Punishing Lawful Self-Righteous

[TheWhisper]

Since we've discussed dealing with Chaotic Stupid, perhaps it is time for a thread on handling the other Alignment of Extreme Annoyance.

*Cough* Paladin *cough*.

While Chaotic Stupid is fairly easy to deal with (Just make NPC society react realistically, thus rapidly resulting in Chaotic Dead), Lawful Self-Righteous tends to provoke social sanctions rather than spiky burny ones, and thus gets to hang around indefinitely, killing, not merchants, but everyone's enjoyment of the game?

I'd like to hear how some of you GMs out there deal with Lawful Self-Righteous.

[jseah]

I split the party, or more like let them go their own ways.

Then again, I run primarily PbP, and no one in my group really likes paladin.

[Skjaldbakka]

I've never had to deal with the cliche paladin type. I have seen several paladins played well, and enjoy playing a paladin myself. The whole Arthurian knight concept always appealed to me.

Of course, there is a 'knight' class now, which is a better class than paladin... but it isn't quite the same flavor.

[Atcote]

Work with it. There's a lot of evil out there, primal, arcane, demonic, what have you, and eventually, they're going to attract some type of attention. See how they stick to their self-propelling ideals when their entrails are spread around a small area of 2-3 blocks.

Of course, usually I'm dealing with characters who understand what they're doing, and, believe it or not, 'It's what my character would do' can work.

However, outright refusal to let the game unless 'X works like X because my character wants it that way', means that X will go to Y.

Y is located outside.

For example, a Paladin refuses to be in a party with a clearly evil character. That makes sense in character. As the GM, I find a reason that they must work together. There might be fights, and a lack of cooperation, but ultimately, the people will play the game, sometimes with that level of conflict that sometimes makes parties all the more interesting.

However, the character then goes 'Nope, that's not going to happen', thus avoiding the adventure and sometimes attacking the other player, their contribution gets ignored and they either leave or be reasonable. It's a story, and a story for everyone. Roll with some level of narrative, or leave.

Sometimes a more reasonable player with take on a Paladin ideal of 'For the Greater Good, I will work with/for evil for the moment'. That usually works out well, and they're still able to play their character, just going with some level of 'questing'.

[Scarlet-Devil]

Well, I don't have a whole lot of experience with this, but I'll share what I've got. I played in a game where myself and one other guy were the only players; he was a pretty excessive chaotic stupid (we were both about 14 at the time, and he thought of D&D as an excuse to "do things you can't in real life"), and my lawful good ninja character eventually decided he had to lay down the law when the other guy tried to ambush some merchants. The DM handled our dispute essentially by splitting us up, then arranging for the two of us to meet in a final confrontation. We fought, I won and let my former companion live, and the campaign was killed (I suppose you could say it was both our faults in this case).

In another campaign I was playing in, a hilarious German guy was playing a CE Ur-priest mystic thuerge, in a party with a hard-arse paladin. The two of them argued a great deal in character (the thuerge's alignment was concealed with an item). The thuerge, and my character to a lesser extent, often got caught looting 'inappropriately', and the paladin chastised us constantly. Until the campaign ended everything stayed peaceful through a combination of intimidation, bluffing, and doing things out of the paladin's view... I guess that's not very helpful. :smallconfused:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Here's a thought. I don't know if you're familiar at all with the series Trigun...but it basically involves the following main character (minor, minor spoilers of character motivation)
One of the most skilled and deadliest gunmen on the planet, and he's a Lawful Good pacifist. His ideal of "I'm never going to kill" is constantly tested and tested, and he always has to sacrifice to see it through. It really winds up causing him a lot of pain and trouble and hardship.

The point is, you test this Lawful character. You test their dedication to their cause. Throw moral dilemmas at them. Give them hard-to-solve situations. Here's what I foresee happening.

Either the character goes the extra mile, becomes super-awesome, and is willing to pay the price to back up their ideals (losing self-righteousness along the way), or they double back on their ideals, and take a substantial hit to their ego.

Find their beliefs, and set them against one another. See what this character values. Push them. It's in moments of crisis that a character can show substance, or else come face to face with their own failings.

[turkishproverb]

It can help to have another lawful character chew him out for wasting time and building up ill will.

[Trekkin]

It can help to have another lawful character chew him out for wasting time and building up ill will.

Or agree wholeheartedly with his actions and lavish praise on the character for advancing the cause of Law. Said character should, ideally, be totally insufferable.

[turkishproverb]

Heh. I like your style.

[Trekkin]

It is neither originally nor exclusively mine. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YourApprovalFillsMeWithShame)It's just been my experience that people naturally accept praise and defend against criticism.

There's nothing so disturbing as the party rushing into the throne room of the omnicidal BBEG only to find a "Welcome Heroes" banner (bonus points for it being written in blood), a table of suitable hors d'oeuvres, and the Big Bad himself apparently overjoyed at the opportunity to shake them warmly by the hand and thank them for a job well done. In this case, the LG character being the object of his appreciation should drive the point home nicely.

[Yuki Akuma]

What is this preoccupation for punishing people for playing the character they want to play...?

[FelixG]

What is this preoccupation for punishing people for playing the character they want to play...?

Its not about players playing the character they want to play, its about being an annoyance in an extreme (IE stealing everything for the chaotic stupid person or being detecty mcsmites'alot for a lawful self-rightous person)

[Yuki Akuma]

There's still no need to "punish" them.

These are your friends. Talk to them.

And if they're not your friends why are you playing silly elf games with them?

[Trekkin]

I don't approach it as punishment, personally. They're simply playing a character far enough on the end of the adventurer bell curve that they expect some acknowledgement of that. If you're playing an eldritch abomination in a typically pseudo-medieval DnD campaign, you want the average dirt-grubbing peasant to freak out when he sees you; likewise, someone choosing to play a CS or LSR character is probably expecting some kind of negative reaction in return. It's an unsubtle means of roleplaying to be sure, but no less valid.

If they don't know they're doing it then yes, talking to them is best. More imaginative ways of dealing with it are, to my mind, best suited for the players who decide to roleplay a character who has a problem being part of society because it's a challenge, the difference being that the latter usually displays a willingness to abate their insanity for the purposes of making the game playable. I don't have Lawful Self-Righteous characters quietly assigned to the other end of the world by morally relativist kings because I don't like the character/player; I do it because if the player's willing to explore this character concept with the consent of the rest of the group, the world's darn well going to react to it.

[FelixG]

There's still no need to "punish" them.

These are your friends. Talk to them.

And if they're not your friends why are you playing silly elf games with them?

Play by post games spring to mind, I may play with people I am acquainted to but not friends with. So I play silly elf games with them cause I like the game and not them.

And if they ruin it they should be punished! Lol

[hamishspence]

being detecty mcsmites'alot for a lawful self-rightous person)

This is a common problem- though for some players, "Lawful self-righteous" can be Celia rather than Miko- a character who refuses to do violence, or tolerate violence by the other players, even when it's highly appropriate to the situation.

Though that's usually "Stupid Good" rather than "Lawful stupid".

In a "kill everything Evil you meet and take its stuff" campaign- it can be refusing to do this, that irritates the other players or the DM- especially if the character gets preachy about it.

"Detecty mcsmitesalot" might be a player who's read too many Terry Goodkind books, and believes that "Mercy to the evil-aligned, is treason to the innocent". They might even get self-righteous when the other players suggest tolerance- and say "Tolerance of the evil, is evil in itself"

If the campaign is one where evil-aligned NPCs are accepted- fairly common in the population, and so on- members of evil churches who are accepted because they keep the evil gods from smiting the towns, or perform unpleasant jobs that are perceived as necessary,

then the character who attacks them on sight, can be as disruptive, as the character who does Chaotic Stupid things.

And some of the same principles can apply as "bad consequences"- people turn against them, and they end up hunted.

[Talyn]

Here's the big difference between Lawful Righteous and Chaotic Stupid - Lawful Righteous characters annoy their fellow players, whereas Chaotic Stupid players annoy the DMs.

If you, as a player, find another player acting Lawful Righteous to be annoying, maybe you should look to yourself first: is he being annoying because he insists the PCs act like heroes, and not well-armed sociopathic demigods? Then maybe you are playing the wrong game - leave behind a game which encourages heroism and play something like Vampire or Shadowrun which seems to be more your style.

On the other hand, sometimes people who play too many computer games don't realize that Lawful Good doesn't equate to slaying everything that pings on detect evil, and they need to be reined in. Luckily, that usually isn't too hard to do. As a DM, I would MUCH, MUCH rather have a Lawful Righteous player character in my game than a Chaotic Stupid one. For one thing, being Lawful Righteous means that they, the player, expect to be seen as the "good guy" by whatever he defines as society - that means that he can be "punished," to use the OP's wording, by having NPCs react with hatred or fear.

As a DM, you also have a great deal of control over Lawful Righteous characters because YOU control what is "normal" in your made up society - unlike Chaotic Stupid characters, who go out of their way to tear down what you've created, Lawful Righteous characters want to be paragons of your world. If you've created social structures which actively punish smite-happy characters, LR's will fall in line - and if you've created ones which encourage it, you've really no one to blame but yourself.

[Oracle_Hunter]

This is just another way of having someone who doesn't want to play the same game as everyone else.

Don't bother trying to manipulate the Player through his Character. If you (the DM) have a problem with the Player's style, tell him about it. If he refuses to change and you cannot accomodate him kick him from the game.

Sure, it's a lot of fun to think about ways to get revenge on people who annoy you but unless that's the point of the game, you're taking a distraction and making it larger.

[hamishspence]

Don't bother trying to manipulate the Player through his Character. If you (the DM) have a problem with the Player's style, tell him about it. If he refuses to change and you cannot accomodate him kick him from the game.

The DM might not want to go straight to "shape up or ship out" though-

especially if the whole party are playing Lawful Self-Righteous- and the DM thinks this is inconsistant with the game world.

They might want to strike a balance between "DMing the way the players want" and "insisting the players play right or leave"- such as making it clear in the game that PC behaviour has logical consequences.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The DM might not want to go straight to "shape up or ship out" though-

especially if the whole party are playing Lawful Self-Righteous- and the DM thinks this is inconsistant with the game world.

They might want to strike a balance between "DMing the way the players want" and "insisting the players play right or leave"- such as making it clear in the game that PC behaviour has logical consequences.
If the party's actions is "inconsistent with the game world" then by all means show the "logical consequences" - but don't expect your Players to like it :smalltongue:

It's always better to explain your objections to someone's playstyle before using them as an object lesson. And if the DM says "play this way" and the Players so "no" what then? Keep punishing them until they leave the game or you get fed up with it?

[monkey3]

Sadly I have seen the "Lawful Self-Righteous" way too many times, so much that I cringe when someone makes a paladin. I wonder if we are getting a new party member, or a self-appointed party leader.

More often than not, he turns out to be the person dictating the party's alignment and actions from that moment forth. I have seen a paladin join a group with a necromancer already in it, and a month down the line kick the necro out for being too evil for him to adventure with.

No, it doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens, it reinforces the stereotype (kind of like all prejudices). So my new mindset is: "Say no to paladins, or you will turn into npcs." (This could be all "Lawful Good Self-Righteous" people, but paladin is shorter.)

Better safe than sorry.

[Starbuck_II]

Sadly I have seen the "Lawful Self-Righteous" way too many times, so much that I cringe when someone makes a paladin. I wonder if we are getting a new party member, or a self-appointed party leader.

More often than not, he turns out to be the person dictating the party's alignment and actions from that moment forth. I have seen a paladin join a group with a necromancer already in it, and a month down the line kick the necro out for being too evil for him to adventure with.

No, it doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens, it reinforces the stereotype (kind of like all prejudices). So my new mindset is: "Say no to paladins, or you will turn into npcs." (This could be all "Lawful Good Self-Righteous" people, but paladin is shorter.)

Better safe than sorry.

I blame WotC for making the pally code say he refuses to associate evil.
Paladins of Tyrrany are better party members as they will associate with good, evil, etc.

[big teej]

Sadly I have seen the "Lawful Self-Righteous" way too many times, so much that I cringe when someone makes a paladin. I wonder if we are getting a new party member, or a self-appointed party leader.

More often than not, he turns out to be the person dictating the party's alignment and actions from that moment forth. I have seen a paladin join a group with a necromancer already in it, and a month down the line kick the necro out for being too evil for him to adventure with.

No, it doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens, it reinforces the stereotype (kind of like all prejudices). So my new mindset is: "Say no to paladins, or you will turn into npcs." (This could be all "Lawful Good Self-Righteous" people, but paladin is shorter.)

Better safe than sorry.

somebody on this board (i cannot recall who at the moment)
has a quote in their signature that all my groups take to heart when it comes to paladins and evil people/things

it goes something like
"I used to hate people like you, you toe the line of good and evil, but then I realized it's not people like you I have to worry about; it's the people that have run, hopped, and skipped so far over the line they can't even see it I need to punish"

and this is the type of thing I 'enforce' as a DM, if someone wants to play a paladin and another person wants to play a NE barbarian
the responsibilites break down as follows
the barbarian has an obligation (to me) not to break my game
the barbarian has an obligation (to the paladin) to not intentionally strain things

the paladin has an obligation (To me) not to dig in their heels and say "I will not adventure with an evil character"
the paladin has an obligation (to the barbarian) to not smite him JUST because he's evil.

what I see and hear happen alot of times is "oh you can't play evil, becuase the x (x usually being paladins in the example given) will smite you"
why?
"because your evil"

I'd like to call BS at this point

if the paladin detects evil and somebody pings, and they kill them
THAT
IS
MURDER

if the paladin catches someone doing something 'wrong' and/or 'evil' and detects
and they ping
that is a (possibly) trigger happy, but correct, paladin.


I'm afraid I need to cut my ramble short, I need to get to a job interview.

/ramble.

[Salbazier]

Sadly I have seen the "Lawful Self-Righteous" way too many times, so much that I cringe when someone makes a paladin. I wonder if we are getting a new party member, or a self-appointed party leader.

More often than not, he turns out to be the person dictating the party's alignment and actions from that moment forth. I have seen a paladin join a group with a necromancer already in it, and a month down the line kick the necro out for being too evil for him to adventure with.

No, it doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens, it reinforces the stereotype (kind of like all prejudices). So my new mindset is: "Say no to paladins, or you will turn into npcs." (This could be all "Lawful Good Self-Righteous" people, but paladin is shorter.)

Better safe than sorry.

I can see why you and many other people wary of Paladin and LG but still, blaming the class/alignment for problem with player's attitude is unfair. What's stopping such player from being problematic (refusing to working with other player for IC/RP justification for the party banding together) with other class/alignment?

[Pechvarry]

somebody on this board (i cannot recall who at the moment)
has a quote in their signature that all my groups take to heart when it comes to paladins and evil people/things

it goes something like
"I used to hate people like you, you toe the line of good and evil, but then I realized it's not people like you I have to worry about; it's the people that have run, hopped, and skipped so far over the line they can't even see it I need to punish"

and this is the type of thing I 'enforce' as a DM, if someone wants to play a paladin and another person wants to play a NE barbarian
the responsibilites break down as follows
the barbarian has an obligation (to me) not to break my game
the barbarian has an obligation (to the paladin) to not intentionally strain things

the paladin has an obligation (To me) not to dig in their heels and say "I will not adventure with an evil character"
the paladin has an obligation (to the barbarian) to not smite him JUST because he's evil.

what I see and hear happen alot of times is "oh you can't play evil, becuase the x (x usually being paladins in the example given) will smite you"
why?
"because your evil"

I'd like to call BS at this point

if the paladin detects evil and somebody pings, and they kill them
THAT
IS
MURDER

if the paladin catches someone doing something 'wrong' and/or 'evil' and detects
and they ping
that is a (possibly) trigger happy, but correct, paladin.


I'm afraid I need to cut my ramble short, I need to get to a job interview.

/ramble.

I really like this approach. It's called "cooperative gaming" and people playing Lawful Righteous like that are simply trying to undermine that. Understanding this principle of building character personalities towards successful campaigning is very important.

[Ashiel]

Since we've discussed dealing with Chaotic Stupid, perhaps it is time for a thread on handling the other Alignment of Extreme Annoyance.

*Cough* Paladin *cough*.

While Chaotic Stupid is fairly easy to deal with (Just make NPC society react realistically, thus rapidly resulting in Chaotic Dead), Lawful Self-Righteous tends to provoke social sanctions rather than spiky burny ones, and thus gets to hang around indefinitely, killing, not merchants, but everyone's enjoyment of the game?

I'd like to hear how some of you GMs out there deal with Lawful Self-Righteous.

I'd handle this in much the same way I'd handle lawful stupid. Have people react accordingly. If you have a smite-happy paladin, well he's probably also going to be shunned. Sure, maybe Mc'Bad registered on the detect-o'-meter, but if they didn't do anything to warrant smiting, then the paladin committed murder and probably falls.

However, I just gutted most of alignments out of the equation anyway in my campaign. If someone acts crazy or extreme, they're seen as crazy or extreme. There's still good, evil, law, and chaos, but such things are more clearly (or maybe more vaguely) than they were before; and most people don't have alignments.

I've found this has greatly improved my games. Using the alignment system for what I want, while removing the hangups from the alignment system (such as arguing over what alignment somebody is).

[Starbuck_II]

somebody on this board (i cannot recall who at the moment)
has a quote in their signature that all my groups take to heart when it comes to paladins and evil people/things

it goes something like
"I used to hate people like you, you toe the line of good and evil, but then I realized it's not people like you I have to worry about; it's the people that have run, hopped, and skipped so far over the line they can't even see it I need to punish"

and this is the type of thing I 'enforce' as a DM, if someone wants to play a paladin and another person wants to play a NE barbarian
the responsibilites break down as follows
the barbarian has an obligation (to me) not to break my game
the barbarian has an obligation (to the paladin) to not intentionally strain things

the paladin has an obligation (To me) not to dig in their heels and say "I will not adventure with an evil character"
the paladin has an obligation (to the barbarian) to not smite him JUST because he's evil.


Not in D&D (3.5 and earlier): Pallys fall if they associate with evil. So he can't. Solving the problem by smiting does work.
And murder isn't against the code. :smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

Not in D&D (3.5 and earlier): Pallys fall if they associate with evil.

No.

They fall if they cease to be Lawful Good, or commit an Evil act.

Repeated violations of their code will make them cease to be Lawful Good, but just doing something that's against the code (as long as it's not Evil) won't make them fall.

Murder will make them Fall, though. It's Evil.

[WarKitty]

Well, the first thing I do with the paladin is change the "must not associate with an evil character" to "must not associate with a character who routinely commits overt evil acts, and must attempt to reform the evildoer." Overt evil acts mean stuff like random murder and arson - the rogue that likes shoplifting a bit too much is fine, as long as the paladin doesn't approve. Also, take the "attempt to reform" bit sensibly - you don't have to preach at them every time, just make it clear where you stand and put in a word or two why their way might not be the best.

For any disruptive character, I try to have a 2-part approach.
(1) Make the world react realistically to them. This includes telling the other players that they may react realistically to the character. Ensure that the world is not rewarding the disruptive behavior.
(2) Talk to the player. Ask if they are bored and what they would like out of the game. Point out that their character is not the best fit, and provide suggestions to change in-game.

[Galdor Miriel]

We had a long campaign were we played with a Paladin who wanted to stick to their vows, and we used the skill system to deal with conflicts. If the paladin were persuading the party it was a diplomacy check, highest wins and everyone thinks their actions are OK. It was a good way of dealing with it, and the Paladin won most of them which was OK, because they didnot win them all. This check did not apply to massively evil actions, more along the lines of "Slap him around till he talks", that kind of thing.

Otherwise these kinds of issues are a chance for players, rather than characters to advance a level, if you know what I mean.

[Keinnicht]

Not in D&D (3.5 and earlier): Pallys fall if they associate with evil. So he can't. Solving the problem by smiting does work.
And murder isn't against the code. :smallbiggrin:

A reasonable person (And I think Pathfinder) deletes that line of the paladin code. I'm sure it made sense when they wrote it, but, in practice, it's just stupid.

Of course, a Paladin should not be allowed to knowingly ALLOW an evil act to occur. I mean, look at the Roy/Belkar situation: Hanging out with an evil person can be a good act, in that it can prevent greater evil.

Plus, I mean, imagine this conversation actually happening:

Evil person: Please! I know I'm evil, but I can't help myself! But I wish to redeem myself and become good.
Paladin: Yeah dude, uh...Find someone else. I can't hang out with your evil butt.
Evil person: What?
Paladin: Yeah, right there in the code. Can't work to redeem anybody. Yeah...For some reason my code makes it sound more like I'm a Lawful Neutral instrument of violence against the guilty, rather than a Lawful Good Paragon of Goodness. Don't know why, I just signed it without asking too many questions.

Plus, a few other things to keep in mind:

1: Do you allow PVP and/or ejection from the party? Surely if the characters are annoyed by him they'll tell him to get out of their party or attack him.

2: Talk to the player, like others have said. It's possible he's not trying to create a problem, he just wanted to roleplay a self-righteous nut. I mean, I think all of us have played a character we designed to be an unlikable, arrogant jerk once or twice. Of course, I don't know the guy involved, so I don't know.

3. Keep in mind that just mindlessly killing things that show up as "evil" on detect spells isn't a good act. If you see a guy in a bar, and he happens to be evil, and you walk over and kill him, you probably just committed an evil act. Most "evil" people are pretty low-grade: Selfish people, compulsive liars, that sort of thing. Killing a guy for being selfish is just about as evil as just killing someone for no reason at all.

4. Connected to #3: Don't be afraid to revoke his paladin powers. If he's rampantly murdering evil people, that's probably going to tick his god off. Killing defenseless people is also probably a no-no. Also keep in mind that if he's obstructing the heroes, there's a possibility he is OBSTRUCTING THE WORLD FROM BEING SAVED or whatever your campaign's plot is. That's probably evil.

5. Connected to #3 and 4. You should probably do this in the first place, but definitely do it if you're seriously considering de-Paladining him. Send him a dream or vision from his god warning him in some way to shape up.

[Waker]

Of course one should remember that a Paladin is Lawful Good. Even if someone is evil, killing them (depending on location) might be against the Law.
"But I swear! He was Evil, I detected him!"
"Save it for your trial buddy."

[Talon Sky]

Make the Paladin fall. It's amusing.

I had this issue the last time I played 3.5. I was playing a survivalist, world-witty Halfling Monk of LN alignment. The other player (it was just two of us and the DM) played a Lawful Stupid Paladin, I believe human. We had a real quick adventure, seeking out a gnoll group that stole the ancestral axe of the dwarven bartender. We found them and easily slaughtered them except for the leader....which ironically enough, my monk knocked out so they could interrogate him and find out why they had done this. My monk went and searched their persons (both the dead and living gnoll) for anything useful, and on the still-alive leader found a pretty nice dagger (nice for 1st level, of course) and some gold.

Then I made the mistake of offering some of the gold to the Paladin, whose player had been distracted ordering food (we were playing in a Denny's at, like, 2 am). All hell broke loose IC. My monk was suddenly a thief, a vagabond, and a few other choice things. Then the Paladin drew his sword (still dripping in the blood of gnolls he'd slaughtered, mind you) and pointed it at my Monk, demanding I put back "what I'd stolen from the corpses so as to not desecrate the dead, and put back the dagger of the living gnoll, as it's stealing."

IC, I calmly explained that 1) the dead have no use for gold, and 2) gnolls have no use for gold. They're not a civilized race, they can't just walk into a human civilization and buy anything! As far as the dagger, my character pointed out that leaving our prisoner armed is just plain stupid, and inviting him to attack innocents in the future. Of course, for all my logic and reasoning, the Paladin (and his player) stood firm. My monk raised his hands but kindly said he would not take orders from the Paladin, who proceeded to attack.

The DM was sick of this by this point (our argument took more time then the battle beforehand) and ruled that the Paladin fell because my monk was dead right on his logic, the Paladin was attacking an unarmed ally, and because his God realized that this man would not spread a good name for the deity.

My monk easily defeated the now fighter-with-no-feats, brought him down to -4 HP (conscious thanks to the Diehard feat), and made him swear on his honor as a Paladin (har har) that since my monk was sparing his life, the Paladin could never hunt him down....atoned or not. My monk then left him laying on the forest floor, a healing potion within reach, and returned the magic axe to the damned dwarf that started all this.

Completely forgot about the unconscious gnoll, and since the player up and quit RPing that character after that, I wonder what ever happened to them....

[TheWhisper]

Make the Paladin fall. It's amusing...

... My monk raised his hands but kindly said he would not take orders from the Paladin, who proceeded to attack.

....ruled that the Paladin fell because my monk was dead right on his logic, ...

...My monk easily defeated the now fighter-with-no-feats....

Completely forgot about the unconscious gnoll, and since the player up and quit RPing that character after that, I wonder what ever happened to them....

See, that's awesome. Instead of sulking about it, the player could have had a lot of fun roleplaying remorse and atonement and learning life lessons, or a playing a lot of self-indulgent raging about how he was treated unfairly, followed by availing himself of some of those nice fallen-paladin prestige classes... Blackguard, was it called?

These kind of character conflicts create an interesting story... so long as the Lawful Self-Righteous character isn't given any plot armor, and has to face the consequences of his stupidity.

[Talon Sky]

See, that's awesome. Instead of sulking about it, the player could have had a lot of fun roleplaying remorse and atonement and learning life lessons, or a playing a lot of self-indulgent raging about how he was treated unfairly, followed by availing himself of some of those nice fallen-paladin prestige classes... Blackguard, was it called?

These kind of character conflicts create an interesting story... so long as the Lawful Self-Righteous character isn't given any plot armor, and has to face the consequences of his stupidity.

Agreed, but it was really just a one-time shot.

Making a Pally fall in one session....ah, now that's an accomplishment I'll brag about for years.

[hamishspence]

A reasonable person (And I think Pathfinder) deletes that line of the paladin code. I'm sure it made sense when they wrote it, but, in practice, it's just stupid.

Defenders of the Faith (the WoTC paladin/cleric 3.0 splatbook) modifiers it to "paladins will not knowingly associate with evil beings on a continuing basis" and emphasises that short-term alliances are permissible (if risky).

It suggests that the paladin should weigh up the various factors- risk of being corrupted by the evil being, vs benefits to be gained by co-operating (such as being able to defeat the greater problem that he can't handle on his own)- and also, the possibility of redeeming the evil being.


Of course one should remember that a Paladin is Lawful Good. Even if someone is evil, killing them (depending on location) might be against the Law.
"But I swear! He was Evil, I detected him!"
"Save it for your trial buddy."

Does this apply to Paladins of Freedom that act the same way?

I'd tend to go with the vast majority of states in the D&D world not accepting "he detects as evil" as a valid reason to kill somebody. Eberron seems to.

[FelixG]

Sadly I have seen the "Lawful Self-Righteous" way too many times, so much that I cringe when someone makes a paladin. I wonder if we are getting a new party member, or a self-appointed party leader.

More often than not, he turns out to be the person dictating the party's alignment and actions from that moment forth. I have seen a paladin join a group with a necromancer already in it, and a month down the line kick the necro out for being too evil for him to adventure with.

No, it doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens, it reinforces the stereotype (kind of like all prejudices). So my new mindset is: "Say no to paladins, or you will turn into npcs." (This could be all "Lawful Good Self-Righteous" people, but paladin is shorter.)

Better safe than sorry.

Haha fun story for a Lawful Self-Righteous character that happened two days ago in the PBP game I am in:

So we are in this forest, fighting alongside some Templars to clear out Demon worshipers from the area, through some antics and superb playing the party gets the group of cultists to surrender.

They are bound and sat down in a line while we decide what to do with them. The head Templar is the law of the area and is charged with the ability to pass sentences, he rules that they are due death. The paladin accepts this as they are evil and the Templar is the judge so he steps back.

The rogue who is LG on the other hand decides to yell at everyone that the cultists deserve trials and all this, he proceeds to attack the head Templar (our quest giver) to attempt to stop my character and another from executing the cultists.

Response to the "Lawful Self-Righteous" rogue? He got Team killed then proceeded to try to monologue while unconscious then rage quit when we pointed out that at -1 you are KOd.

Good times :smallbiggrin:

[Waker]

Does this apply to Paladins of Freedom that act the same way?
That one is trickier to decide, as it's more dependent on circumstance and interpretation. While the Law issue would be ignored, you still have to question if the act was Good. Bear in mind that how Evil you register is independent of what specific acts you do and is instead determined by your class/HD or creature type. If the guy the Paladin just detected was Evil because he burned down buildings to collect insurance, killing him may be a bit extreme. A Good creature isn't supposed to kill non-combatants, even if they are Evil.

I just wanted to make my joke at the expense of a Lawful Good Paladin because its silly.

[Ravens_cry]

While I have had paladins fall, and I did use it for some good old fashioned character drama, making a paladin fall is just complete balls out wrong. Hey, let's erase the wizards spell book, let's sunder the fighters weapon and armour, let's make it all a brightly lit featureless plain so the rogue can't hide, let's cast permanent calm emotions spell on the barbarian.

[Talon Sky]

While I have had paladins fall, and I did use it for some good old fashioned character drama, making a paladin fall is just complete balls out wrong. Hey, let's erase the wizards spell book, let's sunder the fighters weapon and armour, let's make it all a brightly lit featureless plain so the rogue can't hide, let's cast permanent calm emotions spell on the barbarian.

Typical Bard practical jokes, right.

[hamishspence]

Bear in mind that how Evil you register is independent of what specific acts you do and is instead determined by your class/HD or creature type. If the guy the Paladin just detected was Evil because he burned down buildings to collect insurance, killing him may be a bit extreme.

Yup. Indeed, it is possible to detect as Evil, and not actually be evil. An undead, (even a Neutral or Good undead), an Evil-subtype outsider (even one of the rare "redeemed fiends") and a cleric of an Evil deity (even if LN or CN to the deity's LE or CE) will all detect as Evil, whatever their alignment actually is.

And, as you say, the acts and attitudes needed to be Evil aligned- don't have to be especially big.
The Eberron Campaign setting, in particular, stresses that "not all Evil-aligned beings deserve to be attacked by adventurers".

[Ravens_cry]

Typical Bard practical jokes, right.
Right, let's also cast silence on the Bard.

[Keinnicht]

Right, let's also cast silence on the Bard.

That's not a practical joke. That's just something that needs to be done.

[Tyndmyr]

Since we've discussed dealing with Chaotic Stupid, perhaps it is time for a thread on handling the other Alignment of Extreme Annoyance.

*Cough* Paladin *cough*.

While Chaotic Stupid is fairly easy to deal with (Just make NPC society react realistically, thus rapidly resulting in Chaotic Dead), Lawful Self-Righteous tends to provoke social sanctions rather than spiky burny ones, and thus gets to hang around indefinitely, killing, not merchants, but everyone's enjoyment of the game?

I'd like to hear how some of you GMs out there deal with Lawful Self-Righteous.

I allow PvP. The problem is self-correcting.

[Starbuck_II]

Make the Paladin fall. It's amusing.

I had this issue the last time I played 3.5. I was playing a survivalist, world-witty Halfling Monk of LN alignment. The other player (it was just two of us and the DM) played a Lawful Stupid Paladin, I believe human. We had a real quick adventure, seeking out a gnoll group that stole the ancestral axe of the dwarven bartender. We found them and easily slaughtered them except for the leader....which ironically enough, my monk knocked out so they could interrogate him and find out why they had done this. My monk went and searched their persons (both the dead and living gnoll) for anything useful, and on the still-alive leader found a pretty nice dagger (nice for 1st level, of course) and some gold.

Then I made the mistake of offering some of the gold to the Paladin, whose player had been distracted ordering food (we were playing in a Denny's at, like, 2 am). All hell broke loose IC. My monk was suddenly a thief, a vagabond, and a few other choice things. Then the Paladin drew his sword (still dripping in the blood of gnolls he'd slaughtered, mind you) and pointed it at my Monk, demanding I put back "what I'd stolen from the corpses so as to not desecrate the dead, and put back the dagger of the living gnoll, as it's stealing."

That had nothing to do with Pally: it had to do with interpretation of honor and being lawful.


The DM was sick of this by this point (our argument took more time then the battle beforehand) and ruled that the Paladin fell because my monk was dead right on his logic, the Paladin was attacking an unarmed ally, and because his God realized that this man would not spread a good name for the deity.

First, by the rules monks are never treated as unarmed. You had fists that deal short sword damage or higher.
DM overracted and did much favoristism.
He should have just explained that he believs stealing is okay for the dead.

In fact, DM should have laid that out before playing the campaign.
Another alignment issue DMs don't help, but make worse.

[Keinnicht]

In fact, DM should have laid that out before playing the campaign.
Another alignment issue DMs don't help, but make worse.

No, actually, I don't think you should have to tell people when playing DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS that it's okay to take things' stuff after you kill them. It's 100% expected that you will do that.

[hamishspence]

in DMG2, it says that (for writs of outlawry, including retroactively declared ones) anything on the killed being is fair game. Stuff not on the killed being's person, might be reclaimed by those it was taken from, or their kin.

So- if a person's just robbed a big trade caravan, and has all the loot stashed in his lair- other people may have a claim to that loot.

[woodenbandman]

That had nothing to do with Pally: it had to do with interpretation of honor and being lawful.

First, by the rules monks are never treated as unarmed. You had fists that deal short sword damage or higher.
DM overracted and did much favoristism.
He should have just explained that he believs stealing is okay for the dead.

In fact, DM should have laid that out before playing the campaign.
Another alignment issue DMs don't help, but make worse.


Think of it this way:

He attacked a person who had no reason to fight him, on the grounds that said person was taking money from things that the paladin killed.

To me this says that the paladin's priority is that the money belonging to those gnolls is more important than their lives, and that is certainly a fair reason for a paladin to fall.

[Threeshades]

How exactly does a Lawful Self-Righteous character act then? I've heard plenty about lawful/good/evil/chaotic stupid characters. but what is Lawful Self-Righteous like exactly?

[hamishspence]

The worst of Lawful Stupid and certain kinds of Stupid Good, maybe?

"Self-Righteous" can be a problem regardless of the specific alignment-

you could have a Chaotic Good Self-Righteous person who always refuses point-blank to compromise with anything that smacks of tyranny- insists on freeing the oppressed and attacking oppressors- even when it puts the party in great danger- and criticizes the other party members for being more pragmatic and focussing on greater problems.

[Starbuck_II]

No, actually, I don't think you should have to tell people when playing DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS that it's okay to take things' stuff after you kill them. It's 100% expected that you will do that.

While I've come to acknowlege violent hobos = D&D, not everyone has. :smallbiggrin:

[Salbazier]

Think of it this way:

He attacked a person who had no reason to fight him, on the grounds that said person was taking money from things that the paladin killed.

To me this says that the paladin's priority is that the money belonging to those gnolls is more important than their lives, and that is certainly a fair reason for a paladin to fall.

No, it isn't. it just... seems like stupid move both from the pally and the DM. Prioritizing money over lives, that's stupid. Making a character lose all his ability because of petty things, stupid as well. That's a really bad way to fall. At least Miko's made a good story (and notice that she didn't fall until she have done a grievous crime)

[NichG]

Suddenly attacking an ally who is being nonviolent, even under verbal provocation, is at the very least a dishonorable act and so worthy of falling. In that sort of circumstance, atonement should not be particularly difficult or impossible, but having a direct reprimand from the deity in the form of removal of power that is about to be abused (in attacking the ally) is reasonable, and lets the paladin know in no uncertain terms that they are in the wrong. For something this obvious, I'd make it clear that the paladin is aware that this would make him fall, but if he goes ahead with it anyhow then its pretty clear-cut to me. It might be that he wants to fall for something he feels righteous about, rail at the gods, that sort of thing, or perhaps he just tends to take very extreme readings of certain things (I know people like this) and isn't even aware of the problem.

Personally, I dislike and generally do not use the alignment system since it encourages such extreme readings, but thats a whole other discussion.

On the meta level, I'm generally of the feel that unless the campaign is explicitly pitched to support each PC acting independently, it is the responsibility of the players to make characters and personalities that can work together. There is just too much meta pressure in most campaigns for the party to stick together, so it can create a disadvantage in favor of the 'jerk' player - everyone else is trying to come up with excuses to travel together/etc, and the person breaking that social contract can do whatever and force the others to compromise, whereas the natural reaction would be for the characters to say 'I will no longer travel with you'. Since its an out of game pressure, its best dealt with via out-of-game discussion if it starts to become a problem.

[woodenbandman]

No, it isn't. it just... seems like stupid move both from the pally and the DM. Prioritizing money over lives, that's stupid. Making a character lose all his ability because of petty things, stupid as well.

First off: nothing against you, or paladins, or the fact that paladins have a code. But I have to say, the player who was controlling the paladin clearly does not understand what being a paladin means, and chose the class just so that he could bully people around and get away with it.

Trying to murder a guy who disagrees with you is petty?

Let's break it down:

Attacking an ally: probably an evil act. Just because you have what you believe is justification doesn't make it less wrong.

The battle of the gnolls: Were the gnolls offered a chance to surrender? did the paladin give any sort of consideration to their lives (ask people to leave them incapacitated, demand they surrender when they were at low HP, etc?)

Did the paladin take actions to avoid unnecessary death? (Were the gnolls raiding the settlement because they were starving, or because they like raiding?)

Why did the paladin consider taking money from corpses to be against his code? First of all, that's a stupid thing for a player to make his character believe, he should have forseen that people wouldn't like him telling them not to take pieces of treasure that they worked for. Some things just shouldn't be played in a game, like a deaf-blind character or a quadriplegic. That player was pretty much intentionally being a nuisance because that's what he wanted to do.

Second of all: Why does the character believe this? Does he believe it diminishes their honor? Does he believe that it is an insult to a fellow warrior? If so, why did he not treat his enemies with more respect (see all of the above)? He appears to stick to his code only when he can lord it over some other person, and not as it applies to himself.

Really I've got a hate-boner for people who play a paladin so that they can have license to police the party's alignments without wanting to suck up the implications being truly lawful-good carries with it. It's all well and fine to tell the rogue to stop stealing, but nobody wants to take prisoners or make peace between the orc tribes, because killing people and being the boss is what they want to do. Real paladins are humble. They give to charity. They lay down their lives for a belief, even if they don't know if they'll be able to change anything, as long as there's that chance.

If you want to be an annoying drama queen who tries to bully everyone in the party around then just be upfront about it and put "Lawful Evil" on your sheet, leave the paladin alone, thanks.

[Ravens_cry]

While I've come to acknowlege violent hobos = D&D, not everyone has. :smallbiggrin:
I am making a campaign where this is explicitly the case in-universe, where adventurer is not exactly a respectable profession and Klondike like camps arise around dungeons. At the best, local lords impose a semblance of order. At the worst, well, it's not monsters or traps you have to worry about.

[FelixG]

I am making a campaign where this is explicitly the case in-universe, where adventurer is not exactly a respectable profession and Klondike like camps arise around dungeons. At the best, local lords impose a semblance of order. At the worst, well, it's not monsters or traps you have to worry about.

This reminds me a bit of Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl

The stalkers all kind of get along, the government really doesnt like them and will stomp on them at the slightest provocation.

[Rasman]

I have a SLIGHT issue with the way you're asking for help.

You want to know how to "deal with" a LG Paladin.

I think it should be a little more like "work with" having a LG Paladin in the party, because if you really wanted to "deal with" them then you'd just kill the character outright and have them play something else.

Get creative. I'm in a gaming group right now that we're all part of an organization that isn't exactly "good" or "lawful" by any means. A player who joined a session late and didn't know anything about the setting other than what level character he was supposed to build made a Vow of Poverty Paladin of Iomedae. Our GM, rather than telling him to just build another character, found a way to work him into the group and make it plausible that he'd associate with us at all.

If you're looking for ways to still "deal" with him, I suggest watching the movie "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising" for some pointers. Bluff is a powerful too.

[FelixG]

I have a SLIGHT issue with the way you're asking for help.

You want to know how to "deal with" a LG Paladin.


Who is asking for help? this is more of a hypothetical not a real issue that is going on :smallbiggrin:

and the goal isnt to deal with a LG paladin it is to "deal with" a lawful self-righteous person. These can come in any variety of classes, as I noted in the story above where we had to curb stomp a LS-R rogue.

[Ravens_cry]

This reminds me a bit of Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl

The stalkers all kind of get along, the government really doesnt like them and will stomp on them at the slightest provocation.
Well, often your looting tombs of ancient rulers or accidentally unsealing ancient evils best left untouched. How many innocent villages have been ravaged by unleashed demons that were locked away until party of "professional treasure hunters" thought they could sell the golden seal for a chunk of coin?
How many tenuous peace's between orcs and humans have been broken because some adventurers decided to kill them some 'greenskins'?
You're not the good guys, you are not even close.

[Gnaeus]

Suddenly attacking an ally who is being nonviolent, even under verbal provocation, is at the very least a dishonorable act and so worthy of falling.

True, but telling the offending party member who is committing improper actions that they are under arrest and then smacking them down if they resist arrest is likely to be entirely lawful, and not evil in the least.

Better answer, make the players talk to each other before they sit down at table. If you don't want the Paladin fighting other characters, don't allow BOTH the paladin and the evil players, or at least provide a convincing, in-character reason why they wouldn't kill each other (like Caramon/Raistlin).

If you have an existing game with an evil Necromancer, don't let new guy play a paladin, and explain why. The new player has an obligation to the group to make something that everyone can play with.

[Telonius]

I think the biggest reason that this issue creeps up again and again for Paladins is the design of the class. Much the same way that Wizards have an incentive to be totally paranoid about spellbooks and, well, everything else, Paladins have an incentive to be totally paranoid about alignment. Screw up, and you can become less effective than a Fighter. This leads to a lot of the Miko-esque Paladin behavior that annoys everyone.

I deal with this in a couple of different ways. First, if a player is thinking of making a Paladin (or any character with particular moral considerations, like a Cleric, Favored Soul, or anything from BoED) I have a discussion with them about my expectations and the general morality of the setting. I also make sure that during the first playsession, everybody's clear what the boundaries of behavior are: what they expect, what I expect, what the characters expect, what the gameworld expect, and what the gods expect.

Second, I do make some houserule changes to the Paladin code. Every god (or ethical system, much like god-less Clerics) can have Paladins, and the Paladin must take the alignment of the god. Each god has its own code, and Paladins must act as shining examples of that god's goals in the world. The "does not associate with" clause is far too rigid, even for a Paladin of Pelor; I tend to take Roy's side in this respect. How is the Paladin supposed to help redeem evildoers if he can't even talk to them? For the Paladin abilities, I use variants of the Paladin of Freedom and Slaughter, and Neutral paladins can get "smite extremist" for people more than one step from NN. So far I've found that this works a lot better, and makes more sense for some gods. (Why would somebody like Olidammara require lawful paladins, or not be able to have paladins? Just doesn't make sense to me). Right now in a Shackled City campaign I have one Paladin of St Cuthbert and an Exalted Deeds Monk/Sorcerer of Pelor in the same group with a very CN (bordering on CE sometimes) Warforged Warblade, a Druid, and a Bard. Seems to be working fine.

[TheWhisper]

I am making a campaign where this is explicitly the case in-universe, where adventurer is not exactly a respectable profession


Errr...Duh.

I have been trying to hammer this point home for ages. Fantasy societies may not be precisely medieval in nature, but to the extent that they are, adventurers are mercenaries, fortune-hunters, and sellswords without ties to family, clan, or liege lord.

As such, they can only ever hope to be esteemed above peasants and the lower class, and that's if they are wealthy and successful. Otherwise they're shabby lowlifes barely distinguishable from bandits.

Nobles, knight, and clergy will pretty much always look down on them, with few exceptions. Remember that status is more important than wealth, and that in an pre-industrial society, both wealth and status attach to ownership and control of land.

Clerics would probably be the only ones who might have any social status (but high-level clerics would not necessarily be high-ranked priests), and high-level wizards might have their own hierarchies pf respect (much in the same way that modern academics do), but everyone else would pretty much be scum unless they conquered or bought their way into a title of nobility.

There might be some exceptions among nonhuman societies; gnomes are far more egalitarian than humans or dwarves, and respect the skilled. Elvish social position doesn't seem to follow any sensible pattern, and they are certainly not in the habit of explaining themselves to outsiders.

But, by and large, adventurers are landless, clanless men, and even those who become wealthy will be treated as such, much in the same way that in our society, the best auto mechanics might prosper, but they would still be auto mechanics, and be looked down on by doctors, lawyers, and engineers.

[Ravens_cry]

The initial expenses of tomb robbing also suggests that many adventurers come from non-inheriting scions of minor nobility. Who else could afford even mundane gear yet have a need to strike out on their own? If you can't make it in the temples and don't have a head for business, go loot some tombs.

[Gnaeus]

Errr...Duh.

I have been trying to hammer this point home for ages. Fantasy societies may not be precisely medieval in nature, but to the extent that they are, adventurers are mercenaries, fortune-hunters, and sellswords without ties to family, clan, or liege lord.

Maybe. Many adventurers work for powerful lords or other established figures. Paladins, fighters, and knights (the class) may in fact be knights (the profession).


As such, they can only ever hope to be esteemed above peasants and the lower class, and that's if they are wealthy and successful. Otherwise they're shabby lowlifes barely distinguishable from bandits.

Nobles, knight, and clergy will pretty much always look down on them, with few exceptions. Remember that status is more important than wealth, and that in an pre-industrial society, both wealth and status attach to ownership and control of land.

Highly, highly setting specific. In early dark ages, a person who can keep the vikings away from your village is the immediate, de facto lord. In late rome, barbarians became emperor through their cleverness and physical strength. Google Maximinus Thrax. In some celtic lands, a trained bard had an honor price equal to a king, but in other times, a minstrel was, as you say, a peasant.



But, by and large, adventurers are landless, clanless men, and even those who become wealthy will be treated as such, much in the same way that in our society, the best auto mechanics might prosper, but they would still be auto mechanics, and be looked down on by doctors, lawyers, and engineers.

By and large, the guy who looks down on Wizards who can rewrite reality quickly gets his backside handed to him for his efforts. He is at least at a distinct disadvantage in any conflict compared to the neighboring lord who treats wizards (and their friends) well.

Also, most D&D lands are based less on the actual middle ages, and more on the fictional middle ages. In those legends, the lucky peasant boy can rise to become king. They are a much more fluid society than actual late medieval society.