Paladin's Code and evil teammates

[Inquisitor Who?]

Hi guys, starting a prepublished Pathfinder campaign with my friends and they tasked me with setting up a party for them. I have a team consisting of;

LN Dwarven inquisitor, who has managed to bond to him a CE goblin sorcerer (through the old 'work for me or die' logic) teaming up with an aasimar paladin.

My question is, would the paladin's code of conduct allow this? The evil character is being restrained (and the inquisitor's final aim is to get them to repent) so would it be considered a 'greater good'?

[Frosty]

It's probably fine as long as the paladin also joins in on the redemption process.

[Psyren]

The paladin can always check (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/m-p/phylactery-of-faithfulness). But yes, this is fine, so long as they keep a close eye on the teammate and don't let him toast innocents for fun or anything like that.

The paladin must however end the arrangement the moment they "feel it is doing more harm than good."

[Crake]

It depends on what they're doing. The pathfinder paladin code specifies a paladin can only associate with evil characters in the pursuit of defeating a greater evil, buf if they're just chumming it out doing little adventures here and there, then probably not.

[Geddy2112]

The pathfinder paladin code specifies a paladin can only associate with evil characters in the pursuit of defeating a greater evil.

Just follow this and you should be good. A single chaotic evil goblin sorcerer is not near the threat the greater eldritch horror/BBEG/evil empire/cult/world ending threat. The threat of a single (not all that powerful) PC is not even on the same scale as all the other enemies.

So long as both the paladin and the sorcerer are against this, they can unite to defeat it. War makes strange bedfellows, enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc.

[Segev]

While this is more personal interpretation than hard canon, I tend to view the "association" clause as "being friends with and tacitly condoning their actions." Having evil that you keep under your watchful eye and don't let get away with anything isn't going to trigger it, I think.

[icefractal]

through the old 'work for me or die' logicI'd worry more about this than the Paladin - how well is that arrangement going to hold up when the Sorcerer gets the ability to easily escape? Even if the player is on board and decides to never pick any spells like Invisibility, Teleport, etc., the Inquisitor could still be KO'd during a fight, and you'll need some explanation why the Sorcerer doesn't leave at that point.

I think it might work better if the leverage was less direct. Like for instance, the Sorcerer wants to live in [Kingdom X], but he's a wanted criminal there. If the Inquisitor vouched for him that status could be changed ... which will only happen if he sticks around and demonstrates he's turned away from evil (or at least convinces the Inquisitor of such).

[Pugwampy]

I recall reading a rule somewhere .

The bound servant shares the same alignment as the Master .

[digiman619]

Assuming this is a Paladin rather than a paladin (i.e., someone with the Paladin class levels rather than any of a dozen other martial classes who is a member of a divine order), then RAW, maybe. Personally, I'd suggest taking up what LoyalPaladin suggested and replace the Code of Conduct with your deity's creed. Way more reliable that way.

[John Longarrow]

For the sorcerer, I'd either go goblin OR CE, not both. Waay to many RPing issues to sort through when glaringly good and glaringly evil travel together. Its like mixing Mentos and Pepsi.

[Inquisitor Who?]

Thanks for the input folks. To solve the problem of the sorcerer not having a good reason not to kill everyone, I've decided to give them a little IC info on the end game loot (we're playing Splinters of Faith) to convince them to play along with the group, at least until they find the sceptre. The party as a whole enjoy some friction in the group, so I'm not too worried about bruised egos if they do eventually turn on the rest of the team.

[Segev]

Thanks for the input folks. To solve the problem of the sorcerer not having a good reason not to kill everyone, I've decided to give them a little IC info on the end game loot (we're playing Splinters of Faith) to convince them to play along with the group, at least until they find the sceptre. The party as a whole enjoy some friction in the group, so I'm not too worried about bruised egos if they do eventually turn on the rest of the team.

Woah, woah, woah, hold on here. It is not your responsibility to convince the sorcerer's player that his character has a good reason for not killing the group. Playing CE in a party can be fun, for everybody. But it is 100% the responsibility of EVERY player in ANY game to come up with the reason why his PC is a) in the group and b) not ruining the game for the other players.

That generally includes "not going to kill the other PCs, at least any more than any other PC is likely to."

You do not let him play his CE character unless he can tell you why his character would be no more likely to kill the other PCs than, say, the paladin.

[Alcore]

Woah, woah, woah, hold on here. It is not your responsibility to convince the sorcerer's player that his character has a good reason for not killing the group. Playing CE in a party can be fun, for everybody. But it is 100% the responsibility of EVERY player in ANY game to come up with the reason why his PC is a) in the group and b) not ruining the game for the other players.

That generally includes "not going to kill the other PCs, at least any more than any other PC is likely to."

You do not let him play his CE character unless he can tell you why his character would be no more likely to kill the other PCs than, say, the paladin.

I agree fully with the above statement; if that is the problem then you will have a much bigger problem if the player in question can't answer that one.

[Âmesang]

Coming up with a reason for why my CE character wouldn't betray the party is half of the fun of playing such a character, at least for me. :smallsmile: Granted, it usually boils down to "attacking the party turns them into enemies and he doesn't need any more enemies gunning for him than necessary."

Plus the more well-behaved the character acts, I find, the less likely others are to be untrusting (relatively speaking), making them somewhat more likely to help out… and thus (unwittingly) serving as tools/pawns/meatshields for the character's ultimate evil goal! :smallbiggrin: Mua-ha-ha!

Granted, it generally boils down to me not wanting to act like a jerk to other players, regardless of alignment, which is probably why I'll never play a kender in any capacity, at least not without being very careful about it.

[Kelvarius]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.


Paladins are more than just holy vanquishers of evil. They are an inspiration; the last bulwark of all that is good. By definition, they're practically exalted. Just because someone IS evil is not enough to condemn him/her to death. Remember, Paladins are also lawful, and killing someone just because they're evil is not only a chaotic act (Because that would be vigilantism), it is against the Paladin's code to do so (Respecting legal authority, which would likely say something along the lines of no murdering people and that's what it would be if they haven't done anything other than be evil).

Now, with all that said, yes the PHB does say that Paladins can't knowingly associate with evil. Personally, I think that's stupid, both as a DM and a player. And you should probably speak with your DM about that specifically being removed. And the reason for that, and why I mention all of the above, is that Paladins are exemplars of good. They do more than just go on a fanatical crusade against evil. They also prove to people the good in humanity as a shining beacon of goodness.

They teach by example. They show compassion, forgiveness, even when no one else will.

That last line is important, so I'll say it again.

They teach by example. They show compassion, forgiveness, even when no one else will.

Who needs to see that there's more to the world than selfishness and greed and other vices of mankind?

Who needs to remember what it was once like to be loved and accepted?

Who needs to be shown that, despite all they've done, can still be redeemed?

Who needs compassion and forgiveness more than those that have strayed furthest from the light?

And that is why you adventure with evil.