Do you think I ruled this well?

[questionmark693]

So I'm starting a 3.5 campaign, a good campaign. One of the players said he wants to play a paladin of slaughter (UA), but it expressly says that they refuse to associate with good characters, so I told him no. Was I wrong in saying so?

[Seatbelt]

You have the right to tell your players they can't play a character that is inappropriate to the module/campaign. When I ran Ravenloft I told all my players no Radiant Servants of Pelor, and there was at least one guy who was planning to run that and break my game.

[Namfuak]

So I'm starting a 3.5 campaign, a good campaign. One of the players said he wants to play a paladin of slaughter (UA), but it expressly says that they refuse to associate with good characters, so I told him no. Was I wrong in saying so?

You weren't wrong, but the general consensus around here is that the paladin code of honor is a bunch of bull malarkey and should be done away with for something more open-ended. If you keep it as-is, I'd say you should just ban paladins and tell him to play a cleric or crusader instead. You should probably do that anyway, but especially if you want to keep the code the same.

[ArcturusV]

Pretty much. I mean he might not like it. And it might be best to talk to him about what actually got him excited about the character concept to ask for it in the first place.

I mean was it just the desire to be as evil as you want? Probably a sign that he's not meant for this campaign and you should tell him as such as you explain what you do want from the campaign.

If it's just a desire to have evil divine powers? You might point him towards a _____ Neutral Cleric. For example a Chaotic Neutral Cleric of Gruumsh could use Evil powers, just fine. As a Cleric he could still be a formidable combatant, if he wanted that frontliner status. And there's nothing so horrible about the alignment constraints. Though roleplaying wise he probably wouldn't like any elves.

As a DM, you're perfectly justified to tell people what can and cannot be used your in campaign, don't worry about it. But one thing that you can do is ask them what they liked about that concept that you shot down and try to find a work around that applies to your vision of the campaign.

[Seatbelt]

You weren't wrong, but the general consensus around here is that the paladin code of honor is a bunch of bull malarkey and should be done away with for something more open-ended. If you keep it as-is, I'd say you should just ban paladins and tell him to play a cleric or crusader instead. You should probably do that anyway, but especially if you want to keep the code the same.

More importantly the PC wants to play a Paladin of Slaughter in a good campaign. The PC wants to play a CE Paladin in a game full of good heroes. This is a terrible idea.

[Phelix-Mu]

If the DM doesn't want to deal with the pcs actively fighting each other and other alignment conflicts, then the DM is within rights to rule as such. The DM sets the general atmosphere of gameplay. While the DM can't actually stop a player bent on derailing, if most of the players aren't interested in a game with intra-party fighting, then I'm afraid the other player is out of luck.

On the other hand, I might, might, allow a skilled role player to play a Paladin of Slaughter in a normal party if said paladin had a very, very strong plot-based reason for keeping it together and deceiving the other party members. While this comes close to vow violation, perhaps said paladin has some kind of dispensation from his church/superiors to allow him to associate with such people in pursuit of a concrete mission. This pretty much requires that player's character to have a spotlight role in the plot, though, which can also be undesirable.

In short, a lot of acrobatics to indulge one player's desires is bad for the irl group dynamic.

[Yahzi]

Not at all.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The PC wants to play a CE Paladin in a game full of good heroes. This is a terrible idea.
This. Some characters just don't work in some games.

[Urpriest]

You were within your rights, though I probably would have allowed the player to make a pitch about how they saw it working first, just in case they thought of something you didn't.

[Crake]

Evil characters in good campaigns are like fear-immune characters in horror settings. It was a good move.

[Callin]

You said Good Campaign. He wanted to be Evil. That didnt line up with what was goin on so you were well within rights to tell him no. Besides the first time a Paladin did detect evil and he got caught in the cone he was screwed... by the party he was traveling with no less.

[avr]

Telling him early was the right thing. It would have been really awkward to insist later if he'd talked you into giving it a try.

[Curmudgeon]

So I'm starting a 3.5 campaign, a good campaign.
What's so good about it? Remember, PCs are pretty much unequivocally bad guys: they go around killing people and taking their stuff. How are you going to make that work?

[questionmark693]

Thanks guys, I kinda felt I was in my right, but I wanted to make sure :) Curmudgeon, to answer your question: what I intend to be good about the campaign is they will be killing 'people; that are unnatural/aberrations/evil creatures/etc. and taking their stuff....which honestly, I don't see any conflict in. Though I do see how one could arrive at the conclusion you did.

[Flickerdart]

The Paladin of Slaughter has the dumbest code of all the Paladins. Let's take a look.


...a paladin of slaughter's code requires that she disrespect all authority figures who have not proven their physical superiority to her...
Going to visit the king? The paladin is contractually obliged to ruin that encounter until the king kicks his face in personally.


...refuse help to those in need...
Good luck getting another quest ever again.


...and sow destruction and death at all opportunities.
A guy brushes past you in a busy street? Attack of opportunity is an opportunity! If you don't kill him, you fall!

Compare it with the Paladin of Tyranny's code (which demands restraint, obedience and assistance to authority which isn't totally incompetent, and allows him to embark on quests that benefit him personally) which is probably the most sensible of all the Paladin codes. He can even knowingly associate with good characters "as long as it serves his needs" which is vague enough that you can basically weasel around it whenever you feel like.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It does figure that the mortal paragon of Lawful Evil would finagle his way into the most favorable, open-ended contract possible.

I agree that the Slaughter code is really dumb. It explicitly enforces chaotic stupid, which is never a good thing.

[Seharvepernfan]

So I'm starting a 3.5 campaign, a good campaign. One of the players said he wants to play a paladin of slaughter (UA), but it expressly says that they refuse to associate with good characters, so I told him no. Was I wrong in saying so?

Not at all. It's your campaign, you're the DM, you say what is allowed or not. Especially since you said beforehand that it was going to be a good campaign, then this person asks to play a paladin of slaughter...probably not going to be the best of players.

[hamishspence]

What's so good about it? Remember, PCs are pretty much unequivocally bad guys: they go around killing people and taking their stuff. How are you going to make that work?

They go around finding out where innocent people are "in need"- and fulfilling those needs.

It might be the "need to be protected from invading monsters", in most cases.

[Seharvepernfan]

What's so good about it? Remember, PCs are pretty much unequivocally bad guys: they go around killing people and taking their stuff. How are you going to make that work?

This has literally never been my experience.

[danzibr]

A guy brushes past you in a busy street? Attack of opportunity is an opportunity! If you don't kill him, you fall!
Ha, this makes PoS sound fun.

You also could have removed the fluff. In a campaign I'll run soonish I plan on removing stuff like alignment requirements.

[Flame of Anor]

What's so good about it? Remember, PCs are pretty much unequivocally bad guys: they go around killing people and taking their stuff. How are you going to make that work?

How is it evil to kill the dragon that's terrorizing the helpless villagers? Or defend the kingdom from an army of undead? Or all that sort of thing that PCs regularly do? Sure, some parties are LFG-style murderers, but I'd venture to guess most of them really aren't.

[Slipperychicken]

I think it's reasonable. You designated it as an all-Good game, so everyone has to play Good characters. He can play his Paladin of Slaughter some other time, perhaps if you run an Evil campaign later.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Unless you really trust the player not to derail the campaign, you made the right choice.