Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?

[Synovia]

Another character's class choice shouldn't prevent the Paladin from doing what he does, either. It's a two-way street.

No, but what the Paladin does is not "moderate the personality and habits of your fellow PCs".

He's an exemplar of his god. He leads by example. Hes not a hall monitor.

[KnightDisciple]

No, but what the Paladin does is not "moderate the personality and habits of your fellow PCs".

He's an exemplar of his god. He leads by example. Hes not a hall monitor.

On the flip side, a Paladin should be careful of the company he keeps. He sets an example for others, and is very much a symbol (especially if associated with a deity).

So a Paladin who hangs out with a guy who's well known as a thief and a liar will be looked on as a hypocrite.

There's a middle ground between "the paladin can't tell people how to play their characters" and "it's totally okay if the Paladin spends time with a rogue who's an unrepentant thief and liar who targets anyone and everyone".

Like Mando Knight said, it's a 2-way street.

Also, besides Sleight of Hand, how exactly do a "good chunk" of the rogue's class skills specifically relate to stealing?

[Gavinfoxx]

Here's an alternate paladin code I came up with for Lawful Good Paladins of Honor, some time ago... you should look at something like this as an example..

Spoiler

Show

*Show kindness to children and others that are weak.

*Never stand idly by while the weak become the victim of the strong.

*Defend hearth and home, family and friends, stranger and ally, and especially defend innocents.

*Once given, a paladin's word is a solemn contract.

*Refrain from abusing or overusing intoxicants.

*Whenever possible, work for and give to noble charities.

*It is an unspeakable act to deny any soul its rightful afterlife.

*Never use lethal poison.

*Respect life, even that of the foe, only kill when necessary, and show quarter if possible.

*Respect the terms of an honorable and fair duel.

*Never willfully commit an evil act, and combat evil whenever possible. This does not mean that it is appropriate to be violent against evil all the time; seek justice tempered with mercy more than a violent solution.

*Use power to aid and help others, except towards evil ends. Do not seek out power simply to have power.

*Be courteous in all you do, and seek to never be crude.

*Be humble before the forces of light and good.

*Uphold virtuous laws whenever possible.

*Lead by example.

*Respect and hold dear the trust that others place in you.

*Be heroically brave in pursuit of goodness.

*Show kindness towards guests.

*Care for and be kind towards those you employ, and especially your mount.

Notice something? A paladin who follows this code wouldn't necessarily fall if they witness their party members doing an evil act. They can travel with evil party members. They could sneak. They can ambush. They could use poison (not con damaging or hit point damaging ones though). They could (within certain limits) lie.

[Reverent-One]

Allowed: The buddy cop dynamic...

He's a mighty paladin who does things by the book. "On my honor, I swear to uphold the laws of your fair city and protect her citizens from those who would wrong them."

He's a cunning rogue with a rough exterior and a heart of gold. "You told me not to take everything that's not nailed down and I only took some of the stuff that's not nailed down!"

Together they slay monsters, rescue damsels, and have their swords and badges taken away by seneschals who are too old to deal with their crap! "Damnit, Rogue and Paladin, you blew up an entire orphanage to apprehend that necromancer! You're a pair of loose cannons that I won't have destroying MY city! I'm taking your swords and badges!

"Come on, milord! That orphanage was a front for an Orcus cult!"

Comedy ensues

SENESCHAL: You can't touch the Elven Ambassador! He has diplomatic immunity!
ROGUE: I don't plan on diplomacy, lord.
PALADIN: By the gods, rogue, I'm only two weeks away from retirement! I can't take much more of this!

I find the Paladin/Rogue fantasy buddy cop movie idea far funnier than I probably should. I'd so watch that.

[Lord Tyger]

Here's an alternate paladin code I came up with for Lawful Good Paladins of Honor, some time ago... you should look at something like this as an example..

Spoiler

Show

*Show kindness to children and others that are weak.

*Never stand idly by while the weak become the victim of the strong.

*Defend hearth and home, family and friends, stranger and ally, and especially defend innocents.

*Once given, a paladin's word is a solemn contract.

*Refrain from abusing or overusing intoxicants.

*Whenever possible, work for and give to noble charities.

*It is an unspeakable act to deny any soul its rightful afterlife.

*Never use lethal poison.

*Respect life, even that of the foe, only kill when necessary, and show quarter if possible.

*Respect the terms of an honorable and fair duel.

*Never willfully commit an evil act, and combat evil whenever possible. This does not mean that it is appropriate to be violent against evil all the time; seek justice tempered with mercy more than a violent solution.

*Use power to aid and help others, except towards evil ends. Do not seek out power simply to have power.

*Be courteous in all you do, and seek to never be crude.

*Be humble before the forces of light and good.

*Uphold virtuous laws whenever possible.

*Lead by example.

*Respect and hold dear the trust that others place in you.

*Be heroically brave in pursuit of goodness.

*Show kindness towards guests.

*Care for and be kind towards those you employ, and especially your mount.

Notice something? A paladin who follows this code wouldn't necessarily fall if they witness their party members doing an evil act. They can travel with evil party members. They could sneak. They can ambush. They could use poison (not con damaging or hit point damaging ones though). They could (within certain limits) lie.

They could not be aware of a party member stealing from random citizens and do nothing about it, unless you have a very odd definition of a 'virtuous law'.

[Nero24200]

This is absolutely not the way to go. You don't tell one character "His concept is more important than yours". The paladin code most certainly is a choice, and there's nothing wrong with having a paladin fall because he can't keep to code.

Being a paladin is a player choice. The code is something that goes with it. Not everyone likes it, a lot of people in my experience change it. But unless the DM is willing the let the changes slide playing a paladin means having the code, like it or not.

Nothing ever forces a rogue to be a thief. Nothing.

[Gavinfoxx]

They could not be aware of a party member stealing from random citizens and do nothing about it, unless you have a very odd definition of a 'virtuous law'.

Yes, they have to do something about it, of course... but they don't fall for TRAVELING with or associating with that person. Their actions require some sort of action in general, rather than falling for associating with evil.

[Kish]

He's an exemplar of his god.

Hold the phone. Is this 4ed (in which case paladins can be any alignment and the whole question makes no sense), Forgotten Realms, or a non-Forgotten Realms setting? Because if it's 3.xed and not Forgotten Realms, paladins aren't god-dependent.

[Gavinfoxx]

If the deity is Torm, than this is forgotten realms or using the FR pantheon. If it is FR, than to be a Paladin of Torm, you have to worship him. In general, it is fantastically stupid to not worship a deity in FR...

Mistell, wrong thread.

[Kish]

...Yes, and? As far as I can see, you're the first person in this thread to suggest that the paladin in question worships Torm or exists in the same campaign world as Torm.

[Gavinfoxx]

That was a misstell... wrong thread. Sorry...

[VariaVespasa]

Yes, they have to do something about it, of course... but they don't fall for TRAVELING with or associating with that person. Their actions require some sort of action in general, rather than falling for associating with evil.

Committing crimes is fall-worthy, and aiding and abetting is a crime. Harboring a fugitive is a crime. Aiding a known fugitive is a crime. No, as a matter of fact he canNOT travel or associate with a known criminal for very long without falling, barring extraordinary circumstances. Paladins are not supposed to be Easy Mode.

[Gavinfoxx]

Sure he can. He can try to be redeeming that person, or getting them to not commit crimes, or returning things from the crimes he commits, or whatever. As long as he is Combating Evil and making an attempt to Uphold Virtuous Laws, he can travel with an evil party member. Especially if that party member is necessary for combating a greater evil. He can't be idle when that person is committing such things, but he doesn't automatically fall. Now, past a certain point, he should probably take the party member to a local magistrate and leave him in jail and look on the criminal gets his hand or his head chopped off -- but the point is the player, and the paladin, has options.

[Synovia]

Being a paladin is a player choice. The code is something that goes with it. Not everyone likes it, a lot of people in my experience change it. But unless the DM is willing the let the changes slide playing a paladin means having the code, like it or not.

Nothing ever forces a rogue to be a thief. Nothing.

And nothing forces a paladin to not fall. Nothing.

Committing crimes is fall-worthy, and aiding and abetting is a crime. Harboring a fugitive is a crime. Aiding a known fugitive is a crime. No, as a matter of fact he canNOT travel or associate with a known criminal for very long without falling, barring extraordinary circumstances. Paladins are not supposed to be Easy Mode.

Commiting evil acts is fall-worthy. Crimes are unlawful. That doesn't make them evil.

The PHB clearly states that being GOOD is more important for a Paladin than being lawful

[Kelb_Panthera]

Committing crimes is fall-worthy, and aiding and abetting is a crime. Harboring a fugitive is a crime. Aiding a known fugitive is a crime. No, as a matter of fact he canNOT travel or associate with a known criminal for very long without falling, barring extraordinary circumstances. Paladins are not supposed to be Easy Mode.

There's so much wrong with this it's hard to pick a place to start.

Lets go with crimes being fall-worthy: No. Just no. First, there are no crimes anywhere outside of a governing body's reach, because there are no laws. Dogma might count, but if your associate isn't a member of your faith then your dogma doesn't apply to him. Only within the recognized boundaries of some type of government is there any crime at all. Second many crimes fall into an ambiguous territory of alignment. If the crime is a chaotic act: no fall.

Your specifically listed crimes: All of those mean basically the same thing: helping a so-called criminal. Who decided he was a criminal, and did they have the authority to do so? Because if he's being railroaded by a corrupt government for something he didn't even do, It's a paladin's obligation, as a champion of good, to aid him. Even if he did do it; if the authority that's after him is going to torture him, handing him over would be an evil, and thus fall-worthy, act. The paladin would either have to give him a quick clean death, if the crime warranted, or aid him.

Finally, playing a paladin being "easy mode:" You're joking, right? Pallies are T5 and not even at the top of the tier. Don't get me wrong, they're not as terrible as some people seem to think, but "easy-mode" is the T1/T2 casters.

[Democratus]

The OP hasn't returned to give us any clarification. At this point it is a bunch of people who are not in the campaign in question discussing the topic with nearly zero knowledge.

Many valid questions were asked about the nature of the rogue character and the paladin. Without answers, it's just conjecture and advice.

Paladins have been adventuring with shady characters for decades now. There are any number of ways to make it work. In the end, it's up to the players to decide how to do so.

[Thialfi]

Why do rogues have to steal stuff from innocent people?

Screw paladins, anyone playing any class of character with a good alignment should have a very big problem with a rogue in their party indescriminently stealing from innocent people. Good people don't look the other way at that and adopt a rogues will be rogues attitude.

[KnightDisciple]

Why do rogues have to steal stuff from innocent people?

Screw paladins, anyone playing any class of character with a good alignment should have a very big problem with a rogue in their party indescriminently stealing from innocent people. Good people don't look the other way at that and adopt a rogues will be rogues attitude.

This is kind of what I was trying to say earlier.

[Synovia]

Screw paladins, anyone playing any class of character with a good alignment should have a very big problem with a rogue in their party indescriminently stealing from innocent people. Good people don't look the other way at that and adopt a rogues will be rogues attitude.

Good people look the other way all the time. Thats kind of one of the defining characteristics of the human race.

'Good' in the D&D spectrum doesn't mean "local narc/hall monitor/etc." It means that you try to do the right thing. Not that you force everyone else to behave as you believe they should.

[Kish]

Objecting to random thefts makes someone a "narc/hall monitor/etc."? This is a definition of "etc" with which I was not previously familiar.

[Synovia]

Objecting to random thefts makes someone a "narc/hall monitor/etc."? This is a definition of "etc" with which I was not previously familiar.

When the occupation for the player is wandering adventurer/murderhobo, then yeah, having a moral conniption over a theif robbing someone after you just killed an entire village of orcs is, yeah, a bit silly.

Good doesn't mean you impose your beliefs on others. Having a bit of an issue with the theif doing it? Fine. But there's no reason that two characters dissagreeing on what is right/wrong/acceptable should lead to bloodshed. People disagree all the time and don't kill each other.

[hamlet]

When the occupation for the player is wandering adventurer/murderhobo, then yeah, having a moral conniption over a theif robbing someone after you just killed an entire village of orcs is, yeah, a bit silly.

Good doesn't mean you impose your beliefs on others. Having a bit of an issue with the theif doing it? Fine. But there's no reason that two characters dissagreeing on what is right/wrong/acceptable should lead to bloodshed. People disagree all the time and don't kill each other.

Why are the adventurers "wandering murder hobos"? Seems to be a bad way to put together a group.

[Bobb]

Why do rogues have to steal stuff from innocent people?

Screw paladins, anyone playing any class of character with a good alignment should have a very big problem with a rogue in their party indescriminently stealing from innocent people. Good people don't look the other way at that and adopt a rogues will be rogues attitude.

I would extend this to any non stupid character.

[Hyena]

I do believe that paladin's job is to enforce good and law, helping innocents and punishing evildoers. Road robbers often got killed, so do bandits in the cities. Why petty thief (and maybe even a murderer) should get a special treatment just because he happens to steal from the bad guys as well?

Edit: Okay, I was pretty harsh. Thief doesn't really need to be killed, but true paladin should capture him and give him in to the authorities. Because it's the right thing.

[Kish]

Why are the adventurers "wandering murder hobos"? Seems to be a bad way to put together a group.

Indeed.

Basing the argument on, "Should anyone object to theft given the premise that there is no morality in D&D?" produces the answer you want, Synovia, but only because it's a loaded question. Not everyone plays D&D that way. For those who do play that way, well, I can't think of any reason for them to be worrying about what the paladin's code means anyway.

[Synovia]

I do believe that paladin's job is to enforce good and law, helping innocents and punishing evildoers.

No, and this is a common misconception. A paladin's job is to "respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who harm innocents".

At no point in there does it say that the paladin's job is to ENFORCE the law. The paladin IS NOT A POLICE OFFICER. Good is above all things in a paladin, even law.

The paladin's job isn't to keep the rogue from stealing, its to prevent innocents from being harmed. These aren't always the same thing.

[Hyena]

You know what? I do believe that stealing is very, very wrong and it directly harms to the innocents. And paladin should defend those innocents, shouldn't he?

[Synovia]

You know what? I do believe that stealing is very, very wrong and it directly harms to the innocents. And paladin should defend those innocents, shouldn't he?

Whether or not stealing is EVIL is entirely based on context. Wrong has no meaning in this discussion.

[KnightDisciple]

Whether or not stealing is EVIL is entirely based on context. Wrong has no meaning in this discussion.

Well, if you're not tossing the basic ideas of Good and Evil from the books out the door, I think stealing from people likely counts as Evil. Especially if it's not "we need supplies" and instead is "I like money and that dude's too much of a sap to notice me stealing his wages for the last month".

Stop and think about it this way:

If a character steals money from the average person walking down the street, he has likely stolen that person's wages for, at the least, the week. It's not "pocket change", it's their bank account. The character might as well have taken food from that person's mouth, and quite possibly their family's mouth.

By stealing that money, the character who steals is directly and actively harming innocent people (or, at the most cynical take, people who were just minding their own business/lives), all for their own gain.

Per the SRD:

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Important parts highlighted.
Also:

Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

The focus is on killing, sure. But taking from others for your own gain with no qualms is in the same category.
And if you take a man's wages, causing his family to starve for a week or a month, you may well cause death. You're just as guilty as if you had stabbed a knife in their throats.

EDIT: So far we haven't been presented with the idea of "stealing out of necessity". Instead it's "stealing for the sake of stealing".
That's an Evil act, and one any self-respecting Good-aligned person should oppose. Start by demanding the money be returned and the act not be repeated. Proceed as necessary from there.

[hamishspence]

"context" can make the difference between evil and not evil for a lot of acts- but it's not clear if "stealing" is one of them.

What should the default presumption be?

If you know nothing about the person you're stealing from- then they are "innocent".

In general, a person is harmed by losing their property (unless there'd circumstances that modify this).

Thus, in general, stealing from strangers would be Evil as a norm.