a scumbag like this evil villian. We could easily have taking him on in head to head combat, in which he would have known our intentions and we would have defeated him more honorably. You are good enough to sneak and surprise enemies, even when they are aware of the combat going on, that you could have easily sneaked around and stabbed his back, while he was engaged in combat with me.
What do you say to trying that the next time, and let the enemy know, in the second before they die, excatly how strong you really are?"Yes. Your paladin's got a high Charisma score. Use it.

LibraryOgre
2010-10-28, 10:24 AM
I suppose this has been mentioned, but the few Paladins I've played (and I encourage my players to play them like this) as Medieval Spaghetti Western Sheriffs, with troubled brows, hand rolled cigars and big irons on their hip. Think of essentially any Clint Eastwood role, or The Magnificent Seven. In a sense, this is exactly what a Paladin is meant to be, and for the code, it works.

Or as Marty Robins? :smallbiggrin:

WarKitty
2010-10-28, 11:01 AM
Yes. Your paladin's got a high Charisma score. Use it.

Except the character in question is actually a Druid with a charisma score of 9 and an additional -1 to diplomacy rolls. :smallbiggrin:

Callista
2010-10-28, 11:14 AM
If you have that low a charisma score, then leading by example is probably a better idea; it shatters suspension of disbelief if the CHA 8 guy who usually stutters when he talks is making impassioned speeches about the importance of protecting the innocent. :smallbiggrin:

WarKitty
2010-10-28, 11:21 AM
If you have that low a charisma score, then leading by example is probably a better idea; it shatters suspension of disbelief if the CHA 8 guy who usually stutters when he talks is making impassioned speeches about the importance of protecting the innocent. :smallbiggrin:

Hmmmm. I suspect this is going to get into "what exactly does a low charisma score mean"? I've been playing it more as "is usually fairly coherent and on-topic when she wants to talk." But physically extremely repulsive (anthro animal sort of freaks people out) and doesn't understand social norms very well. Fits better with a high wisdom character that ought to have some idea of how people are feeling.

Callista
2010-10-28, 11:43 AM
Hmm, yeah.

Well, personally, I'd make a very low-CHA character, in the 2-4 range or so, outright autistic. (Not necessarily, of course; there are other things, but autism is more interesting, and interactive, than extreme introversion, which just makes you the loner that nobody interacts with.) Higher than that, and you'd expect a socially awkward sort of person, maybe anxious or with the tendency to just say the wrong thing. Physical ugliness could get into it, but I don't think it has a huge effect, because of the way that it can also be quite intimidating, depending on how it's used. Hmm... now I want to play an autistic wizard. I think that'd be fun. I'd get to lecture on planar theory in the middle of negotiations with the King... :)

My idea of charisma:
1-2: Near-unplayable; probably mute or unaware of others' existence.
2-3: Autism, extreme social phobia, or extreme introversion. Does not willingly initiate social contact; or else initiates contact readily but is incapable of having a smooth conversation. So unintimidating that he tends to be targeted by bullies simply because he looks like such a good target.
4-5: Quite socially awkward. Has no idea how to phrase things diplomatically and generally has a knack for saying the wrong thing. Extremely bad liar. Probably has no sense of style. Likely mildly autistic. Utterly unintimidating.
6-7: Socially awkward. Bad at communicating ideas; prone to faux pas. A very bad idea to have him along in "polite society". May be physically unattractive or dress in a way that makes them unattractive. Most people overlook or ignore him.
8-9: Average joe without much social ability. Occasionally makes mistakes most people wouldn't make; social skills really aren't his strength.
10-11: Average. Nothing remarkable about this person's social skills.
12-13: General tendency to be more diplomatic and congenial than most people, but it isn't very noticeable.
14-15: A skilled communicator and diplomat; can generally talk people into things they want them to do. Able to influence people through fear or love with some success. Can tell a good story, whether to deceive or just to entertain.
16-17: Known for being good with words. May be in a diplomatic or persuasive profession, such as a merchant or entertainer. Can talk most people into anything; can easily con and manipulate others. If desired, can scare the pants off most people just by saying the right words.
18 and up: His charisma is obvious before he even opens his mouth. General demeanor, attitude, and speech causes people to instinctively fear or admire him. He can convince anyone of anything, intimidate others into doing his bidding, and is most likely in a leadership role.

WarKitty
2010-10-28, 11:52 AM
Physical ugliness could get into it, but I don't think it has a huge effect, because of the way that it can also be quite intimidating, depending on how it's used.

Depends on the type. I tend to make characters that might look weird or awkward, or even sort of repulsive, without necessarily being intimidating. I'm playing it more as she looks very small and animal-like and people instinctively talk to her like a pet animal rather than an intelligent creature. Or maybe find her sort of disturbing in the way you might find someone who does not appear to be properly groomed.

busterswd
2010-10-28, 12:38 PM
What are her other stats? Intelligence and Wisdom, specifically?

WarKitty
2010-10-28, 01:50 PM
Wis 27 Int 15. The only good rolls I had.

jiriku
2010-10-28, 01:59 PM
In this case, your character is intelligent enough to be articulate, but lacks the talent for speaking persuasively. She's just not very good at getting people to change their minds. However, she's got the common sense to know how to pick her battles, and would probably give discreet advice and guidance (or set up a mentoring relationship with) the most influential member of the party, relying on that persuasive person to guide the rest of the group in a direction she'd like.

WarKitty
2010-10-28, 02:01 PM
In this case, your character is intelligent enough to be articulate, but lacks the talent for speaking persuasively. She's just not very good at getting people to change their minds. However, she's got the common sense to know how to pick her battles, and would probably give discreet advice and guidance (or set up a mentoring relationship with) the most influential member of the party, relying on that persuasive person to guide the rest of the group in a direction she'd like.

See that sounds like a low wisdom character to me. I mean, wisdom is what lets you understand what people are thinking and how they react to things, so wouldn't a high wisdom character know what to say to people?

Jolly
2010-10-28, 02:10 PM
Jolly: Re: pally things. My example wasn't intended to come across as bullying so much as a character with a hard-nosed attitude and the no-nonsense approach of someone attempting to maintain discipline in a combat unit that regularly faces life-or-death situations.

But even if we go with the example of bullying, I've been bullied before, and I've seen others targeted by bullying. Neither I nor the other victims of the bullying have ever threatened to murder the bully in his sleep. Cutting a man's throat in the night because you don't like how he spoke to you is pretty hardcore evil. And even just threatening to do it would pretty much break the party.

Well, let's look at this in context, shall we? You're in a dungeon crawl. You see BBEG, rogue wants to sneaky sneaky and try to get him down before he knows what hit him. Paladin insists they alert him as backstabbing an unsuspecting person is wrong. He insists, riding roughshod over your objections with "It's my way or you're out of the party" which is a virtual death sentence in a dungeon. So, as the rogue this guy is forcing you to risk your life in order to follow his moral code. Given those circumstances, yeah I'd say "Stop trying to force me to risk my life, or you'll be risking yours" is a perfectly valid response.

Or look at SilverClawShift's campaign journal for Crystal Cantrips. The Dragonborn's obsession with trying to redeem the Changeling repeatedly almost got them all killed, not to mention coming very close to destroying the multi-verse. So, yeah, in the context of DnD and attempting to force people to risk dying for your fringe, extremist beliefs then yes threats of violence are justified.

jiriku
2010-10-28, 02:11 PM
Since when is "generic Good alignment" a fringe, extremist belief? Since when is my character a paladin? Since when are we in the bottom of a deadly dungeon? Since when does a paladin's code permit abandoning someone to certain death over a disagreement about which tactics were honorable? You can make up a complicated situation and take what I wrote out of context to make it look silly, but I really don't see the value in that.


See that sounds like a low wisdom character to me. I mean, wisdom is what lets you understand what people are thinking and how they react to things, so wouldn't a high wisdom character know what to say to people?

You might know what the other person values, and what arguments they'll find persuasive (Sense Motive), and that's useful in persuading others (+2 bonus from skill synergy if you invest the ranks), but with a 9 Charisma and a -1 miscellaneous Diplomacy modifier, it all comes out wrong when you try to say it. You use the wrong word choice, tone of voice, or body language, or you accidently come across as condescending or self-serving or [negative adjective du jour] without meaning it. Or perhaps you freeze up in the face of hostility, or find yourself fumble-tongued around authority figures. There are any number of ways you could roleplay it. What it comes down to is that a high-Charisma character with many ranks in Diplomacy finds everyone in the room agreeing with even her casual statements, while a low-Charisma character with no Diplomacy finds that it's a lot of work to convince people to get behind her ideas, even if she knows (because of her high Wisdom), that her ideas are in these people's best interests.

WarKitty
2010-10-28, 02:13 PM
Well, let's look at this in context, shall we? You're in a dungeon crawl. You see BBEG, rogue wants to sneaky sneaky and try to get him down before he knows what hit him. Paladin insists they alert him as backstabbing an unsuspecting person is wrong. He insists, riding roughshod over your objections with "It's my way or you're out of the party" which is a virtual death sentence in a dungeon. So, as the rogue this guy is forcing you to risk your life in order to follow his moral code. Given those circumstances, yeah I'd say "Stop trying to force me to risk my life, or you'll be risking yours" is a perfectly valid response.

Or look at SilverClawShift's campaign journal for Crystal Cantrips. The Dragonborn's obsession with trying to redeem the Changeling repeatedly almost got them all killed, not to mention coming very close to destroying the multi-verse. So, yeah, in the context of DnD and attempting to force people to risk dying for your fringe, extremist beliefs then yes threats of violence are justified.

See I'd call that lawful stupid.

But basically, it comes down to who you think is being unreasonable, if anyone. Yeah, in that case the paladin is obviously wrong. But in the case that was mentioned earlier of the rogue insisting on stealing an item that could be perfectly reasonably bought, saying "Look, shape up or get out" is a rational response.



You might know what the other person values, and what arguments they'll find persuasive (Sense Motive), and that's useful in persuading others (+2 bonus from skill synergy if you invest the ranks), but with a 9 Charisma and a -1 miscellaneous Diplomacy modifier, it all comes out wrong when you try to say it. You use the wrong word choice, tone of voice, or body language, or you accidently come across as condescending or self-serving or [negative adjective du jour] without meaning it. Or perhaps you freeze up in the face of hostility, or find yourself fumble-tongued around authority figures. There are any number of ways you could roleplay it. What it comes down to is that a high-Charisma character with many ranks in Diplomacy finds everyone in the room agreeing with even her casual statements, while a low-Charisma character with no Diplomacy finds that it's a lot of work to convince people to get behind her ideas, even if she knows (because of her high Wisdom), that her ideas are in these people's best interests.

I get your point. The way I've been roleplaying a lot of the charisma issues are a combination of an extremely unimpressive appearance and lack of understanding of polite society. It's just interesting because the main character the conflict is with is my character's adopted cousin/brother. Your relationships and persuasive ability are of course quite different when talking to your brother than when talking to a new coworker. :smalltongue:

wayfare
2010-10-28, 02:31 PM
i've been on both sides of the paladin problem, and I really believe that taking ranks in a class that embodies an ideology should be a party decision. If you become a paladin, or an incarnate, or anything of the like, you are making a commitment to a higher cause. I really think its your job to challenge your party on their ideologies.

So don't take the class if your party cannot deal with it.

WarKitty
2010-10-28, 02:40 PM
i've been on both sides of the paladin problem, and I really believe that taking ranks in a class that embodies an ideology should be a party decision. If you become a paladin, or an incarnate, or anything of the like, you are making a commitment to a higher cause. I really think its your job to challenge your party on their ideologies.

So don't take the class if your party cannot deal with it.

What's the difference between taking the class and just having a character with firm ideals? Assuming you have a reasonable DM, there shouldn't be a lot of difference between a Paladin and a devoted cleric of pelor.

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 03:24 PM
What's the difference between taking the class and just having a character with firm ideals? Assuming you have a reasonable DM, there shouldn't be a lot of difference between a Paladin and a devoted cleric of pelor.

At that point it all boils down to the code of conduct. Paladins are required to do (or not do) certain things, or risk falling. Clerics are not required to have a code of conduct.

As far as ideals go, the cleric and paladin would probably be of very similar character, and possibly take the same types of actions given similar situations (assuming that said cleric is of Awful Lawful tendancies). Alignment make for variations in their personal "brand" of goodness.

Jolly
2010-10-28, 03:29 PM
/sigh Why are you still trying to blow a simple comment out of proportion and fight about it?


In any case, let me state the general principle so you can at least address my actual thoughts instead of... Whatever it is you're doing now.

A strongly LG char (specifically paladins since this thread is, you know, sub-titled The Paladin Problem) frequently object to doing things that are highly advantageous to the party because of their beliefs. Using poison, back stabbing an unaware enemy, channeling negative energy, using force to elicit information: all things a paladin (by their strict and yes, rather extreme code) would object to. All things that a flexible Neutral or pragmatic Good character might be put into a position of doing. If the pally attempts to "force" their party to accept more risk, to literally put their lives on the line in order to fulfill the pally's moral mandate (which the party likely don't agree with) then yes I believe a threat of force to get the paladin to stop trying to compel the party to risk their lives is justified.

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 03:39 PM
/sigh Why are you still trying to blow a simple comment out of proportion and fight about it?


In any case, let me state the general principle so you can at least address my actual thoughts instead of... Whatever it is you're doing now.

A strongly LG char (specifically paladins since this thread is, you know, sub-titled The Paladin Problem) frequently object to doing things that are highly advantageous to the party because of their beliefs. Using poison, back stabbing an unaware enemy, channeling negative energy, using force to elicit information: all things a paladin (by their strict and yes, rather extreme code) would object to. All things that a flexible Neutral or pragmatic Good character might be put into a position of doing. If the pally attempts to "force" their party to accept more risk, to literally put their lives on the line in order to fulfill the pally's moral mandate (which the party likely don't agree with) then yes I believe a threat of force to get the paladin to stop trying to compel the party to risk their lives is justified.

Not all characters, however (be they paladins, or not), are pragmatic good or flexible neutral. A character with a very rigid personal code of conduct may still object to such things. It's a personal choice for that character. Said character could still attempt to "force" (for lack of a better term) the party to "accept more risk" (as you put it) to fufill their own moral mandate.
I heartily disagree that the threat of violence is a valid solution from a good-aligned (even a pragmatic good) character. I believe that this would put even a "flexible neutral" character on a slippery slope, alignment-wise.

WarKitty
2010-10-28, 03:44 PM
At that point it all boils down to the code of conduct. Paladins are required to do (or not do) certain things, or risk falling. Clerics are not required to have a code of conduct.

As far as ideals go, the cleric and paladin would probably be of very similar character, and possibly take the same types of actions given similar situations (assuming that said cleric is of Awful Lawful tendancies). Alignment make for variations in their personal "brand" of goodness.

Despite the title, the original character that inspired this was a druid, not a paladin. I just titled it the paladin problem because that's the characters people always seem to complain about, and I wanted to get people to look at it from a different angle. Particularly since I'm trying to see how such a character would work with the party, assuming you have a DM that doesn't enforce lawful stupid in a world where it doesn't work.


/sigh Why are you still trying to blow a simple comment out of proportion and fight about it?


In any case, let me state the general principle so you can at least address my actual thoughts instead of... Whatever it is you're doing now.

A strongly LG char (specifically paladins since this thread is, you know, sub-titled The Paladin Problem) frequently object to doing things that are highly advantageous to the party because of their beliefs. Using poison, back stabbing an unaware enemy, channeling negative energy, using force to elicit information: all things a paladin (by their strict and yes, rather extreme code) would object to. All things that a flexible Neutral or pragmatic Good character might be put into a position of doing. If the pally attempts to "force" their party to accept more risk, to literally put their lives on the line in order to fulfill the pally's moral mandate (which the party likely don't agree with) then yes I believe a threat of force to get the paladin to stop trying to compel the party to risk their lives is justified.

To be fair a strict reading of the paladin code, including the various splat books, pretty much forces a lawful stupid character. Which should never be included in any sort of party whatsoever.

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 03:51 PM
Despite the title, the original character that inspired this was a druid, not a paladin. I just titled it the paladin problem because that's the characters people always seem to complain about, and I wanted to get people to look at it from a different angle. Particularly since I'm trying to see how such a character would work with the party, assuming you have a DM that doesn't enforce lawful stupid in a world where it doesn't work.

I know, I was just responding to the immediate question about paladins and clerics. I already spoke on how I'd handle it, as a character with unyielding morals. Which is still hilarious, especially when they start throwing you those sidelong glances every time they try something for fear of being turned into a toad (and then being taken as a familiar by the wizard).

jiriku
2010-10-28, 04:12 PM
/sigh Why are you still trying to blow a simple comment out of proportion and fight about it?


In any case, let me state the general principle so you can at least address my actual thoughts instead of... Whatever it is you're doing now.

A strongly LG char (specifically paladins since this thread is, you know, sub-titled The Paladin Problem) frequently object to doing things that are highly advantageous to the party because of their beliefs. Using poison, back stabbing an unaware enemy, channeling negative energy, using force to elicit information: all things a paladin (by their strict and yes, rather extreme code) would object to. All things that a flexible Neutral or pragmatic Good character might be put into a position of doing. If the pally attempts to "force" their party to accept more risk, to literally put their lives on the line in order to fulfill the pally's moral mandate (which the party likely don't agree with) then yes I believe a threat of force to get the paladin to stop trying to compel the party to risk their lives is justified.

Or you could, you know, just disagree with the good character and part ways. I mean, seriously, when someone says "as group leader, I insist that your activities conform to my moral standard," and you respond with "as group member, I will kill you if you don't shut up", you are escalating a discussion of methods into a violent confrontation. This is a violent, sociopathic response, and I doubt that it's representative of the trouble Warkitty is having (or at least I hope it's not :smalleek:) . An evil character might consider it appropriate, but frankly, a party that contains a violently evil character and an exalted good character isn't ever going to function, amiright?

A neutral character who was unwilling to compromise would probably more realistically take one of the following positions:

1) "I don't agree with your restrictions. I'm leaving. Find someone else to disarm traps."
2) "I've talked with the rest of the group, and none of us agree with your restrictions. You can do this our way, or leave the group."
Y'know, solutions that don't involve killing an ally?

Jayabalard
2010-10-28, 04:28 PM
/sigh Why are you still trying to blow a simple comment out of proportion and fight about it?Probably because you haven't said "yeah, that would be kind of out of line for this rogue to be such a sociopath" ...

big teej
2010-10-28, 06:42 PM
To adress the OP:


A group of bandits have been robbing travelers. The party is watching them in their camp from a hidden spot.

Neutral character: We should wait until dark when their guard is down, and wipe them out. They've been hampering trade too long to be allowed to live.

Paladin: I agree they should be brought to justice, but I am uneasy with the thought of marching in there and slaughtering them. We should take prisoners so they can be judged by the proper authority.

N: Maybe. The bounty calls for them dead though. We might not get paid for live prisoners.

P: We might lose out on the money, but we'll have done the right thing.

N: Ah, but there's a few things you're missing. One, we might have trouble keeping them tied up long enough to get to town, since we have one rope. Two, who is to say they will not be set free by the authorities, or escape before their judgement? More people may come under their predations if that happens. No, we should kill them now to prevent any future crimes. If it helps, you can always give your share of the bounty to orphaned kittens or some damn thing.

P: You make a good point, there are a lot of them for us to bring back. I don't like it but you've convinced me. We can't afford for them to escape and harm more travelers.

congratulations, the first post that I felt obligated to respond to as opposed to lurking on the thread...
however, I tend to ramble and I'm not sure how much this will contribute...
so

I played a LG dwarf Knight once (not a paladin I know, but knights also have a code to stick to, so humor me*)

for my knight, he would be far more likely to agree to slaughtering them 'his way'

meaning that he would rather tramp down in the middle of camp and wake them all up than slit their throats while they're sleeping.

after all...
knight.
code.
blah!
:smalltongue::smallsmile:
anyways...

not sure how much I'm actually contributing here, but I'll go back to lurking for a bit.

*if I played a paladin, I feel that I would follow the same reasoning, but that is mere conjecture, so I can't argue from that

DrWeird
2010-10-28, 09:07 PM
Well, in the midst of Chaos, let's break down the code, frontier justice style.


A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Right, right.


Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority

Pretty standard right there - obey your King, Archbishop of your faith, etc. And also qualifies for no taking corrupt orders that would otherwise defile your code. Basically, don't be asinine.



act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)

Do the right thing, not the popular thing - at least, amongst adventurers. Key here is the statement of how you're not supposed to do it; doesn't say diddly squat about John Q. Rogue.



help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Okay, so priority in this order: Smite those who commit evil for evil, then help anybody, even if they're evil, and then assist anyone in need.



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

Okay, big one right here. It explicitly states, no evil. Fine. The next part? A little bit of a problem, sure. But not when you look at it again - This is a Code of Conduct, but it says nothing towards one's Moral Code; sure, this enlists the tenets of their patron deity for a moral standby, but unless your deity has an essential limitation on his followers to hate sneak attacks and poison, I wouldn't be too worried.

Now, admittedly, this is a bit of a stretchy interpretation, but the code is not explicitly named as the moral credo, which really falls to the individual paladin's - and by extension, their faith's - ideals. That's just how I see it, personally. Gives me the wiggle room to make a Clint Eastwood riding a magic horse.

Sarakos
2010-10-28, 09:19 PM
My first several games of D&D i played the stereotypical, stick up the butt hero in shining armor paladin, I've always loved the class in any kind of game I played. Recently though, I decided to try a different approach to Paladin in one of my latest games. I created a Paladin who I modeled as closely as possible to the Teutonic Knights, the Germanic crusading order.

From what I know of the Teutonic Knights they were
a) Very big on military discipline and the chain of command making them heavily lawful aligned and
b) tended to give less than a dire rat's prodigious bum what happened to "Heathens" and "Heretics"

So I decided to role play as a Paladin in the service of a Crusading military order of St. Cuthbert. I wanted this character to toe the line between Lawful/Good and Lawful/Neutral. He would absolutely refuse to be party to anything that violated the laws of whichever country we were in and was more than willing to stop the party from doing so if they decided to continue anyway without him (Fortunately this wasn't such a problem with a sorceress who new how to lawyer her way through the legal system and wrangle with leaders). I purposefully made him much more lenient in the Good/evil side of his alignment. He was an ends justify most means kind of guy.

While I was careful to follow the Paladin code, my vision was for this guy to be an imperfect Paladin struggling to do right but having been taught how a paladin should act imperfectly (i.e. his mentors placed much more emphasis on act with honor and respect legitimate authority and while explaining that the job of the order was to help others and by helping the order he was helping others). I also wanted my imperfect Paladin to be prideful (coming as he did from the nobility) and to have a temper, especially when someone talked trash about his order. At one point, my paladin punched the party cleric after the perverted cleric tried to molest a grieving npc who had lost her husband, the sorceress quickly intervened with a Dominate spell to keep the fight from escalating

I know this an iffy way to play a Paladin, I'm sure many DM's would have stripped him of his powers but I honestly told my DM that i intended to toe the line with this character and strip my powers if she thought i took it too far, his redemption would have made for a great story. Despite that one incident with the cleric though, I got along well in a mostly neutral party this way and they indulged me in my attempts to convert npc populations to St. Cuthbert as i refrained from constant lectures about the morality of their actions (most of the party being lawful helped quit a bit)

busterswd
2010-10-28, 10:27 PM
So incredibly high wisdom, far better intelligence than your average person.

My interpretation of stats in social terms is as follows: wisdom represents your instinctive thinking and your ability to empathize with things, as well as your self actualization, and to some degree your maturity. Intelligence represents your conscious decisions, your ability to critically think and approach a plan of action, and your ability to solve problems with what you're given.

So she's wise enough to understand the situation fully, better than anyone else involved most likely; even if they did evil things out of her sight, it would be tough to pull the wool over her eyes unless they did a fantastic job of covering it up. She's also well aware that she's not very socially imposing or charming. She's smart and aware enough to realize that because of that, confronting them over their problems wouldn't be the best course of action, so while she may feel outrage over the things they do, direct confrontation would be in nobody's best interest.

You can play her a few ways:

-She's extraordinarily mature, and while things like this are upsetting, the neutrals are typical members of their race/upbringing. She's seen this far too many times to be distraught over being unable to change what won't be changed, and in her experience, these sort of people can eventually mature and see the light. While she strives to do good on her own and guide them in the right direction by example, she's well aware some people are unsalvagable. In short, she's too wise and too traveled to be upset by a short term bump in the long term battle of good and evil.

-Alternately, she's well aware of her shortcomings and while they may be frustrating, again, she knows enough to avoid any combative/verbal confrontations. Splitting off or alienating herself from her allies who are focused on taking down the same great evil she's after would be silly, especially since these homicidal idiots could help her in a much greater cause. If throughout your travels, she becomes convinced that they're just as great of an evil, one potentially worse than the big bad, she may eventually attempt to dispose of them surreptitiously after the main quest is done. So she's traveling to evaluate just how bad these guys are, and how much of a threat they may be, on top of accomplishing her big goal. She's probably incredibly cynical if you go this route.

-Finally, she could have denounced them as completely irredeemable and absconds quietly, refusing to use her powers for such incorrigible maniacs. She instinctively knows they'll never see eye to eye, partially because of her inability to really influence them.

WarKitty
2010-10-28, 11:07 PM
So incredibly high wisdom, far better intelligence than your average person.

My interpretation of stats in social terms is as follows: wisdom represents your instinctive thinking and your ability to empathize with things, as well as your self actualization, and to some degree your maturity. Intelligence represents your conscious decisions, your ability to critically think and approach a plan of action, and your ability to solve problems with what you're given.

So she's wise enough to understand the situation fully, better than anyone else involved most likely; even if they did evil things out of her sight, it would be tough to pull the wool over her eyes unless they did a fantastic job of covering it up. She's also well aware that she's not very socially imposing or charming. She's smart and aware enough to realize that because of that, confronting them over their problems wouldn't be the best course of action, so while she may feel outrage over the things they do, direct confrontation would be in nobody's best interest.

You can play her a few ways:

-She's extraordinarily mature, and while things like this are upsetting, the neutrals are typical members of their race/upbringing. She's seen this far too many times to be distraught over being unable to change what won't be changed, and in her experience, these sort of people can eventually mature and see the light. While she strives to do good on her own and guide them in the right direction by example, she's well aware some people are unsalvagable. In short, she's too wise and too traveled to be upset by a short term bump in the long term battle of good and evil.

-Alternately, she's well aware of her shortcomings and while they may be frustrating, again, she knows enough to avoid any combative/verbal confrontations. Splitting off or alienating herself from her allies who are focused on taking down the same great evil she's after would be silly, especially since these homicidal idiots could help her in a much greater cause. If throughout your travels, she becomes convinced that they're just as great of an evil, one potentially worse than the big bad, she may eventually attempt to dispose of them surreptitiously after the main quest is done. So she's traveling to evaluate just how bad these guys are, and how much of a threat they may be, on top of accomplishing her big goal. She's probably incredibly cynical if you go this route.

-Finally, she could have denounced them as completely irredeemable and absconds quietly, refusing to use her powers for such incorrigible maniacs. She instinctively knows they'll never see eye to eye, partially because of her inability to really influence them.

Very nice analysis. I like the first idea best for her, although it needs a bit of tweaking. The character as written has just come of age (read: she's about 16) and is out adventuring as a coming-of-age tradition. The most troublesome character in the party happens to be her cousin, for whom she feels somewhat responsible since he typically doesn't have enough sense to not get himself killed.

I suspect I'm going to take a page out of Roy's book and go for "keep evildoer pointed in approximately the right direction" as a strategy. After all, he listens to me more than to anyone else, and he's less of a danger overall with me around than otherwise.

Callista
2010-10-28, 11:09 PM
Most of the games I've played have been with groups of mixed Good and Neutral characters; there's never really been much of a problem, even when there were paladins involved. I guess that's mostly because these are neutral, not evil characters--they aren't the kind of people to do something a Good character, even strongly Good, would find utterly reprehensible. Stealing? Sure. Killing the villain instead of granting mercy? Yes. But these are things that Good characters pretty much know are to be expected in an imperfect world; and most of them won't go ballistic over things like those.

Neutral characters are generally pretty positive towards Good characters, because your average Good PC is a decent guy that you know will have your back in a fight, that you can rely on to care about you and about anybody you care about. It's Neutral versus Evil that really should be the bigger problem: Here you've got the neutral guy just trying to get along, and he's adventuring with somebody he knows may be loyal right now, but will betray and kill him if it serves his interests or his cause? Yeah, that's scary, and doesn't help party unity any. Evil traveling with anything but other evil characters simply has to be subtle; but Good characters don't have that problem--they can be as altruistic as they like without having to hide it. Many neutral characters would think they're being annoyingly idealistic or maybe even stupid, but there doesn't tend to be much reason to be worried about one's own safety with a Good character in the party.