Pathfinder: Need Advice on playing my Paladin (Avoiding Lawful Stupid)

[thematgreen]

I am in a quandry.

I play an Oracle/Paladin and am worried that my newbie DM will decide my Paladin needs to fall based off the way I play him. I have heard mixed things from other people I know who DM about what they would do. What I want is to be able to show my newbie DM friend the opinions of others so he doesn't think I am swaying him to do what I want.

------------------------------
The Overview:
------------------------------

I play my Paladin as a force of good, but not forced good. What this means is that he leads his life as a good person, but instead of forcing others to follow his example, he just hopes he can live well and others will follow.

Out of Character wise:
This allows the other players to play what they want (Within reason) without some guy yelling at them to be good, play nice, and do the "right" thing or they will be smited.

Character-wise:
He has flat out stated that he does not condone some of the things the group does and will not participate, but it is not his place to dictate how they lead their lives. There have been times where he has sat out of something because he did not agree with it.

He is always casting detect evil, enough that the DM has allowed it to always be on, rather than an at will ability. If a being is anything but chaotic evil they are given a chance to turn themselves in, turn away from their path, or retreat. If they persist then Maxwell can feel justified in smiting them.

On the flip side, if a character is chaotic evil he will smite them, without mercy, and with as much force and power as possible to ensure their demise. There is not quarter asked for, and no quarter given. If information is needed he allow that evil to live long enough to provide it and then slay them.

Side Story: The first time we encountered a CE Wizard I startled the group. Up to this point my character had been quiet, kind, and overall a good person to be around. Suddenly the group had to deal with a rampaging Paladin stomping into the room, blazing with righteous fury. The GM insisted I roll intimidate, which I rolled very well for, and the CE Wizard surrendered, pointed out what we needed, then had her skull caved in with righteous fury and furious anger. He then chopped of the wizards head and stuffed it in a bag, which was useful later in cowing another of the major enemy NPC's into surrendering.

Of course, the group was shocked and demanded to know what happened. That is when they learned about his past.

------------------------------
My worry:
------------------------------

Because a Paladin is supposed to a bastion of good and such and so forth there has always been a stigma, at least among those I have played with, that Paladins are pretty much Lawful Stupid. I didn't want to go that route.

What do you, the fine readers and contributers of this webfourm, think would happen? How would you treat my Paladin? Should I just go to Lawful Stupid "ME GUD Y U NO GUD ME SMITE U NAO!" style? If that is how he has to be played to stay a Paladin he is going to fall off a cliff to his death and I'll play that Scythe Wielding Fighter/Shadow Dancer I have been working on.

------------------------------
Backstory:
------------------------------

Simplified backstory (this was way more in depth but the messageboard somehow lost my message so I am retyping):

Maxwell Power was a very bad man and the leader of a group of outlaws. He He enjoyed the smell of a burning village, the touch of a unwilling maiden, and the groans of pain of a tortured enemy. His name was cursed by all who knew of him "DAMN YOU MAXWELL POWER! DAMN YOU TO HECK!" they would scream.

For a decade he lived this life of hate and evil, reveling in things that would excite anyone who liked the kinds of things he was in to.

One evening, after a successful raid, and for no real reason, Maxwell was betrayed by his second and left for dead. Stabed in both the face AND the chest.

A girl found him bleeding to death in the burnt out shell of the inn, had no idea who he was, and dragged him to her wagon. she had, luckily, decided to save some coin and spend the night in her wagon a few miles from the village.

Since she was just a low level NPC she had very few points on the Heal skill and it took him awhile to heal. He decided to reward her by killing her after he was able to lift his sword, but time passes and things change. With nothing to do but sit there and recuperate from his wounds he found himself bored. There was nothing to read, since most pesants are stupid illiterates, so he started talking to himself, recounting stories of his life to pass the time, and inadvertently caught the ear of the god Cayden Cailean, who enjoyed a good tale.

He decided he liked not having to watch his back around people all the time. He thought the villagers were idiots but looked upon them fondly, like a man looks at a beloved pet. He liked that the men of the village looked to him for guidance in the defence of the village, instead of screaming in pain. He liked that women came to him for "comfort", instead of screaming in pain. He liked the children would laugh and play around him, instead of screaming in pain. Each day he would wake up, tell himself that this was the day he was leaving to get vengance, and at the end of the night he would tell himself he needed to rest and heal.

Maxwell ended up living in that village, whose name he never bothered to learn, for a decade, living a fairly decent life.

Goblins raided the village one clear summer evening and he helped defend the town. He received a wound that became septic, and he died, since the villagers didn't have many points in the heal skill. As he passed he felt regret that he was dying, and anger that the villagers seemed to be inept when it counted.

Suddenly he felt weight and opened his eyes. He was in a Tap Room and a tall man was looking his way. After a long silence the God, Cayden Cailean, offered Maxwell a wager. He would return Max to life, but without a soul, which Cayden Cailean would hold on to (Oracle Curse: Soulless).
Maxwell would be given one lifetime to choose his own destiny. His slate would be wiped clean, but he could not be ressurrected as others could. If he lived a good life then Cayden Cailean would claim his soul, if he lived a life of evil then his soul would be turned over to Asmodeus or a devil or demon or whom/whatever Cayden Cailean came across first.

To help him with this the god would provide him with the benefit of his grace, creating what may be the first Paladin of Cayden Cailean. Maxwell agreed, they drank on it...over and over and over...and over. Maxwell passed out under a table after telling Cayden Cailean how awesome he was, what a good guy he was, and how they should get togethe some time and check out the wenches at a place he knew about.

Maxwell woke up, laying in the same inn where he had been left for dead so long ago. Sitting up and nursing his splitting head, he remembered his wager with the god. Maxwell stood, swayed for a moment, and then went on to find his destiny. The same girl who had found him the first time found him again. She had no idea who he was (she never claimed to be smart), and offered him a ride to Sandport...and his adventures began.

[Airk]

Please provide reasons why your character would continue to associate with people whose actions he does not condone. Also, have the other players do the reverse.

Otherwise, well, I skimmed, but this seems okay, aside from the farcical implication that paladins are 'normally' Lawful Stupid.

I'm not entirely sure killing an enemy who has surrendered is a Good act, but YMMV. Also, why is Chaotic Evil so much "worse" than the other types that they are not allowed a chance to mend their ways?

[thematgreen]

Please provide reasons why your character would continue to associate with people whose actions he does not condone. Also, have the other players do the reverse.

Otherwise, well, I skimmed, but this seems okay, aside from the farcical implication that paladins are 'normally' Lawful Stupid.

I'm not entirely sure killing an enemy who has surrendered is a Good act, but YMMV. Also, why is Chaotic Evil so much "worse" than the other types that they are not allowed a chance to mend their ways?

He joined the band at first because they were working towards the same goal. He planeed to leave them but he has seen that his actions have changed them for the better. He is going to stay with them to guide them. The rogue has stopped stealing all together and uses her skills just for adventuring.

As for killing those that are Chaotic Evil. He was chaotic evil and it took 10 years and extenuating circumstances for him to change, and he still isn't exactly lawful good. He has no pity or patience for Chaotic Evil characters, especially because the last three times he has tried to redeem them they turned on the group in some jerk way, :smallbiggrin:. Eventually I want to RP him into realizing what he is doing and work towards rehabiliting anyone he can, but he is still a new Paladin and is getting into the groove.

[Airk]

He joined the band at first because they were working towards the same goal. He planeed to leave them but he has seen that his actions have changed them for the better. He is going to stay with them to guide them. The rogue has stopped stealing all together and uses her skills just for adventuring.

Please work on that with your party members. More than anything else, this is important.



As for killing those that are Chaotic Evil. He was chaotic evil and it took 10 years and extenuating circumstances for him to change, and he still isn't exactly lawful good. He has no pity or patience for Chaotic Evil characters, especially because the last three times he has tried to redeem them they turned on the group in some jerk way, :smallbiggrin:. Eventually I want to RP him into realizing what he is doing and work towards rehabiliting anyone he can, but he is still a new Paladin and is getting into the groove.

This is a little weird to me - it sounds more like someone trying to become a paladin than someone who already is, but there's room for interpretation here.

[thematgreen]

Please work on that with your party members. More than anything else, this is important.

This is a little weird to me - it sounds more like someone trying to become a paladin than someone who already is, but there's room for interpretation here.

Yep, that is what is happening. The random stabbings, murders, and thefts have stopped. They are doing heroic work for free, or for just free room and board, and are becoming a force of good, rather than good for themselves.


It is weird, but he was pretty much dead, then a god said " I am returnning you to life, oh, you're a Paladin by the way...sooo yeah...good luck *POOF*!". So he is still trying to figure it out. He has been back in the world of the living and a Paladin for about two months in game world time. So he is classwise a Paladin, and RPwise he knows this, but is still trying to discover what that means.

[Macros]

Well, in my experience, simply trying to acentuate Good over Lawful will do wonders. Don't be quick to judge, remember that pinging on the evil radar is not always (not often, even!) justification for an immediate death sentence, and relax. As long as your DM is not out to get you, you should be fine.

By the way, I'm curious : how do you differenciate Chaotic Evil from others Evil?

[thematgreen]

Well, in my experience, simply trying to acentuate Good over Lawful will do wonders. Don't be quick to judge, remember that pinging on the evil radar is not always (not often, even!) justification for an immediate death sentence, and relax. As long as your DM is not out to get you, you should be fine.

By the way, I'm curious : how do you differenciate Chaotic Evil from others Evil?

Because our DM is so new is goes by literal interpretation from the book. If the book says it's chaotic evil he flat out states "This wizard is Chaotic Evil" or "This fighter is lawful evil" when I detect evil.

Also, our DM COULD decide to just have me fall if he decides to go with the literal intrepretation, which wouldn't be surprising. He and I had a debate about weapon sizes because he read a passage talking about how weapons sized for a medium human would be small when regarding spell effects. He took this as "Humans use the small weapons column for damage, small races use tiny weapons" and had everyone out of whack. It turned into an argument and I finally just played, but he eventually got clairification that he was wrong from another source.

He isn't a bad DM but he is new so is a bit too rigid/literal. I am a player who respects rule 0, unless it impacts the game in a negative way (Wrong damage on weapons, misunderstanding skills/spells and refusing to budge when shown the correct inforamtion, etc), and as said above, he COULD decide "You are a Paladin, you are Lawful Good, the group isn't lawful good and you stay with them so you are fallen". He has asked about how paladins fall recently and it makes me concerned.

[Segev]

Unless the surrendered wizard was giving good reason to believe that she would backstab the party and escape at a moment's notice (which, admittedly, CE allows for), I would say at the least that it was a non-lawful act to kill her in cold blood after she told you everything you wanted her to. On the other hand, if it seemed that that was the only way to keep a dangerous and untrustworthy foe from coming at you when you're weakened by other encounters, a summary execution may not have been problematic, alignment-wise.

Given your paladin's views on CE and redemption, he may want to invest in a helm of opposite alignment that he carries around. If another CE foe surrenders so thoroughly, you can then give them the choice between death and willingly failing the saving throw against the helm for a forced reformation (followed by justice for their past crimes, tempered as appropriate by mercy). As a paladin, he'll be able to tell if they are affected; if they're not, they'll still ping evil.

[thematgreen]

Unless the surrendered wizard was giving good reason to believe that she would backstab the party and escape at a moment's notice (which, admittedly, CE allows for), I would say at the least that it was a non-lawful act to kill her in cold blood after she told you everything you wanted her to. On the other hand, if it seemed that that was the only way to keep a dangerous and untrustworthy foe from coming at you when you're weakened by other encounters, a summary execution may not have been problematic, alignment-wise.

Given your paladin's views on CE and redemption, he may want to invest in a helm of opposite alignment that he carries around. If another CE foe surrenders so thoroughly, you can then give them the choice between death and willingly failing the saving throw against the helm for a forced reformation (followed by justice for their past crimes, tempered as appropriate by mercy). As a paladin, he'll be able to tell if they are affected; if they're not, they'll still ping evil.

Since the DM we have plays literal there would be no chance at redemption. I try to help when I can, since I am a pretty expierenced DM, but he can be stubborn.

With a more expierenced DM I would play differently, but since the DM reads that CE is what it is he doesn't allow for redemption and so I am working within those confines.

That helm of opposite alingment is an awesome idea. I wonder if I could make one with the same power but that was something small like a bracelet or hat to make it easier to carry it around...

[Airk]

Since the DM we have plays literal there would be no chance at redemption. I try to help when I can, since I am a pretty expierenced DM, but he can be stubborn.

I don't understand. What do the rules have to do with this at all? I mean, there are rules specifically FOR changing alignment, so why would it be impossible?

Also, even by the most literal ruling, Detect Evil doesn't tell you "This guy is Chaotic Evil" or "This guy is Lawful Evil." it just tells you "This guy is evil"

[thematgreen]

I don't understand. What do the rules have to do with this at all? I mean, there are rules specifically FOR changing alignment, so why would it be impossible?

Also, even by the most literal ruling, Detect Evil doesn't tell you "This guy is Chaotic Evil" or "This guy is Lawful Evil." it just tells you "This guy is evil"

Which I have explained, every gaming session,lol.

He has intrepreted it as Chaotic Evil is just super bad so that's it and Detect Evil tells you the exact alignment. I don't know why, his response is "I am taking it literally from the book" and "This is how I interpret it". It is frustrating, to say the least, but I wanted a break from DMing after the "cellar incident" and he was the only one up for trying his hand at DMing.





Cellar Incident:

The DM (Who I will now refer to as Guy) of the current game was a player in the last game I ran. I explained that they came upon an old town at the bottom of the mountains. There were some walls left up but looked ready to fall at the slightest touch.
The group wanted to lay low so I said there was an old cellar below ground level and described it as

"the big square hole, which is 6 feet deep and 30 by 30 may have been used as a basement or cellar when the house was still standing. Around the edges of the hole are the square blocks used as foundations."

Guy decided to walk across the floor and down the stairs. And I asked him what he was talking about...and there ensued a 45 minute (Not kidding) argument about what a cellar was and how becase I said "foundations" it meant there was a floor and stairs.

I explained, over and over, that it was just a hole in the ground, just a hole with blocks around the side. But he latched onto foundations meaning a floor an stairs. He kept going "I am just trying to understand" which is guy speak for "I have stopped listening and am just waiting for you to stop talking".

The other players understood exactly what I mean. I drew a picture of a square hole in the ground. I even went DM Mode and was like "Rule 0, I am right, you are wrong, it is a hole in the ground. Stop arguing" to which he replied "I am not arguing, I am just trying to understand" and kept arguing what he thought was right.

At that point I was going to call the session and said so, since I already explained and he was just now arguing for arguments sake since nobody could be that stupid. He finally dropped it, but later, after the session brought it up again. I asked why he couldn't understand "It is a hole in the ground" and the matter was dropped.

Now he is our DM. That story was to give perspective.

[Airk]

Now he is our DM. That story was to give perspective.

Perspective: Given.

Ow. Uh. Honestly, do whatever the hell you want. Play a smart character. Carry on. Ignore the GM as best as possible. :P Though I would suggest treating all types of "evil" the same regardless of what flavor he tells you it is. That seems easiest.

[thematgreen]

Perspective: Given.

Ow. Uh. Honestly, do whatever the hell you want. Play a smart character. Carry on. Ignore the GM as best as possible. :P Though I would suggest treating all types of "evil" the same regardless of what flavor he tells you it is. That seems easiest.

Yeah, I may just have to impose my view on him. He is a really super nice guy and maybe my best friend and he really wants to do the DM thing correctly, he just has to learn to be more flexible and fluid, for example, deciding that reading a 2 page essay to us when we drift out is better than paraphrasing so we can continue.

And if worse comes to worse I can fall off a cliff by "accident" and bring in my Scythe Wielding Fighter/Shadowdancer/Bluff Master Half Elf and mess everything up.

[DawnQuixotic]

Smiting everyone who pings as evil is pretty lawful stupid.
If you're good, you should give everyone a chance to redeem themselves, and only intervene if they perform an evil act in front of you.
If lawful, you should give them due process and only intervene if they perform a criminal act in front of you.

Killing a defenseless enemy, and moreover, stuffing their head in a bag? That's not just overzealous paladin crap, that's blatantly a nongood act.

Your explanation makes him ridiculously hypocritical. Self-righteous hypocrisy is one of the classic Lawful Stupid traits of paladins.

If I was the DM, I'd have you fall over this and you'd need to do an atonement.



Staying with a non-LG party isn't wrong. Staying with a CN criminal party of evil party is, but this is a concern for the group to work out together, not something for the DM to screw your character with by making them fall just because of the other players.

Overall, if you want to play a non-jerk paladin, I'd recommend focusing on self-sacrifice and leading by example before being preachy and militant. Be a defender before you're an attacker. You could even argue that such behavior is part of the paladin code, not the other way around. You're Superman, not the Punisher. This will keep you from rubbing others the wrong way or being disruptive.

[thematgreen]

Smiting everyone who pings as evil is pretty lawful stupid.
If you're good, you should give everyone a chance to redeem themselves, and only intervene if they perform an evil act in front of you.
If lawful, you should give them due process and only intervene if they perform a criminal act in front of you.

Killing a defenseless enemy, and moreover, stuffing their head in a bag? That's not just overzealous paladin crap, that's blatantly a nongood act.

Your explanation makes him ridiculously hypocritical. Self-righteous hypocrisy is one of the classic Lawful Stupid traits of paladins.

If I was the DM, I'd have you fall over this and you'd need to do an atonement.



Staying with a non-LG party isn't wrong. Staying with a CN criminal party of evil party is, but this is a concern for the group to work out together, not something for the DM to screw your character with by making them fall just because of the other players.

Overall, if you want to play a non-jerk paladin, I'd recommend focusing on self-sacrifice and leading by example before being preachy and militant. Be a defender before you're an attacker. You could even argue that such behavior is part of the paladin code, not the other way around. You're Superman, not the Punisher. This will keep you from rubbing others the wrong way or being disruptive.

Quoting myself
Since the DM we have plays literal there would be no chance at redemption. I try to help when I can, since I am a pretty expierenced DM, but he can be stubborn.

In this campaign it is given that Chaotic Evil is Stupid Evil. If a Chaotic Evil is not slain then they come back to do more evil, always. There are no exceptions. It has become character knowledge, and my Paladin goes with it.

Going back to cutting off the head. I made that choice becuase it caused the Neutral Evil BBG to back down and give up, since we killed he enforcer.

Within the campaign my character is not a hypocrite at all, you cannot redeem raving lunatics who can never change, but everyone else has a chance, even thinking monsters and has poured skill points into Diplomacy and Linguistics.

Technically my character should still be CE since CE characters cannot change.

If you were our DM then I am sure you wouldnt have CE character be raving lunatics who can never change, nor woud you have Detect Evil have me given the knowedge of CE/NE/LE. In your campaign I would agree that my character would be a hypocrite, but then, I would be trying to redeem everyone

[veti]

Seems to me you've got more house rules than a Vegas casino...

With that in mind, what I always recommend for paladin players is: write down your paladin code. Get together with the DM out of play-time, and work out exactly what standards your character is required to maintain in order to keep his paladinhood.

The version given in the SRD is way too vague to use as-is. For instance, what the hell does "associate with an evil character" mean? If I'm locked in a prison cell with someone who pings as evil, am I "associating with" her? Am I required to kill her? You need a code sufficiently specific that both you and the DM will make the same call, when faced with a question like that.

[thematgreen]

Seems to me you've got more house rules than a Vegas casino...

With that in mind, what I always recommend for paladin players is: write down your paladin code. Get together with the DM out of play-time, and work out exactly what standards your character is required to maintain in order to keep his paladinhood.

The version given in the SRD is way too vague to use as-is. For instance, what the hell does "associate with an evil character" mean? If I'm locked in a prison cell with someone who pings as evil, am I "associating with" her? Am I required to kill her? You need a code sufficiently specific that both you and the DM will make the same call, when faced with a question like that.

That is an excellent suggestion, and I will get with my DM to set standards. I am also going with the helm of opposite alignment. Both should help everyone out.

[Daishain]

In my personal opinion, the use of a helm of opposite alignment on another should almost always be considered an evil act.

The way it works, you are talking about forcibly rewriting another's mind at a fundamental level. It has more to do with murder and slavery than redemption, you've killed off a good chunk of who they used to be and replaced it with something else more to your liking.

[Segev]

In my personal opinion, the use of a helm of opposite alignment on another should almost always be considered an evil act.

The way it works, you are talking about forcibly rewriting another's mind at a fundamental level. It has more to do with murder and slavery than redemption, you've killed off a good chunk of who they used to be and replaced it with something else more to your liking.

That's one way to interpret it. It doesn't seem to jive with the way this DM runs his game, though. It also is still better than just executing them. And note that my suggestion was to give them the option of the Helm or death, if you truly feel execution is your only rational option absent a way to change their outlook.

[Daishain]

That's one way to interpret it. It doesn't seem to jive with the way this DM runs his game, though. It also is still better than just executing them. And note that my suggestion was to give them the option of the Helm or death, if you truly feel execution is your only rational option absent a way to change their outlook.
I'm not so certain that its better than execution, though I somehow suspect I'm in the minority on that one.

Of course, I am also of the opinion that summarily executing others in cold blood is acceptable for lawful good aligned characters, if it is indeed the only option to prevent suffering/death/etc. (Action still counts as evil and chaotic if done without extremely good reason to think that such is the case, and is likely to strain the "lawful" designation regardless)

[Segev]

I'm not so certain that its better than execution, though I somehow suspect I'm in the minority on that one.

Of course, I am also of the opinion that summarily executing others in cold blood is acceptable for lawful good aligned characters, if it is indeed the only option to prevent suffering/death/etc. (Action still counts as evil and chaotic if done without extremely good reason to think that such is the case, and is likely to strain the "lawful" designation regardless)

I mostly agree, though if the LG character has authority within whatever code of laws/conduct/etc. he abides to pass death sentences, it's not non-lawful. As long as he carefully follows the rules for determining whether the death sentence should be passed.

[Angelalex242]

My Paladins tend to be pretty mellow guys. They ignore chaotic actions by party members unless it's in a war or a battle, and only call out evil when they see it.

Key thing is, be cool.

The other key thing is, spring 1000 gp for a phylactery of faithfulness. Then your GM, no matter how literal he is, can never do a 'gotcha!' Because he therefore has to be literal about the phylactery too, and the whole purpose of the thing is to ping you if you make a mistake.

[Spore]

On a side note I wouldn't exactly call my character Max Power if your table knows "The Simpsons". Horrible derailments will ensue.

[Bulhakov]

Some suggested reading for your DM:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p9ew?Should-the-Paladin-Fall-A-Guide