PDA

View Full Version : Paladins as villains?



paladinofshojo
2011-09-16, 10:30 PM
I always had the idea of setting a paladin up as the antagonist for my campaign..... When I say antagonist I don't just mean being a religious zealot who sees the PCs as "infidels"..... I want to create a character who could be considered somewhat evil while still maintaining a chivalrous air around him..... incredibly ruthless, suave and cultured.... Of course he's going to be from nobility, so that he'll have a superiority complex, but I also want him coming from a family that is powerful even among noble standings, further inflating his ego. Also a bit of a hypocrite, he doesn't particularly enjoy killing innocents but has no problem with sending his minions forth to do so if it's convenient for him.

He should also have paladin powers....just to be a deconstruction of all that a paladin is. He should be incredibly handsome and charismatic....

I'm having trouble setting up a meeting between the PCs and this villain though......

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-16, 10:31 PM
...It's called paladin of tyranny.

paladinofshojo
2011-09-16, 10:35 PM
...It's called paladin of tyranny.

No, no I don't want him to be LE, I want him to be amoral but still think he's on the good side and have good PR with the population.....

MammonAzrael
2011-09-16, 10:38 PM
No, no I don't want him to be LE, I want him to be amoral but still think he's on the good side and have good PR with the population.....

Do you read Order of the Stick? Because it's a great example of a relevant point: Just because someone thinks she's Lawful Good doesn't make her Lawful Good. She can be as convinced of her goodness as possible, and have the best PR imaginable. But if she isn't acting Lawful Good, then she isn't Lawful Good, and is therefore a fallen paladin.

Now then, what you could do that would fit both the mechanics and the fluff you're looking for is create a Lawful Evil Crusader that believes himself to be all good and holy and such.

EDIT: This is assuming you're talking about a D&D 3.5 paladin.

Fenryr
2011-09-16, 10:38 PM
Make him/her a bit extreme. All evil races should be killed, even when a certain individual doesn't activate the Detect Evil.

You can also make the Paladin the judge/executioner of a NPC the party needs.

paladinofshojo
2011-09-16, 10:44 PM
Do you read Order of the Stick? Because it's a great example of a relevant point: Just because someone thinks she's Lawful Good doesn't make her Lawful Good. She can be as convinced of her goodness as possible, and have the best PR imaginable. But if she isn't acting Lawful Good, then she isn't Lawful Good, and is therefore a fallen paladin.

Now then, what you could do that would fit both the mechanics and the fluff you're looking for is create a Lawful Evil Crusader that believes himself to be all good and holy and such.

EDIT: This is assuming you're talking about a D&D 3.5 paladin.

I'm not looking for a Lawful Stupid Miko clone...... what I am looking for is someone a bit like Jaime Lannister from a Song of Ice and Fire.... a nobleman who although is incredibly amoral and vicious does have several redeeming qualities and that the only reason he's against the PCs is because he's on the other side......



Make him/her a bit extreme. All evil races should be killed, even when a certain individual doesn't activate the Detect Evil.

You can also make the Paladin the judge/executioner of a NPC the party needs.

Yes, I can do that....but the NPC has to be incredibly important or infamous to be caught up with the Paladin....such as a politician or general who's fallen from grace with the powers to be..... the Paladin should be in cahoots with said powers too.... like the king or ruling council of a kingdom....

Mando Knight
2011-09-16, 10:49 PM
No, no I don't want him to be LE, I want him to be amoral but still think he's on the good side and have good PR with the population.....

Not amoral. Even "dark" paladins are required to follow their Code of Conduct. Note that Miko, our lauded example of a Paladin-as-a-villain-done-right, fell when she actually did something Evil, even though she would never have admitted it otherwise.

If you want a Paladin to be presented as the antagonist, starting with making the Chaotic and Evil groups more sympathetic would be the start. Maybe the party is chaotic and/or evil. Maybe they're part of a race that is not too unjustly considered "Always Evil" and is being forcefully contained/exterminated so their marauding packs will cease to interfere with the Paladin's kingdom. Maybe the players need a rare (possibly forbidden) item, but due to the Paladin's crackdowns on illegal activity the local black market is all but nonexistent. Or perhaps the Paladin has been tasked to stop people from accessing the forbidden item because it's extremely dangerous, and he won't take "but we need it" for an excuse.

paladinofshojo
2011-09-16, 10:55 PM
Not amoral. Even "dark" paladins are required to follow their Code of Conduct. Note that Miko, our lauded example of a Paladin-as-a-villain-done-right, fell when she actually did something Evil, even though she would never have admitted it otherwise.

If you want a Paladin to be presented as the antagonist, starting with making the Chaotic and Evil groups more sympathetic would be the start. Maybe the party is chaotic and/or evil. Maybe they're part of a race that is not too unjustly considered "Always Evil" and is being forcefully contained/exterminated so their marauding packs will cease to interfere with the Paladin's kingdom. Maybe the players need a rare (possibly forbidden) item, but due to the Paladin's crackdowns on illegal activity the local black market is all but nonexistent. Or perhaps the Paladin has been tasked to stop people from accessing the forbidden item because it's extremely dangerous, and he won't take "but we need it" for an excuse.


True but if I make him predictable he won't exactly be an interesting or scary villain.... I don't want to put him in a category because I want him to be much more complex than Lawful/Chaotic.... that seriously hinders his ability to function when the players call "He's not Lawful" or "he's not Chaotic"....

flumphy
2011-09-16, 11:00 PM
I'm not looking for a Lawful Stupid Miko clone...... what I am looking for is someone a bit like Jaime Lannister from a Song of Ice and Fire.... a nobleman who although is incredibly amoral and vicious does have several redeeming qualities and that the only reason he's against the PCs is because he's on the other side......


Amorality does not a paladin make. In fact, that's pretty much the antithesis of what a paladin of any stripe is. There's nothing wrong with the character concept; it just goes against the spirit of what a D&D paladin is and arguably can't be a paladin by RAW (again, assuming 3.5).

Perhaps something like a knight or crusader would be more fitting? It sounds like you want something less alignment-dependent anyway, and I'm inclined to agree. Paladins can be morally complex, but that complexity comes from their adherence to a moral code that they champion.

GenericGuy
2011-09-16, 11:11 PM
Maybe make the Paladin aware of his shortcomings and how close he skirts the line between lawful good and lawful neutral, and he even punishes himself for his actions. Most importantly you have to have the Paladin have a rational argument that his actions will lead to a better tomorrow for everyone, not just the ones he serves but even his opponents. You have to have the Paladin have a point and be intelligent enough to explain his actions if you want to avoid the clichéd Miko clone.

Maybe have him part of a “good” Empire expanding into lawless territory of the protagonists, that honestly works to build up education and increase the standard living for those in the territories. But it still means generations underneath a military occupation and the people not being represented by a government of their own until they’re good proper imperial citizens. In fact to add to the conflict, have an opposing (but “bad”) empire fund the rebels in the territory just to weaken the “good” empire. The Paladin cannot in good conscious allow another nation to fall into the evil empire’s sphere of influence and feels compelled to occupy it to prevent it from expanding further.

QuidEst
2011-09-16, 11:13 PM
I'm all for avoiding the standard extreme smite-happy lawful-stupid paladin. Rather than killing directly, work out some sort of crazy brutal Mark of Justice. Perhaps it's a bit beyond what it should be able to do, but he's practiced this- maybe it triggers with every violent action, or even every violent thought. It might wipe a little bit of their memory each time, perhaps, something tied to what they're doing. You're left with a person that has to keep reinventing themselves until they become an absolute pacifist with none of their original self left.

Try not to make him wig out over every Chaotic and/or Evil whatever. Give him a pretty good cause, and give him pretty good reason to disbelieve the PCs when they try to show him where he's wrong. Have him throw back legitimate crimes (most PCs have a laundry list) and blunders (you can help one or two along) that they've made. If he actually persuades /them/, go along with it, but slowly reveal more and more of the extents he goes to reach his goals. It's stuff you'd let out anyways if they were working against him. Subtle stuff is better if you want to make him a memorable villain.

Personally, I'd like him better if he were a little less winning smiles and a little more battle-hardened resolve and leadership. Charisma can take the form of either depending on how you play it, after all.

EDIT: I also think GenericGuy has a good idea.

deuxhero
2011-09-16, 11:35 PM
He's a bounty hunter trying to stop a bunch of murderous hobos rich off their crimes.

Shinizak
2011-09-16, 11:38 PM
You can have it so that the paladin has a vast misunderstanding of what he's doing, have it so that his good actions harm and screw with another population. such as, sending out an army against and "evil" goblin warlord, of course not realizing that his troops are destroying/trampling through the other kingdoms to get there. Even though he's killed the goblin warlord, the goblins are now raiding in smaller, harder to find, precision parties. etc.

just have him be idealistic, but not quick to think about the consequences.

Conners
2011-09-16, 11:59 PM
....A villain paladin? With DnD's definition of Paladin, that is an oxymoron (antagonist is fine, if the players are evil or the paladin mistakes them as evil).

Paladins, by their very nature, are meant to be good. A high standard of good, in fact. Of course... DnD morality is very vague, in a lot of ways, so this doesn't always work out in play.

Example: A lot of paladins are played as being arrogant, ruthless, selfish to their causes (though sometimes a good cause),and stupid. Those guys aren't very good... they're "OK-sorts of guys", but not "good". I've seen Paladins get away with some pretty despicable stuff, with no real justification... so it's often up to the GM's discretion of how good a paladin is, in practice.
So, by this definition of paladin, you cuold make them pretty evil, as long as they say fancy things.

Your BEST solution, however, is homebrewing... I don't mean, "homebrew a class", I mean go into some actual storytelling. You're talking about Game of Thrones, for example, and the story it tells with a evil character who has some redeeming qualities. Maybe in your world, paladins don't have magic because they are good--they have magic because the people think they are good.
Get creative. (http://amazingdata.com/mediadata6/Image/amazing_fun_featured_2702430810104237032S600x600Q8 5_200907231816005726.jpg) Go nuts. (]http://www.tonggarden.co.th/images/news/News201006171276767539.jpg)

Mando Knight
2011-09-17, 12:07 AM
True but if I make him predictable he won't exactly be an interesting or scary villain.... I don't want to put him in a category because I want him to be much more complex than Lawful/Chaotic.... that seriously hinders his ability to function when the players call "He's not Lawful" or "he's not Chaotic"....
And yet, making a legitimately Lawful Good character the antagonist can be so... entertaining.

And prediction by itself does not by itself defuse the threat of an opponent. In fact, you can even turn it on its head. Paladins are supposed to be unstoppable juggernauts... and he may have already seen every trick in the book, every counter, every trap. Trying to fake a surrender? Sense Motive is a class skill. Save-or-Die spells? On top of his ridiculous saves, he may have given himself some immunities. Shapeshift? Item with toggle-able AMF. Warblade levels? A possibility.

Let them feel the terror of a man who believes they have done wrong and will not truly rest until he has brought them down.

bebosteveo
2011-09-17, 12:07 AM
I've seen this done rather well before, and I believe the key is to take a Machiavellian approach to law/morality.

(Yes, I know there's all the controversy and misconceptions about his work. For now lets assume that The Prince was meant to be taken at face value and not start some massive debate on it.)

So the paladin is running his nation and is generally being a "good" leader. He gives aid to the poor, fights off evil creatures at his own expense, and overall improves life for most people. However, if anyone ever steps out of line, he responds in full force as dramatically and strongly possible. And I don't mean murderers and the like: if someone is caught pickpocketing once or doing some minor vandalism he pulls out the smiting and kills them on the spot. Worse crimes get even harsher punishment.

He doesn't do it because he wants to see people suffer or is otherwise cruel. Its just that anyone who breaks any law is opposing his will and threatening his position of authority. And if he loses power then someone who doesn't care for the nation could take over and pursue their own goals. If he doesn't make a grand example of every breach of the law, it shows that people can oppose him without consequence and breed dissent. (which of course will lead to more crime, civil war, and lots of dead civilians for no net benefit to the nation)


In short: Just your typical paladin in a position of authority, but give them a triple shot of righteous vengeance and turn the "punishment of the evil/guilty" up to 11.
Paladin is good -> paladin runs state -> state is good
Person follows law -> person supports state -> person is good -> state gives aid to person
Person breaks law -> person opposes state -> person is not good -> entire system crashes down on person -> remaining citizens do not repeat mistake

Arbane
2011-09-17, 01:04 AM
If you really want the players to hate a Paladin, remember their most powerful class feature: "Cause Thirty-Minute Alignment Debate". :smalltongue:

Agrippa
2011-09-17, 01:37 AM
You could also take a page from the movie The Rock (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheRock) if you like. That'd make your paladin more of an anti-villain, which is as villainous as a paladin should get at most, as far as I'm concerned.

SowZ
2011-09-17, 03:39 PM
True but if I make him predictable he won't exactly be an interesting or scary villain.... I don't want to put him in a category because I want him to be much more complex than Lawful/Chaotic.... that seriously hinders his ability to function when the players call "He's not Lawful" or "he's not Chaotic"....

Ever read Goblinscomic? There is a Paladin named Kor who counts himself as 'good' even though he is completely evil. His class is Paladin. He mantains it because, presumably, his gods accept that behavior and view themselves as good.

Aneurin
2011-09-17, 05:08 PM
If it were me using a paladin as a villain?

I'd have him pretty much striving towards an "ultimate good", and doing whatever it takes to get to that goal. Maybe taking the long road as to what is good and right, rather than the short one.

For example, he might essentially abduct torture thousands of people to death, and vivisect them (it's like dissecting, but they do it when you're still alive), all to advance the cause of medicine and the understanding of anatomy, for a net benefit. Heck, it'd even work (it did in real life, a lot of cultures did it at one point or another, typically to condemned criminals).

This isn't to say that the character cannot be as kind and generous and whatnot as he can be - "I'm truly sorry, but this is a good death. You die for your people. You die that so many others may live," - but still be single minded and doing something viewed by most people as being fundamentally wrong, while still being able to lay claim to a Lawful Good alignment.


That's my view, anyway. I'm always kinda loose when it comes to interpreting morality - generally I ignore it, or go by the societal view, unless the character's personal philosophy and goals is radically different to the societal reaction of the society that I live in.

(I'm not going to say anything further about alignment now for fear of dereailing the thread, so don't ask me about it)

Crasical
2011-09-17, 05:14 PM
I always had the idea of setting a paladin up as the antagonist for my campaign.

Okay.


When I say antagonist I don't just mean being a religious zealot who sees the PCs as "infidels"..... I want to create a character who could be considered somewhat evil while still maintaining a chivalrous air around him, incredibly ruthless, suave and cultured.... Of course he's going to be from nobility, so that he'll have a superiority complex, but I also want him coming from a family that is powerful even among noble standings, further inflating his ego. Also a bit of a hypocrite, he doesn't particularly enjoy killing innocents but has no problem with sending his minions forth to do so if it's convenient for him.

He should also have paladin powers....just to be a deconstruction of all that a paladin is. He should be incredibly handsome and charismatic....

I'm having trouble setting up a meeting between the PCs and this villain though......

That's a problem. Paladins can be powerful, chivalrous, suave, cultured, handsome and charismatic. They can even be ruthless in their pursuit of evil. But you want him to be hypocrite, and a 'deconstruction' of what a Paladin is. And with those you've fallen too far from the tree of what 'paladin' can be, since they either gain power from their gods or the very concept of law and good.

The ways that a Paladin usually becomes an antagonist is if the PCs are chaotic or evil, or the Paladin is zealous enough to jump on the PCs for minor infractions. What have your PCs done that would legitimately get a paladin after them?

EDIT: alternatively, have him be a Cleric instead of a Paladin. You can get the same charismatic holy knight flavor without the alignment restrictions, and can still have him be a somewhat tainted follower of a LG god.

Slipperychicken
2011-09-17, 05:36 PM
You could have something equivalent to Indulgences to let him get away with the occasional questionable act. Basically payment in money/goods/service to the church so they clear his soul of wrongdoing. Could also be a boon for the PCs (give them a realistic way out if they screw up, justifies the go-do-X-to-lift-the-bounty-off-your-head quests), although the payments would increase dramatically if they start abusing it.

Coidzor
2011-09-17, 05:46 PM
The main problem I see here is player-flak for having a situation worse than Miko that still gets Paladin powers. Especially if any of them have ever played or wanted to play a Paladin themselves.

Killing innocents is killing innocents and generally taken to be an auto-fall, regardless of whether he doesn't enjoy it when he's doing it himself or paying someone else to do it for him.

And if it's a Paladin that's not beholden to Gooder than Good and so on, then he answer of whether they can be villains is patently obvious, take snobbish ****** nobs and bully martial types and mix together to taste and voila.


I'm not looking for a Lawful Stupid Miko clone...... what I am looking for is someone a bit like Jaime Lannister from a Song of Ice and Fire.... a nobleman who although is incredibly amoral and vicious does have several redeeming qualities and that the only reason he's against the PCs is because he's on the other side......

I can't find a rubber stamp big enough for the "YMMV" for using that incestuous character as an example.

It really sounds like you don't want a Paladin at all. You want one of the fictional Cesare Borgias. Possibly combined with some of the Templar from Assassin's Creed.


Warblade levels? A possibility..

Ok, now this you've got to explain. How is an opponent possessing warblade levels a weakness that a paladin can exploit? Or are you saying to use Warblade levels instead?

NMBLNG
2011-09-17, 05:57 PM
First, whenever you say 'paladin' on most RPG forums, you get a lot of extra paladin baggage that you may not have intended to bring along. That said, your concept cannot work under the rule set of D&D 3.5. So we'll just have to break some rules.

The easiest way I can think of putting the characters against a paladin is if they have an evil or at least morally ambiguous goal. Paladin wants to destroy the big evil magic, players want to use it for personal gain, restore a loved one to life, kill another evil, etc. The paladin has a goal, which interferes with the player's goal.

WitchSlayer
2011-09-17, 06:25 PM
Honestly? A fighter or crusader for 3.5 or an Avenger for 4e might be more what you're looking for here.

Mando Knight
2011-09-17, 07:28 PM
Ok, now this you've got to explain. How is an opponent possessing warblade levels a weakness that a paladin can exploit?

I meant it as a trick that the paladin could exploit... by taking Warblade levels. He might not be a full initiator, but strategic use of a couple choice maneuvers (especially when the enemy doesn't realize he has any initiator levels) could prove a significant advantage... or at least more of a one than those dead Paladin levels.

Iceforge
2011-09-17, 07:49 PM
I always had the idea of setting a paladin up as the antagonist for my campaign..... When I say antagonist I don't just mean being a religious zealot who sees the PCs as "infidels"..... I want to create a character who could be considered somewhat evil while still maintaining a chivalrous air around him..... incredibly ruthless, suave and cultured.... Of course he's going to be from nobility, so that he'll have a superiority complex, but I also want him coming from a family that is powerful even among noble standings, further inflating his ego. Also a bit of a hypocrite, he doesn't particularly enjoy killing innocents but has no problem with sending his minions forth to do so if it's convenient for him.

He should also have paladin powers....just to be a deconstruction of all that a paladin is. He should be incredibly handsome and charismatic....

I'm having trouble setting up a meeting between the PCs and this villain though......

Sir Jamie from the 1st Season of Game of Thrones fits the bill pretty accuratedly.

He is charming, good looking, comes from a powerful family that is well respected even amongst other nobles, he appreciates honour highly, even so much as to smash one of his men for ruining an honourable duel he was about to loose.

As he is not the leader of his house, he is part of a family which sends soldiers to kill innocents, but as his loyalty lies strongly to his house, he accepts that happening.

AMFV
2011-09-17, 08:48 PM
I always had the idea of setting a paladin up as the antagonist for my campaign..... When I say antagonist I don't just mean being a religious zealot who sees the PCs as "infidels"..... I want to create a character who could be considered somewhat evil while still maintaining a chivalrous air around him..... incredibly ruthless, suave and cultured.... Of course he's going to be from nobility, so that he'll have a superiority complex, but I also want him coming from a family that is powerful even among noble standings, further inflating his ego. Also a bit of a hypocrite, he doesn't particularly enjoy killing innocents but has no problem with sending his minions forth to do so if it's convenient for him.

He should also have paladin powers....just to be a deconstruction of all that a paladin is. He should be incredibly handsome and charismatic....

I'm having trouble setting up a meeting between the PCs and this villain though......

Well the issue is that in D&D, a Paladin is a representation of the forces of good and law. What you're looking to deconstruct is the perception of Paladins or possibly the idea that people can be good, which is a far far worse thing. To have a Paladin (at least one in the traditional sense) be other than good is an attempt to deconstruct the very idea of good. Now there are worlds without morality, D&D is not one of them. A Paladin cannot by definition be amoral, therefore a deconstruction of a Paladin should represent the flaws in the idea of Paladin.
How you ask, well give the Paladin flaws, make him an alcoholic, or a deadbeat, or a somebody who likes to kill. Give him something to struggle against so that his morality means something. But to deconstruct the idea of good itself is a very difficult and philosophically involved principle. I personally would not play with somebody that tried to in essence break the game world in that way, and I am concerned that some of your players might feel the same way. Now you could have an LE antipaladin who still believed himself to be a paladin, or a CE antipaladin, who hid his chaos under a veneer so that he could get away with his vile and heinous crimes (after all chaotic evil isn't chaotic stupid anymore than lawful good is lawful stupid, and even CE people are capable of complex plains and ruses). But in game terms you cannot make someone good who is not.

vhfforever
2011-09-17, 09:00 PM
Give him levels in the Grey Guard prestige class. All of the benefits of a Paladin, with the capability to 'bend the rules' when he's going out and getting the job done. This can easily turn into a trouble for the PC's, moreso if they're the targets of his rule-bending.

TheNuttyAlakazm
2011-09-17, 09:37 PM
There's the Imperial Knights from the star wars comics they're the same in almost every way to the Jedi of the new republic except they side with the empire in other words they're Lawful Good working for the Lawful Evil

Throgg
2011-09-17, 09:43 PM
All of this makes me think of Colonel Kurtz from the film 'Apocalypse Now'. It wouldn't be hard to alter his type slightly to make him a righteous paladin gone too far over the edge.

Maybe not exactly what you were looking for, but I think a valid contribution to the "paladins as villains" genre. :D

Bad Luck
2011-09-17, 09:51 PM
Been a *long* *long* time since I posted on these forums, but the subject matter made me want to post because I've been building a sort of semi-grey paladin in 4e, which seems to only care that the paladin follows the alignment of the god. Anyways some discussions along these lines have come up already so I've given it some thought and maybe this will be useful.

As a roleplayer, and as a game designer, the #1 problem I've had with paladins from AD&D through 3.5. is the ability to "detect evil". I've never had an issue with the alignment restriction, but detect evil, outside of flavor reasons, has sort of created this expectation that the Paladin always knows who is evil and who is not and thus, they don't need to question themselves as they are going around committing mass murder.

I think ultimately, that taking this away in 4e is a great thing, because a) you don't have to worry about the paladin carrying a vendetta into the party or against monsters based on what, is, by and large a stat, but B) the paladin now has a responsibility to act based on what people DO. (And I say that Alignment is essentially a stat... if you have a thief who is morally evil but isn't a problem, why would the Paladin have to smite him? And what about converting him?)

You guys were bringing up who would be an example of a noble "amoral" Paladin. - I think a perfect example is Marvel's Magneto. (not movie Magneto, he was a bit too harsh imo)

Magneto is basically driven by a couple goals, and he's stated this several times - he wants persecution of his kind to stop, and he wants a world utopia (humans and mutants both, but under his rule). He wavers from time to time in how he achieves this goal, but generally he works the following the following ways:

1. He sets up passive control - denying people freedom to communicate, use weapons, use powers
2. He performs miracle events - he rescues people, he saves the innocent (in this case, his chosen mutants, but occasionally he saves humans too) - he provides technology to improve quality of life and defends those who choose to follow him
3. He performs an a "terrorist" or "horrific" act which usually breaks down as either a retaliation for an attack on him, or a "pre-emptive assault" (he's got a mad-on for missile bases) - He destroyed an entire city, for example, but he did it in such a way that everyone inside the city had time to evacuate and left zero casualities.

The key being, most of the time, Magneto has rules. He also tends to keep his word and strikes not to kill but to incapacitate, except when he's being totally crazy, but that's considered out of character for him.. it's like - "uh oh... you made him angry!'

I think this is something that Paladin's sort of have to do though - they need to live by some sort of code. I think the problem with using Jaime as an example is that even though he has a formal code when it comes to combat, he's broken his own oaths. I think the thing with Paladins is that if they are going to act "honorably" then their "honor" needs to be measurable. The character WILL do these, but not do these things. The PC's need to die because they are a threat to the state. If some innocent people have to get hurt, or even die, to get PC's, that's for the greater good.

I think the thing about making the honorable Villain is that you have to make him just tempting enough that the PC's might actually consider him an ally.

Questions like "If we kill this guy, is it actually a good thing?" are good moral questions to pose to players. When they can find the right answers, then everyone wins. And maybe the best decision, the best way to win, isn't to fight at all - until the next time the villain meddles in their affairs.

EnglishKitsune
2011-09-17, 09:55 PM
I'd recommend basing such a character as the same archetype of The Operative from Serenity/Firefly. He isn't a true commander, because that would be vain, instead he believes in the idea of what the actual Commander is doing. He wants a perfect world even if that means to do so he'd be unable to live in it. He's honorable, kind, and you'd never really be able to hate the guy. It's just that he has different views.

This also works in the sense of as he's not sitting on a high throne, rather taking orders from it, he can appear more personally to the players in more situations. He could even save them from a band of goblins etc and they get along quite well until they reach the destination, wherein it's revealed that their actually on opposite sides and he kills the person the players were meeting etc.

navar100
2011-09-17, 11:14 PM
If a PC paladin were to go around killing every pickpocket he meets or slaughter every goblin on sight or otherwise bully people around because he's a "Righteous Paladin", you know as DM you'd make him fall so hard he'd go all the way to China, so why should this be ok behavior for an NPC Paladin just because you want him to be a villain and remain a Paladin?

If the party is not evil or otherwise not commiting crimes a Paladin is just not going to bother them. At best the Paladin is a rival. If the party has a choice of two adventures, the Paladin took the one the party didn't. Perhaps they have the same goal, but if the party doesn't complete it in a certain amount of time, the Paladin and his crew achieves it first and gets the accolades. Perhaps there's a quest for some McGuffin. No calamity befalls if you don't get it, but it brings Glory and/or Great Help to acquire it. The Paladin leads or is part of a team of a rival (church, adventuring group, nation, etc.) that wants the McGuffin too.

If the party is non-evil, the Paladin is not a villian to be vanquished or killed. It is possible the Paladin can recognize the party is non-evil but just opposes the means of which the party achieves its goals, considering them dishonorable or lazy. This Paladin does not join the chorus of NPCs praising the party's accomplishments. The Paladin might lecture the party upon meeting them. The Paladin will try to pursuade the King or local Nobles not to use the party for various tasks. If the party needs to negotiate or work with the local thieves' guild, the Paladin coincidentally is running a raid against the thieves' guild making the party's job more difficult.

Golden Ladybug
2011-09-18, 02:19 AM
Well, recently, I have been using a Paladin as an Antagonist for my PCs. The Game we're playing is somewhat complex, so I'll spoiler it for those who don't want to read

The story takes place in a very large, very populated city, taking place around 200 years on from the 'normal' timeline of D&D, if that makes sense? Anyway, this City was formed a long time ago for those who weren't blessed with superhuman agility, or empowered by gods and demons, to live in relative safety from the powerful creatures that roam the world. After an incredibly powerful demonic being impinged on our reality from a different plane, and the vast majority of good and evil beings of signifigant power sacrificed themselves to defeat it, this city (did I mention it was very large?) became a major center of population on this particular continent. The PCs belong to a powerful gang that controls the slums of the city, who are constantly trying to keep control against the hundreds of other small gangs that try to take their place. Humans rule the higher levels of society, and unless you happen to be amazingly good at something, you're stuck in the slums if you're nonhuman.

Anyway, after the King of this city dies, leaving no heir, the PCs have the chance to strike out and try and take control of the city themselves. Doing so brings them into opposition with their previous employer and his allies, the rival power bases that also want to control the monarchy, and, more relevantly, the City Watch, who want to keep order

So, the Leader of the City Watch that the PCs are brought into conflict with is a Paladin (in-story, the Last Paladin of Honor). He is tough as nails, and because the PCs are criminals at best, he will take them on if the need arises. He knows that the PCs aren't the biggest threat though, and is willing to let them be if they aren't being a problem.

Even so, the PCs need to do things that bring them into conflict with this Paladin. So, even though they're not "Evil!" evil, they stand in a particularly dark shade of grey. But, by the same token, the Paladin is a Cop who is willing to do whatever it takes to put the City he patrols back on the path to good; even if it means defeating the PCs and every other group that opposes him and taking control of the City himself.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, a Paladin can work as a 'Villian' only when doing so can be construed as being for a greater good at the end. A decadent, look-the-other-way-so-its-not-my-fault kinda guy who has good PR and nice white teeth wouldn't fly as a Paladin if I was DMing. But a good intentioned guy who does some morally questionable things all in the name of making the world a better place? That could be a thing right there.

horngeek
2011-09-18, 02:35 AM
There's the Imperial Knights from the star wars comics they're the same in almost every way to the Jedi of the new republic except they side with the empire in other words they're Lawful Good working for the Lawful Evil

Fel's Empire is LN, though, and the Imperial Knights as an organisation are LN as well (sure, there are LG members among them, but they have their highest loyalty as the Emperor, not the Force or whatever).

TheNuttyAlakazm
2011-09-18, 07:11 AM
Fel's Empire is LN, though, and the Imperial Knights as an organisation are LN as well (sure, there are LG members among them, but they have their highest loyalty as the Emperor, not the Force or whatever).

Ok i was off on the alignments but they're still paladins that fight the republic simply for being on the other side

Forum Explorer
2011-09-18, 07:30 AM
Basically you want a magnificent Bastard Paladin? Hard but here is an idea

He doesn't openly oppose the PCs. He in fact hires them or rather conscripts them. He knows what crimes they've committed and he makes them 'redeem' themselves by working for him. He never goes along with them on the missions and therefore can send them to commit crimes, steal and murder without falling. The PCs are forced into stealing artifacts for him, eliminating his political rivals, even setting up a gang under his indirect control. Eventually the PCs learn the paladin is trying to overthrow the king so he can rule 'for the greater good' afterwards he will dispose of the PCs for knowing too much and committing those crimes.

Steward
2011-09-18, 10:00 AM
I agree with the ones who say that you will probably rely on house rules to manage an LG Paladin as a villain rather than as a rival or an antagonist. I really like the idea above about the manipulative Paladin but I don't see how he could keep his powers within the original rules -- the gods aren't going to buy the whole, "Sure, I might have ordered that massacre but I didn't do it personally so technically it's all good." Even real-life legal authorities don't fall for that nonsense; a Celestial would pop in to knock his butt back down to Fighter-without-bonus-feats faster than you can say, "Miyazaki". You have to bend things a little bit -- which you can do, of course, since you're the DM!

Urpriest
2011-09-18, 10:23 AM
Reading the OP, it seems like what you want is less a Paladin that opposes the PCs for righteous reasons/misguidedness/etc. (i.e., because he is a Paladin), and more for unrelated, neutral reasons. You provide the example of Jaime Lannister.

First, 3.5's Paladin is definitely going to have a harder time with this than the Knight or the Crusader, just because of how they're set up. That said, the whole reason a character like Jaime works is because of the importance of family in his world. One often underused idea is that good beings oppose the PCs not because the PCs are evil or the good beings are misguided, but for family reasons. I could see this guy as a legitimately good person, or at least good enough that he can remain a Paladin. But because his family is opposed to what the PCs are doing, or he swore an oath to obey his liege-lord, or the like, he will oppose them in the most efficient ways he can. This would work best in a game where neither the PCs nor the villains have "evil" or "good" goals, but instead have goals involving loyalty to their respective sides.

Your Paladin likely won't use torture or deception. He's not going to hurt people for pleasure, or because he can, or even for personal gain. But he can certainly still be a villain.

Human Paragon 3
2011-09-18, 04:34 PM
Use a Knight instead?

If Jaime Lannister were a Paladin, he would have fallen at the start of GoT and never atoned.

SowZ
2011-09-18, 04:52 PM
Fel's Empire is LN, though, and the Imperial Knights as an organisation are LN as well (sure, there are LG members among them, but they have their highest loyalty as the Emperor, not the Force or whatever).

The Republic during the clone wars were LE as well. It's easier to make a case of evil alignment for almost every organization in the SW universe then it is to justify even a third of them as good.

SiuiS
2011-09-18, 05:11 PM
There is a feat in the Rokugan campaign setting book called perceived honor. It has a sidebar for use in alignment games, and changes the feat name to Percieved Alignment. You can take it twice, and each one let's you hold an alignment one step away from your actual alignment.

Give him the feat twice, and he can e LE, while still qualifying as LG. So long as he pretends to be LG in front of everyone, he will keep all of his paladin benefits. If he ever admits he is being evil though, the feats wear off and he loses his paladin status.

Hope that helps a little bit. It adds a whole slew of moral ambiguity to otherwise very obviously aligned characters.

Mando Knight
2011-09-18, 07:33 PM
The Republic during the clone wars were LE as well.
That's ridiculously debatable. The Jedi and the clones by and large weren't evil. Yeah, the Republic did some vile things during the war, and their head of state was Palpatine, but it's a "civil" war orchestrated by one of the most evil megalomaniacs in the history of the galaxy. I'd say the GAR was LN, and the Jedi and Senate were what Jedi and politicians always are: all over the map.

cthulhubear
2011-09-18, 10:20 PM
I have an idea, but it may only make sense if you don't think about it :smallbiggrin:

The Paladin had defeated a super powerful creature (trying to keep it generic here) He got a wish as a result, and said he wanted to become the ultimate good. He got his wish, but he became so good that everyone else looked like complete monsters to him. Thus, his goal now is to cleanse the world of evil, which is quite literally everything to him.

Rixx
2011-09-18, 10:54 PM
Make him a Cavalier instead.

Forum Explorer
2011-09-18, 11:02 PM
I agree with the ones who say that you will probably rely on house rules to manage an LG Paladin as a villain rather than as a rival or an antagonist. I really like the idea above about the manipulative Paladin but I don't see how he could keep his powers within the original rules -- the gods aren't going to buy the whole, "Sure, I might have ordered that massacre but I didn't do it personally so technically it's all good." Even real-life legal authorities don't fall for that nonsense; a Celestial would pop in to knock his butt back down to Fighter-without-bonus-feats faster than you can say, "Miyazaki". You have to bend things a little bit -- which you can do, of course, since you're the DM!

He doesn't have to actually order the massacre. He just puts you in a situation where your best option is to commit the massacre.

tribble
2011-09-18, 11:38 PM
All of this makes me think of Colonel Kurtz from the film 'Apocalypse Now'. It wouldn't be hard to alter his type slightly to make him a righteous paladin gone too far over the edge.

Maybe not exactly what you were looking for, but I think a valid contribution to the "paladins as villains" genre. :D

Y U No Read Heart of Darkness?


Anyway, no knight-templar thread would be complete without this guy:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100612202611/disney/images/b/b0/Claude_Frollo.jpg

joe
2011-09-19, 01:00 AM
I think the best way to do this personally would be to make two kingdoms that are lawful good/lawful neutral, but with a significant reason for being against each other. Perhaps they were both part of a single empire that split up due to a dispute in who the next ruler was to be. Despite similar alignments, perhaps the two sides have significant differences in politics, or perhaps they're simply two different kingdoms who both want what's best for their people, but feel that the opposing kingdom is oppressing them in some way. Perhaps going here might be of assistance. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodVersusGood)

Whichever side the PCs take in this conflict, have the paladin take the other. If he uses his loyalty to his kingdom and state religion to justify his actions, then he can be a significant antagonist while still being at core, a lawful good character.

If I was going to make a paladin who was also the antagonist, I would do everything to make him not come off as amoral at all. Make the PCs feel bad that he is their enemy. If the PCs see a man that under different circumstances, would likely be their ally, it will make it all the harder for them to handle him as their enemy. If they're sufficiently good, than even defeating him they would probably show him some set of mercy.

A good example of the top of my head is General Leo from FF6.

Coidzor
2011-09-19, 04:21 AM
He doesn't have to actually order the massacre. He just puts you in a situation where your best option is to commit the massacre.

Kind of a reach there for that to be any different, especially given intent and making a habit of such and so on.


But because his family is opposed to what the PCs are doing, or he swore an oath to obey his liege-lord, or the like, he will oppose them in the most efficient ways he can. This would work best in a game where neither the PCs nor the villains have "evil" or "good" goals, but instead have goals involving loyalty to their respective sides.

Paladins still don't work well as vassals, since they either choose good and disobedience or fall when they're called upon whether to choose to follow their master or be Paladins.

At least, Paladins with anything that differentiates them from anyone else who can hit things with sticks, anyway.

And as said, sure, you can tweak the rules, or rather, cheat to arbitrarily lock him into Paladinhood despite not being a Paladin in any meaningful way in terms of his character, but that's going to create friction with the players themselves if any of them ever cared about paladins one way or the other.

Roderick_BR
2011-09-19, 07:55 AM
No, no I don't want him to be LE, I want him to be amoral but still think he's on the good side and have good PR with the population.....
What exactly are you looking for? In common D&D rules, you need to actually be LG to be a paladin, else you can't be one. You want something , say, LN with a good reputation of being LG, you could do it, but normal paladin rules won't apply, unless you house rule it.
Options are knights (Players Handbook 2), crusaders (Tome of battle, though they too can't be partly neutral), or the Gray Guard (don't know where it's from) that may be what you are looking for.

hamishspence
2011-09-19, 08:22 AM
The "darkest" conventional LG paladins, are Grey Guards (Complete Scoundrel) and Shadowbane Inquisitors (Complete Adventurer).

Grey Guards can commit minor evil acts in the line of duty- and if low level, atonement spells cast on them cost the caster no XP, and if maximum level in the PRC, their evil acts don't cause them to Fall at all.

Shadowbane inquisitors have, as a doctrine, the principle that it is better to sacrifice a townful of innocents, than let a demon roam free- and retain their PRC abilities even if they Fall.

flumphy
2011-09-19, 09:53 AM
Grey Guards can commit minor evil acts in the line of duty- and if low level, atonement spells cast on them cost the caster no XP, and if maximum level in the PRC, their evil acts don't cause them to Fall at all.

Also, it's explicitly stated that the exception only applies to "acts intended to further the cause of the righteousness and the gray guard's faith." A selfish evil act or an action that opposes his faith's tenets will cause him to fall just like any other paladin.

hamishspence
2011-09-19, 09:59 AM
True- I figured "in the line of duty" summed it up.

Forum Explorer
2011-09-19, 11:15 AM
Kind of a reach there for that to be any different, especially given intent and making a habit of such and so on.




I'd say the whole concept of having a good manipulative paladin like Jamie Lanisster to be the villain to a good party is a reach anyways. Honestly the best way to do it is to take a class like knight and have him be the head of the paladin order anyways.

Urpriest
2011-09-19, 06:15 PM
Paladins still don't work well as vassals, since they either choose good and disobedience or fall when they're called upon whether to choose to follow their master or be Paladins.

At least, Paladins with anything that differentiates them from anyone else who can hit things with sticks, anyway.

And as said, sure, you can tweak the rules, or rather, cheat to arbitrarily lock him into Paladinhood despite not being a Paladin in any meaningful way in terms of his character, but that's going to create friction with the players themselves if any of them ever cared about paladins one way or the other.

A Paladin's Code of Conduct:


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

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Must respect legitimate authority: check, easily.
Can't lie, cheat, use poison: sure. Villains don't need to do any of these things.
Help those in need: Jaime's family needs his strong sword arm to stay relevant and protect the realm.
Punish those who harm or threaten innocents: even good PCs can defend people who aren't innocent. The Paladin's targets could be culpable of harming or threatening innocents, and the PCs could have reason (even, again, national loyalty) to protect such people.

Finally, must be Lawful Good. This is more ambiguous, since alignment is defined over a slew of books. But being the opponent of a good party doesn't seem to require anything that's mutually exclusive with a Lawful Good alignment, even on a non-Knight Templar. I'll defer to Hamishpence for this though, as he's much more well-read on alignment than I am.

Coidzor
2011-09-19, 09:27 PM
Finally, must be Lawful Good. This is more ambiguous, since alignment is defined over a slew of books. But being the opponent of a good party doesn't seem to require anything that's mutually exclusive with a Lawful Good alignment, even on a non-Knight Templar. I'll defer to Hamishpence for this though, as he's much more well-read on alignment than I am.

And sending people to slaughter innocents or accepting the despoilment and rape of the people of one's own nation on the part of one's men fulfill that on either the OP's or Jamie's part how, exactly?

Simply being a commander of cavalry and ever doing any kind of real raiding and all that entails would cause one to fall.


I'd say the whole concept of having a good manipulative paladin like Jamie Lanisster to be the villain to a good party is a reach anyways. Honestly the best way to do it is to take a class like knight and have him be the head of the paladin order anyways.

Well, thinking Jamie Lanisster could be conceived of as a Paladin is less a reach and more a leap. No one in that setting could be interpreted as being Good as far as I've been able to determine from what I've read and what others have said on the subject.

hamishspence
2011-09-20, 04:38 AM
Finally, must be Lawful Good. This is more ambiguous, since alignment is defined over a slew of books. But being the opponent of a good party doesn't seem to require anything that's mutually exclusive with a Lawful Good alignment, even on a non-Knight Templar. I'll defer to Hamishpence for this though, as he's much more well-read on alignment than I am.

Exemplars of Evil discusses "nonevil villains"- these tend to be deluded but basically kind. The example it gave was of a CG person who believes that the death penalty is innately immoral- so they break prisoners out of jail. Unfortunately said prisoners tend to carry on with what got them jailed in the first place.

BoVD and BoED discussed what happens when two good nations go to war- and suggested that while players need to be very careful, it might not be evil to kill another good person in battle if your nation is at war with theirs.

so- "Good vs good" clashes are possible.

paddyfool
2011-09-20, 05:12 AM
The only way I've ever seen this done well at all was Kore from Goblins. And it works, in the story, precisely because it's playing on the fact that it really shouldn't work.

Many players would be driven absolutely nuts by this (unless, perhaps, they're Goblins fans, and the reference was made obvious).

I do like the idea of being up against a Paladin in a good vs good conflict. Hell, you could easily have Paladins on both sides in many wars.

Urpriest
2011-09-20, 09:30 AM
And sending people to slaughter innocents or accepting the despoilment and rape of the people of one's own nation on the part of one's men fulfill that on either the OP's or Jamie's part how, exactly?

Simply being a commander of cavalry and ever doing any kind of real raiding and all that entails would cause one to fall.


Firstly, I certainly don't think Jaime Lannister himself could have been a paladin, at least not after Bran's fall, and probably long before.

Slaughtering innocents is probably evil, yes, the word innocents tends to get used a lot in alignment definitions so I'm not going to contest you on that. The villain's enemies, again, don't need to be innocent. Giving aid and succor to a rebellion is a crime. On a less knight-templar level, if the villain focuses on killing enemy combatants then I think it's very hard to argue that anyone he kills is innocent. They're people with swords in hand trying to kill him.

Rape and despoilment (and the "all that entails" you seem to be referring to) are unlikely to come up in many games. D&D, by its superhuman, abstracted nature, does poorly with gritty games that actually explore the real moral depths of historical war.

The OP has some misconceptions about how this could work. But I think that without those misconceptions you can still get an interesting Paladin villain who isn't a Knight Templar, but is simply opposing the PCs because his nation is conquering theirs.

Amphetryon
2011-09-20, 11:03 AM
Exemplars of Evil discusses "nonevil villains"- these tend to be deluded but basically kind. The example it gave was of a CG person who believes that the death penalty is innately immoral- so they break prisoners out of jail. Unfortunately said prisoners tend to carry on with what got them jailed in the first place.

BoVD and BoED discussed what happens when two good nations go to war- and suggested that while players need to be very careful, it might not be evil to kill another good person in battle if your nation is at war with theirs.

so- "Good vs good" clashes are possible.
Just sort of riffing on this idea to try to fit the OP's stated goal:

Paladin and his troops are sent marching off to neighboring country, with whom Paladin's native country is at war. Via whatever plot mechanism is convenient, Paladin's ability to communicate at range with his liege is compromised. While Paladin is marching off to fight the good fight for Pelor and country, Paladin's liege dies and, at the hand of liege's successor, a treaty is signed - and Paladin does not know it. Paladin has legitimate reason to doubt the word of the successor, and will not accept the word of any but his now deceased liege that the war is over. He continues to wage war, following the last legitimate orders he's aware of, despite protestations of those on whom he and his men are waging war.

Cue debate on whether Paladin falls for this behavior. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2011-09-20, 11:48 AM
Tricky. Some DMs might go with "unwitting evil acts- thus fall", others might take the view that since the paladin has legitimate grounds for his actions, he can do them, at least at first, without falling.

FatJose
2011-09-20, 12:07 PM
I always had the idea of setting a paladin up as the antagonist for my campaign..... When I say antagonist I don't just mean being a religious zealot who sees the PCs as "infidels"..... I want to create a character who could be considered somewhat evil while still maintaining a chivalrous air around him..... incredibly ruthless, suave and cultured.... Of course he's going to be from nobility, so that he'll have a superiority complex, but I also want him coming from a family that is powerful even among noble standings, further inflating his ego. Also a bit of a hypocrite, he doesn't particularly enjoy killing innocents but has no problem with sending his minions forth to do so if it's convenient for him.

He should also have paladin powers....just to be a deconstruction of all that a paladin is. He should be incredibly handsome and charismatic....

I'm having trouble setting up a meeting between the PCs and this villain though......

I don't see that being a paladin. Unless it's 4th edition. Just have him meeet the PCs like any tyrant would.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-20, 12:12 PM
I don't see that being a paladin. Unless it's 4th edition. Just have him meeet the PCs like any tyrant would.

If it was 4e, it would be a paladin of Bane. Which is basically a Paladin of Tyranny.

hamishspence
2011-09-20, 12:16 PM
Blackguard of Domination (Heroes of Shadow) could fit as well.

Mando Knight
2011-09-20, 01:27 PM
Cue debate on whether Paladin falls for this behavior. :smalltongue:
He falls for being an absolute moron. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, if you're fighting a war, you should first have your own leadership in order, and keep communication lines open. You cannot win a war if your country does not support you, and many times you will need the information passed on from other leaders in order to make the correct decision on how to proceed.

Amphetryon
2011-09-20, 01:54 PM
He falls for being an absolute moron. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, if you're fighting a war, you should first have your own leadership in order, and keep communication lines open. You cannot win a war if your country does not support you, and many times you will need the information passed on from other leaders in order to make the correct decision on how to proceed.
Battle of New Orleans in US history was famously fought after the treaty was signed.

There are several stories of WW2 fighters from various countries who had missions in the jungle and simply never got word the war was over, some until several years after the fact.

Situations change rapidly.

Mando Knight
2011-09-20, 05:29 PM
Battle of New Orleans in US history was famously fought after the treaty was signed.

There are several stories of WW2 fighters from various countries who had missions in the jungle and simply never got word the war was over, some until several years after the fact.
Those were different. IIRC, the battle of New Orleans occurred partly because the news simply hadn't reached the combatants yet. The WWII guys also stopped once they had people who were recognizable as authorities come and stop them. In this example, he's getting that order, but refusing it outright instead of verifying it. That's a failure in leadership.

Amphetryon
2011-09-20, 06:14 PM
Those were different. IIRC, the battle of New Orleans occurred partly because the news simply hadn't reached the combatants yet. The WWII guys also stopped once they had people who were recognizable as authorities come and stop them. In this example, he's getting that order, but refusing it outright instead of verifying it. That's a failure in leadership.

With whom would he verify it in hostile territory, given a distrust of the current authority that the scenario says is justified? The WWII guys continued, in some cases, for years; a D&D adventurer with the default 4 encounters/day hits epic levels in less than 6 months. It's certainly a viable justification within the limited window a default campaign setup has.

Haarkla
2011-09-21, 05:04 AM
Also a bit of a hypocrite, he doesn't particularly enjoy killing innocents but has no problem with sending his minions forth to do so if it's convenient for him.
Would fall like a ton of bricks. Clearly Lawful Evil.

LordLocke
2011-09-22, 05:12 AM
I always had the idea of setting a paladin up as the antagonist for my campaign..... When I say antagonist I don't just mean being a religious zealot who sees the PCs as "infidels"..... I want to create a character who could be considered somewhat evil while still maintaining a chivalrous air around him..... incredibly ruthless, suave and cultured.... Of course he's going to be from nobility, so that he'll have a superiority complex, but I also want him coming from a family that is powerful even among noble standings, further inflating his ego. Also a bit of a hypocrite, he doesn't particularly enjoy killing innocents but has no problem with sending his minions forth to do so if it's convenient for him.

He should also have paladin powers....just to be a deconstruction of all that a paladin is. He should be incredibly handsome and charismatic....

I'm having trouble setting up a meeting between the PCs and this villain though......

The main problem is that this isn't a paladin- at least not the 3.5 Default Paladin. Pretty much all the points you mentioned would be fine for him to have until you have him (or his henchmen) killing innocents for convenience for himself. That's pretty un-Paladin and a spectacularly hard fall.

So why not keep all the points you mentioned before that, but put him in a position opposed to the PCs. The Paladin's code of conduct doesn't punish you for being an egotistical noble prick who knows exactly what he is- an extension of the purest form of his god's will. Just because you have to be honorable does not mean you have to be stupid or nice.

It just so happens that this time, what he's been shown as 'the greater good' is directly opposed to your party's current actions. Maybe that demon who's breaking seal you intend to reforge is one he intends to fight and vanquish himself, without any regard to how much bad news that demon would be to fight, because between the might of himself and his god, there's no way the Paladin thinks he could fail. Maybe the party is working for a council republic on one side of a war against a theocratic monarchy, where the king derives much of his power from the church... and the paladin's current mission either intersects or directly opposes yours. And letting the enemy succeed on their mission would be a tarnish against his name, his king's name, and his GOD's name. So prepare yourself curs, for tonight he hunts.

GungHo
2011-09-22, 02:53 PM
Yes, I can do that....but the NPC has to be incredibly important or infamous to be caught up with the Paladin....such as a politician or general who's fallen from grace with the powers to be..... the Paladin should be in cahoots with said powers too.... like the king or ruling council of a kingdom....
Assuming it's the standard AD&D 1E - 3E Lawful Good Hero Paladin:
He could just be a dupe. He could be given evidence that is very damning toward some person or some organization. He could be convinced that that person/organization has or will commit severe atrocities. But it could all be well-crafted BS... which could be mundanely or supernaturally sourced. Maybe it's a devil or demon working through proxies (that way the evil-dar doesn't go off) who really gets its jollies off of corrupting do-gooders (bonus points for paladins). Or maybe it's someone from a third organization who is standing to make a lot of money from a war. Or someone in the bad organization looking to rise through attrition.

It could even be that there are some bad seeds in the "evil" organization that no one really was aware of and that the Paladin prosecuting the war went after those parts first (all good smear campaigns start with a kernel of truth), so there was no Fall until he cleared out that part and got to the innocent parties (who may include the PCs).

Or it could be that in the course of prosecuting a just cause the Paladin doesn't really recognize that his minions (if the Paladin is a big shot, I'd assume he has minions) are being major dirtbags when they're on crusade... and again, he could be blind to it because he's negiligent or because there's something mystical clouding his vision.

Contining on in the campaign... he can grow from being an antagonist to a staunch ally once the fog is lifted and he realizes what evil he has wrought (and gets his powers revoked)... and maybe the party can urge him toward/assist him with atonement. Or he may Fall so far that he becomes a diabolist in his own right, and then he starts getting his powers from a Very Different Place and becomes a nightmare for the PCs, who he blames for letting it go so far. (Maybe they were also dupes.)

Even if he does the right thing and atones, having him as an ally when he's obviously a big, reactionary dummy may present its own challenge, and the party may have to spend some time covering his butt (and, depending on the political climate, their own if their stars are attached to his). An antagonist doesn't necessarily have to be someone swinging a sword at your head.

Coidzor
2011-09-22, 06:00 PM
Slaughtering innocents is probably evil

Probably?
The villain's enemies, again, don't need to be innocent. Giving aid and succor to a rebellion is a crime.

Unless it's a civil war scenario where the combatants all look alike and they took in numbers from both sides because they couldn't tell 'em apart, but get put to the sword regardless.

Or they're children. Killing or having one's men put to death a small child for bringing food to a man condemned to starve to death in the public square is going to make a Paladin fall in the same way as killing, maiming, or otherwise physically harming the family and parents of said small child.


On a less knight-templar level, if the villain focuses on killing enemy combatants then I think it's very hard to argue that anyone he kills is innocent. They're people with swords in hand trying to kill him.

Then he's not exactly sending off his men to murder innocents to keep his hands "clean," so that's not really pertinent to the original scenario.


Rape and despoilment (and the "all that entails" you seem to be referring to) are unlikely to come up in many games. D&D, by its superhuman, abstracted nature, does poorly with gritty games that actually explore the real moral depths of historical war.

War is similarly unlikely to come up in many games for reasons of being extremely unwieldy to model in the system. That does nothing to negate the example's validity in context of the alignment system, however.


The OP has some misconceptions about how this could work. But I think that without those misconceptions you can still get an interesting Paladin villain who isn't a Knight Templar, but is simply opposing the PCs because his nation is conquering theirs.

And I was pointing out that being in a position of command and being in a position where one is sworn to a fallible lord is difficult for a Paladin because they're already sworn to Law and Good as abstract ideals and to their code by virtue of their existence.


Battle of New Orleans in US history was famously fought after the treaty was signed.

There are several stories of WW2 fighters from various countries who had missions in the jungle and simply never got word the war was over, some until several years after the fact.

Situations change rapidly.

Yes, but a crucial bit is that those are very, very different from your scenario because he's already been given the order to stand down by his legitimate sovereign, which should have been with appropriate documentation anyway.


With whom would he verify it in hostile territory, given a distrust of the current authority that the scenario says is justified?

Well, if he truly was loyal to his liege, he should go back and report that he's receiving illegal orders from the heir to the throne passed on to him through members of his own army.

Droodle
2011-09-24, 11:54 AM
Even if he does the right thing and atones, having him as an ally when he's obviously a big, reactionary dummy may present its own challenge, and the party may have to spend some time covering his butt (and, depending on the political climate, their own if their stars are attached to his). An antagonist doesn't necessarily have to be someone swinging a sword at your head.Your scenario is good, but there's no need to carry things so far that the Paladin would fall. It is perfectly possible to have a Paladin antagonize a good party without threatening innocents. Paladins can be duped, and they don't need to fall in order to discover the treachery. The more mundane answer is also a possibility, where the Paladin has a (good) goal that crosses purposes with that of the PC's. The inflexible Paladin who's rigid ideas of good as an antagonist, however, is often tired old hat. Making the PC's the dupes, letting them find out that the Paladin is in the right, would be even more fun, since most players don't expect that.

CoffeeIncluded
2011-09-24, 10:07 PM
What if the deity's screwing with the paladin?

GungHo
2011-09-26, 02:20 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Coidzor
2011-09-26, 03:17 PM
What if the deity's screwing with the paladin?

In regards to what?

NichG
2011-09-26, 04:49 PM
So one very grey example could be something like this:

There's a secret society that is sacrificing people as an energy source for some very necessary magic. The empire was founded on a desert made livable by some epic spell that requires the sacrifice of a certain, possibly large number of lives every year to maintain it, or whatever. The secret society isn't stupid, either, so it tries its hardest to make the sacrifices come from things that benefit the empire to be sacrificed like prisoners of war, 'always evil' creatures, and the like.

The PCs are actually part of or associated somehow with this secret society, perhaps without their awareness. They're using weapons that channel the souls of the things they kill on their adventures into the spell. So when they go and clear out that orc lair, or slay that dragon, they're adding months or years of prosperity to the empire.

Now cue the paladin, who finds out about this, and is unable to accept an empire based on human sacrifice (even if its the sacrifice of people who would be killed anyhow). Allowing it to continue might even make him fall, once he's aware of it. So he hunts down the society and discovers that the PCs are basically their sword. The paladin realizes that stopping the society might cause even more people to die, but has so much faith in the leaders of the society and his deity that he feels that that will be dealt with 'another way, by another person', and that his job is only to shut down the cult.

Bonus points if the paladin uses strictly nonlethal methods, and actually maintains an Exalted status while doing this.

That's maybe not as villainous as you'd like, though. It's more antagonist.

Maybe an alternative would be a paladin who is absolutely convinced (along with his deity, which is the tricky bit) that all beings around him are trapped in a living dream as their souls are being tormented/some other Matrix-like externality, and that the world everyone experiences is just this shared dream. So he goes around 'freeing' people from the dream, in the most humane ways possible.

Knaight
2011-09-26, 05:05 PM
His own deity? Why?

That kind of thing only happens in the Old Testament.

Might want to avoid real world religion. Even grazing up against it incites major crack downs.

CoffeeIncluded
2011-09-27, 07:31 AM
His own deity? Why?

That kind of thing only happens in the Old Testament.


In regards to what?

Like if, say, the spell isn't "Detect Evil" so much as it's "Detect whatever my deity really hates."

Tzevash
2011-09-27, 08:38 AM
There's the Imperial Knights from the star wars comics they're the same in almost every way to the Jedi of the new republic except they side with the empire in other words they're Lawful Good working for the Lawful Evil

If you co-operate with something that you know to be evil , you just can't be good. You are a conniving servant of an evil organization (then you are Lawful Evil) or the thing you consider to be the lesser evil or the biggest opportunity to keep things in law and balance (then you are Lawful Neutral).

However, it's easy to have a paladin as an enemy:

1) IF YOUR PCs ARE GOOD, BUT CHAOTIC: your PCs may resort to a non-lawful way to solve a big problem and must face the paladin, who's in charge for upholding the law as for protecting the innocents. Nor the PCs or the paladin should kill each other.

2) IF YOUR PCs ARE LAWFUL OR NEUTRAL: the Paladin may have been beguiled and your PCs are the victims of a conspiracy.

3) IF YOUR PCs ARE EVIL: I don't think I need to explain this.

:smallwink:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-09-27, 08:15 PM
Like if, say, the spell isn't "Detect Evil" so much as it's "Detect whatever my deity really hates."

That only works in Murphy's Law because the people they're attacking are orcs, goblins, and drow.

The Random NPC
2011-09-28, 12:53 AM
If you co-operate with something that you know to be evil , you just can't be good.

That isn't true at all, the good people could either not know that the evil person is evil, or if they know that the evil person is working towards a non-evil goal, they can still help. They should still keep in mind that he is evil, and likely to betray them when it benifits him.
Example: Eldritch abomination is out to destroy the world. Both Goodguy McPaladin and Evil McEvilton can team up to save the world. Goodguy McPaladin should keep in mind that Evil McEvilton will most likely try to absorb the eldritch abomination to increase his power to let him take over the world, and take steps to prevent it.

Fera Tian
2011-09-28, 02:03 AM
I'm not looking for a Lawful Stupid Miko clone...... what I am looking for is someone a bit like Jaime Lannister from a Song of Ice and Fire.... a nobleman who although is incredibly amoral and vicious does have several redeeming qualities and that the only reason he's against the PCs is because he's on the other side......

Yes, I can do that....but the NPC has to be incredibly important or infamous to be caught up with the Paladin....such as a politician or general who's fallen from grace with the powers to be..... the Paladin should be in cahoots with said powers too.... like the king or ruling council of a kingdom....

You aren't looking for a Paladin then. You're looking for a Lord of sorts that has seen battle and can hold a grudge. "Amoral" makes Paladins fall.

Kalirren
2011-09-28, 02:34 AM
The purpose of a Paladin (sensu Core) is to basically label the character as a card-carrying member of the Good Guys Club. So if you want a Core Paladin to be an antagonist, it pretty much follows that you have to be working against at least one faction of Good Guys. The easiest way to do this is for the PCs to be working for an organization, not necessarily an evil one, whose interests just happen to conflict with those of a faction of Good Guys. This immediately puts the Paladin on the other side of the table. All the better if the PCs have good (even Good) intentions but the Paladin is still on the other side of the table, bound by obedience to legitimate authority.

That said, I feel that more generally, a Paladin is a holy warrior of high in-genre social class. In games I run, I typically expand the paladin class to encompass concepts from "divine crusader" to "blessed renegade" to "dread pirate". The first mechanic to go is the stupid "falling" thing. If a player wants mechanics that make them fall from grace, I tell them to take exalted feats.

Droodle
2011-09-28, 04:54 AM
2) IF YOUR PCs ARE LAWFUL OR NEUTRAL: the Paladin may have been beguiled and your PCs are the victims of a conspiracy.
Lawful PC's can also conflict if the Paladin's good and lawful goal conflicts with the party's equally good and lawful goal. Neither side needs to be manipulated neither side needs to be chaotic, and neither needs to be a shade of neutral. It is perfectly possible to craft a situation in which Paladins with conflicting (but still good and lawful) interests would be forced into conflict.

Just as evil characters are not automatically required to turn on each other at the drop of a hat solely because they are evil, lawful good characters can be forced to come into conflict. Not every lawful good PC will serve the same master or follow the same law. Every land has different laws. Every lawful good deity has different goals. Evil characters are still able to cooperate with each other and form strong alliances; good characters, even Paladins, can become enemies.

GungHo
2011-09-29, 02:01 PM
Lawful PC's can also conflict if the Paladin's good and lawful goal conflicts with the party's equally good and lawful goal. Neither side needs to be manipulated neither side needs to be chaotic, and neither needs to be a shade of neutral. It is perfectly possible to craft a situation in which Paladins with conflicting (but still good and lawful) interests would be forced into conflict.
Yeah, this one is easily relatable. How many big infrastructure projects collide? A good deity of Nature may want to have a reserve/greenbelt where a Paladin wants a monastery. And the Paladin may not be happy if you set his plans back and it could lead to unintended consequences down the road (maybe there's a strategic reason he needed a monastery... or maybe there's a stategic reason Nature wanted a reserve). Bonus XP if the party can resolve both needs without major conflict.

Even Paladin X and Paladin Y from two different faiths may be put into opposition if their faiths "do things differently". One paladin may want to focus resources on saving the innocent and another may want to focus everything on destroying the guilty. It's almost a Dragon Age/Witcher type of choice... do you save a village that is about to be ravaged by an orc warband and delay your participation in a coordinated attack on the demon-backed leadership of a greenskin horde, or do you stay with the plan and knowingly let those people die horribly (bonus if there are really adorable kids at the village) so that you have a better chance of stopping the horde once and for all? One or both of the Paladins may turn against you depending on what choice you took and whether or not you succeeded.