Would an Anti-Paladin ever work with a non evil group for revenge?

[thematgreen]

As the title says, if a player wanted to play an Anti-Paladin in a group that ranged from NG to CG, and his reasoning that the Anti-Paladin would be using the rest of the group as tools for revenge on the BBEG who caused his fall.

What do you think about allowing this?

[OldTrees1]

Yes. Evil characters can fit in Good parties just like Chaotic characters can fit in Lawful parties and the other 2 examples.

[thematgreen]

Yes. Evil characters can fit in Good parties just like Chaotic characters can fit in Lawful parties and the other 2 examples.

That's what I thought. My DM argues that it wouldn't be allowed because CE is "You must always rape and pillage non stop until someone comes along and kills you."

[Jormengand]

That's what I thought. My DM argues that it wouldn't be allowed because CE is "You must always rape and pillage non stop until someone comes along and kills you."

Even demons don't do that. Chaotic evil is the sum total of Chaotic and Evil, nothing more and nothing less. Chaotic Evil is not Chaotic Stupid.

[thematgreen]

Even demons don't do that. Chaotic evil is the sum total of Chaotic and Evil, nothing more and nothing less. Chaotic Evil is not Chaotic Stupid.

Well, remember, LG Paladin means Lawful Stupid.

Backstory:

I'm playing an online Pathfinder game and my DM decided my Paladin fell because he was given the choice to cut down one of the BBEGs who had surrendered...or turn him in, knowing for a fact that he would escape due to corruption in the city government and move along with his plan (Using the souls of children to fuel some nasty plan).

I asked that we take him to my characters home city, since there was no corruption in government and my Paladins god sent an avatar that demanded that I choose and this was a test.

I chose to slay the BBEG, knowing that I may fall but that it would preserve the lives of the innocent. It was then revealed that I had failed the test, there was no BBEG, and no atonement.

I was just going to stop playing but had an idea...my Paladin, permenantly fallen, would turn towards the gods of evil with fury and vengance in his heart, continuing along with the group, saying nothing about his fall, and using them to get his vengance on the rest of the BBEG's who caused his fall.

[Ssalarn]

So to start- your DM is a tool, and you can tell him I said so. Then ask him if he goes around making druids put down rabid bears and then stripping them of their powers.

Your Dm used fiat to strip you of any reasonable choices and force you to make a decision that would strip you of your powers. I kind of suspect that had you let the BBEG go the hammer from "on high" would have come down anyways with a declaration that you unleashed a baby-killer on the populace despite your certain knowledge that turning him in would only result in more innocent deaths.

Politely inform him that if he doesn't classes with codes in his game that he should say so up front instead of ******* people's characters over and then find a new group with a mature DM.

[thematgreen]

So to start- your DM is a tool, and you can tell him I said so. Then ask him if he goes around making druids put down rabid bears and then stripping them of their powers.

Your Dm used fiat to strip you of any reasonable choices and force you to make a decision that would strip you of your powers. I kind of suspect that had you let the BBEG go the hammer from "on high" would have come down anyways with a declaration that you unleashed a baby-killer on the populace despite your certain knowledge that turning him in would only result in more innocent deaths.

Politely inform him that if he doesn't classes with codes in his game that he should say so up front instead of ******* people's characters over and then find a new group with a mature DM.

Yeah, I called him out on it. He admitted it was a jerk move but he has plans for everyone or something. The story has been pretty good so far. Multiple BBEG's all working together, leveling as we level, doing bad stuff.

It's an e-mail game that we post in every other Friday so I am not super involved.

[T.G. Oskar]

Yeah, I called him out on it. He admitted it was a jerk move but he has plans for everyone or something. The story has been pretty good so far. Multiple BBEG's all working together, leveling as we level, doing bad stuff.

Still makes it a foul move.

The thing is, the response he gave you feels like an excuse. Note the two signs that something's wrong: first, he mentions that you are being tested, and he flat out denies your third option. In that case, he stunted your creative option, and your sensible option, of dealing with the BBEG in your own terms. Then, when you're forced to play to his rules, he sends a catch-22: kill him, or send him away. The BBEG didn't even exist, according to your DM - it was all a "test". You were forced to play with his rules without even saying "sure, I'll give him in, but I'll be sure I'm the attorney!" That is: you give him to the government, but you ensure he gets a fair trial. You knew the city was corrupt, so you tried a sensible answer; you weren't even given the chance to do a second "third option" and immediately fell.

Quite frankly? That was railroading, and of the worst sort. Now you're on Team Evil, and while the Code doesn't forbid you to do good stuff (so as long as you keep in mind that it has to be for evil purposes; stopping a bunch of bandits fulfills your purposes if you end up being their leader and then you extort more money from the quest-giver), it still stinks because you probably had plans for the character and now they've been given a loop-around. That your deity itself sent the avatar was a big example of "I want to screw you up", because the mature answer would have been "let's talk this via PM; I have some ideas and it involves doing this". The given answer (that he has plans that he doesn't want your party to know) doesn't sound very nice.

Question: are there other members of your party that might be in danger of losing their class features? Say, Cleric, Druid, Inquisitor? Also: I'd like you to note the definition that your DM gave to the Chaotic Evil alignment - his "plan" may be for you to become a BBEG and instigate inter-party conflict, or force you to reroll a new character. Both are foul moves; if he wanted you to fall, he would have told you before and tried to convince you, not wing it in-game just because. The way it goes, your other party members will eventually be convinced to kill you, or else you lose your powers again. Were it me, I would have remained a power-less Paladin and refuse to level up, in protest. But, it's your character, and all I can say is I don't like where that game is heading.

But, to answer your question? Sure, the Anti-Paladin can travel with a Good-aligned party. Furthermore if they're your traveling companions; you're not going to all of a sudden backstab them just because (that is what your DM wants you to do, which is why I don't like where the game is heading). You might try to do what any CE character would: strongarm them, being cruel to everyone else, maybe treat them as your minions, but even a CE character would stop at backstabbing a former companion. Unless the CE character goes Complete Monster: again, this is what worries me, and the fact that both of you agreed to turn him into an Anti-Paladin is what worries me the most. If he railroaded you into losing your Paladin powers despite playing it as-is, he'll railroad you AND your party members into killing you (or you killing them).

[thematgreen]

Still makes it a foul move.

The thing is, the response he gave you feels like an excuse. Note the two signs that something's wrong: first, he mentions that you are being tested, and he flat out denies your third option. In that case, he stunted your creative option, and your sensible option, of dealing with the BBEG in your own terms. *snip*

Yeah, it's pretty foul, I have the option to re-roll if I want but I like the idea of continuing my character as an Anti-Paladin rather than making a new character. I am not sure what his deal is, he has played with me face to face in the past and was in the party where my Bard was NE and actually took over a city, betraying the group by getting them to help him overthrow the rightful government. He may still have a tiny chip on his shoulder because, until my character actually sat on the throne and ordered the group to be arrested they had no idea my character was even evil.

By taking away moral limits on my character he is going to have to deal with me doing something like that again. If he railroads me again I'll just walk away.



Question: are there other members of your party that might be in danger of losing their class features? Say, Cleric, Druid, Inquisitor?

The group consists of my (ex)Paladin, a Wizard, an Arcane Blooded Sorcerer, and two fighters, one is a two handed figther, the other is a dual wielding fighter. I was the only one who could lose my class features. The good news is that all of them lean more between TN and CN than anything else, so as long as I wasn't trying to kill them or be Chaotic Stupid I don't see them having any issues.


Also: I'd like you to note the definition that your DM gave to the Chaotic Evil alignment - his "plan" may be for you to become a BBEG and instigate inter-party conflict, or force you to reroll a new character. Both are foul moves; if he wanted you to fall, he would have told you before and tried to convince you, not wing it in-game just because. The way it goes, your other party members will eventually be convinced to kill you, or else you lose your powers again. Were it me, I would have remained a power-less Paladin and refuse to level up, in protest. But, it's your character, and all I can say is I don't like where that game is heading.

I wouldn't even mind playing the BBEG to be honest, as long as I still got to play my character. I thnk I will go the Anti-Paladin route. I've been complimented many times on my ability to play evil characters with depth, rather than the stupid interpretation and maybe it will be the same here.


But, to answer your question? Sure, the Anti-Paladin can travel with a Good-aligned party. Furthermore if they're your traveling companions; you're not going to all of a sudden backstab them just because (that is what your DM wants you to do, which is why I don't like where the game is heading). You might try to do what any CE character would: strongarm them, being cruel to everyone else, maybe treat them as your minions, but even a CE character would stop at backstabbing a former companion. Unless the CE character goes Complete Monster: again, this is what worries me, and the fact that both of you agreed to turn him into an Anti-Paladin is what worries me the most. If he railroaded you into losing your Paladin powers despite playing it as-is, he'll railroad you AND your party members into killing you (or you killing them).

Now I can show him this post and that there is no reason for him to ban me from my idea. If he does I'll just bow out.

[Krobar]

I would say sure. An evil person can use others for his own ends as much as he wants.