how to attach a paladin to the party without incurring in the policeman syndrome

[King of Nowhere]

in my next mission the party will be contacted by a paladin and asked for help. they'll surely want to bring her along, too, both because it would make little sense for said paladin to ask their help and then sit on her thumbs while they do the work and because my party has a tendency to recruit any minor npc they can recruit (and then somehow keep them alive against my subtle attempts to have them "accidentally" killed at every combat because they take too much space and time).

Problem is, the party barbarian is a lot like belkar. while fighting for the cause of good, he is prone to bouts of violence, and is especially known for intentionally maiming important prisoners and killing unimportant ones. I figure there's no way a paladin can turn her head the other side. on the other hand, i don't want to have someone always looking at the party and complaining for everything they do that is not clean and pure. there is also the fact that the paladin is much less powerful than the party, so she doesn't have any real leverage on them. oh, she may use her sacred paladin oath to force herself in a position where the party would be forced to kill her, therefore losing any reward and earning the enmity of any paladin, but she would never go to such lengths just for some gratuitous violence, especially since the prisoner they are likely to capture have killled her husband and a bunch of other people.

So I'm still stuck with the dilemma. the paladin can't ignore outright evil actions taken by the party, but she also cannot do anything about them, and grumbling all the time would only annoy everyone and make her look weak. if she somehow succeeded to impose the players a moral conduct, she would be effectively policing them, which would also suck. I'm looking for options.

P.S. if you're wondering about the "paladins won't associate with evil characters" thing, I interpret them with some flexibility as more of a "won't be part of an association dedicated towards evil goals". A temporary association with an evil character for explicitly nonevil purposes is perfectly fine, especially if said evil character is the only one who can help her save a lot of people.

P.P.S. the party also has a cleptomaniac rogue, but I am confident she can do her stuff without the paladin noticing, so no problem there. also there won't be much worth stealing where they are going anyway.

[Red Fel]

Does the Paladin know about your murderous Barbarian, or is she just contacting adventuring parties at random?

Is the mission the sort of plot-sensitive thing that you, as DM, can't afford to have your party fail, or is failure an option?

Does the Barbarian's player have the sense to lay off the senseless murder while being supervised?

These are the questions you have to think about. If the Paladin knows about the murderous Barbarian, then she's clearly okay with his tendencies on some level, and is willing to set aside her discomfort to make things work - otherwise, she wouldn't pick this party. If failure is an option, then this Paladin can basically ditch the party and try to find people who aren't willing to abet unjustified murder, and the party can think about what the Barbarian's lack of self-control has wrought. And if the Barbarian's player has the sense to just lay off for a few freaking minutes, the entire thing is a non-issue.

The Paladin doesn't have to police the party's behavior. She can leave. The Barbarian can behave without prompting. Or not. Unless you've made this some kind of plot-mandatory quest with accompanying NPC - in which case, really? - there can be consequences for crossing the line that don't involve the Paladin forcing her code of conduct on the PCs.

[Ellrin]

in my next mission the party will be contacted by a paladin and asked for help. they'll surely want to bring her along, too, both because it would make little sense for said paladin to ask their help and then sit on her thumbs while they do the work and because my party has a tendency to recruit any minor npc they can recruit (and then somehow keep them alive against my subtle attempts to have them "accidentally" killed at every combat because they take too much space and time).

Problem is, the party barbarian is a lot like belkar. while fighting for the cause of good, he is prone to bouts of violence, and is especially known for intentionally maiming important prisoners and killing unimportant ones. I figure there's no way a paladin can turn her head the other side. on the other hand, i don't want to have someone always looking at the party and complaining for everything they do that is not clean and pure. there is also the fact that the paladin is much less powerful than the party, so she doesn't have any real leverage on them. oh, she may use her sacred paladin oath to force herself in a position where the party would be forced to kill her, therefore losing any reward and earning the enmity of any paladin, but she would never go to such lengths just for some gratuitous violence, especially since the prisoner they are likely to capture have killled her husband and a bunch of other people.

So I'm still stuck with the dilemma. the paladin can't ignore outright evil actions taken by the party, but she also cannot do anything about them, and grumbling all the time would only annoy everyone and make her look weak. if she somehow succeeded to impose the players a moral conduct, she would be effectively policing them, which would also suck. I'm looking for options.

P.S. if you're wondering about the "paladins won't associate with evil characters" thing, I interpret them with some flexibility as more of a "won't be part of an association dedicated towards evil goals". A temporary association with an evil character for explicitly nonevil purposes is perfectly fine, especially if said evil character is the only one who can help her save a lot of people.

P.P.S. the party also has a cleptomaniac rogue, but I am confident she can do her stuff without the paladin noticing, so no problem there. also there won't be much worth stealing where they are going anyway.

The main thing to remember about paladins interacting with people who aren't so Lawful Good is that paladins usually don't have any legal authority. A paladin who wants to be lawful basically has to accept that he can't go around killing evildoers except in the name of protecting the innocent, and so one who's already committed herself to working with people of more questionable integrity has already accepted the fact that she won't necessarily be able to do much about their less outrageous outrages.

That said--there are ways to achieve goals without violence. A paladin working with chaotic and/or evil characters could easily attempt to remove temptation altogether--trying to find a way to stop a conflict before it really gets started--, or could try to dissuade the characters from their nonlawful and/or nongood ways--maybe even introducing them to the paladin's religion, if the characters/players are receptive. Paladins may typically dump Int, but they'll often have good Wis, which means they should be able to think of ways around problems. They also usually have good Cha, and should therefore be pretty persuasive (even if Diplomacy rolls don't strictly work on PCs).

If worse comes to worst and the characters are just straight-up murderhobos in spite of the paladin's efforts, the paladin would likely separate from the party (unless the situation were truly dire and the party represented the only possible hope the paladin knew of, in which case like any other person she could push her morals aside temporarily to get things done and seek atonement after the fact). If the party represented a real threat to good and/or law, she would probsbly cooperate with local legal authorities to try to have them stopped, instead of taking the task on single-handedly (and outside the law).

The only situation I can think of where a reasonable character in your paladin's shoes should attempt to fight them is in defence of her oath--in order to protect innocents who were actively in danger at the party's hands, for example.

[Nifft]

Why would the person contacting them be a Paladin in specific?

This party is clearly of the more pragmatic bent.

Why not have a somewhat pragmatic NPC be their point-person? Maybe a Ranger, maybe a Favored Soul, maybe a Fighter / Cleric / bad PrC who made terrible build decisions but is also not Oath of Conduct bound?

[Deophaun]

Duck tape for the literal answer to the question in the title, and duck tape for the issues in the OP.

[animewatcha]

Does the Paladin know about your murderous Barbarian, or is she just contacting adventuring parties at random?

Is the mission the sort of plot-sensitive thing that you, as DM, can't afford to have your party fail, or is failure an option?

Does the Barbarian's player have the sense to lay off the senseless murder while being supervised?

These are the questions you have to think about. If the Paladin knows about the murderous Barbarian, then she's clearly okay with his tendencies on some level, and is willing to set aside her discomfort to make things work - otherwise, she wouldn't pick this party. If failure is an option, then this Paladin can basically ditch the party and try to find people who aren't willing to abet unjustified murder, and the party can think about what the Barbarian's lack of self-control has wrought. And if the Barbarian's player has the sense to just lay off for a few freaking minutes, the entire thing is a non-issue.

The Paladin doesn't have to police the party's behavior. She can leave. The Barbarian can behave without prompting. Or not. Unless you've made this some kind of plot-mandatory quest with accompanying NPC - in which case, really? - there can be consequences for crossing the line that don't involve the Paladin forcing her code of conduct on the PCs.

Along this line that Red Fel presents..

The barbarian can make for a circumstance bonus to diplomacy or intimidate during interrogation. You see the paladin, at some point, has to get something to eat or drink. Someone has to watch the prisoner. Now the paladin can instruct the barbarian to please only restrain him if he tries to get loose, not kill. While the paladin is away/ not looking, barbar beats the living daylights out the prisoner and does a few scratches on himself. Paladin comes back and the prisoner is very much cooperative. Paladin makes a comment on why this happens to the prisoners whenever he leaves and comes back, but also makes mention that for some reason the prisoner is always more cooperative whenever he does ever since this barbarian started being the guard.

Good cop/bad cop gone further.

Now the paladin may be wise enough to suspect something is going, but is he smart enough put 2 and 2 together. He has to admit that what is going on is working for his cause better than before this party. Barbarians are easy to blame by the prisoners for these things happening. What with the raging and muscles, etc.

[Esprit15]

The party has a tendency to be fine with morally grey behavior, and wants to bring a paladin along with them? Sounds like they want to be lectured by someone has loftier morals than them.

Personally, I would go about this one of two ways:

1) Have the paladin be the moral voice for the party. "We can do this better, guys." "He's surrendering, there's no need to fight anymore." They cross the paladin once, they get clear warning that future behavior like that will not be permitted. They cross again, the paladin either leaves, or fights them, depending on circumstances.

B) The paladin has other business that needs attending. If they want a babysitter, they shouldn't be in this line of work.

If the party wants to shoot themselves in the foot, I say go for it. That's what can happen when you bring people along with you. They may not work well with the team dynamic that already exists. It's an easy way to organically make them question whether they bring NPCs with them, which you seem to want to discourage without making it a flat rule.

[Malroth]

I'm agreeing with Espirit's plan B. Have the paladin have multiple quests that need doing at the same time and they can't babysit both groups at the same time. The Paladin's initial plan is to have the more competent group (presumably the PCs) take care of the more important mission, and the babysitting will be done to a less renown group undertaking something the party could have handled 3 levels ago. If the PC's INSIST on the paladin following them then sure go ahead and have the fun police tag around and lecture them.

[King of Nowhere]

ok, thanks everyone for your answers. I am probably worrying too much about it all, and probably nothing bad will happen. I just saw a couple of scenarios where things spiraled out of control and got worried.


Does the Paladin know about your murderous Barbarian, or is she just contacting adventuring parties at random?

Is the mission the sort of plot-sensitive thing that you, as DM, can't afford to have your party fail, or is failure an option?

Does the Barbarian's player have the sense to lay off the senseless murder while being supervised?

These are the questions you have to think about. If the Paladin knows about the murderous Barbarian, then she's clearly okay with his tendencies on some level, and is willing to set aside her discomfort to make things work - otherwise, she wouldn't pick this party. If failure is an option, then this Paladin can basically ditch the party and try to find people who aren't willing to abet unjustified murder, and the party can think about what the Barbarian's lack of self-control has wrought. And if the Barbarian's player has the sense to just lay off for a few freaking minutes, the entire thing is a non-issue.

The Paladin doesn't have to police the party's behavior. She can leave. The Barbarian can behave without prompting. Or not. Unless you've made this some kind of plot-mandatory quest with accompanying NPC - in which case, really? - there can be consequences for crossing the line that don't involve the Paladin forcing her code of conduct on the PCs.

well, the paladin was living in a poor depressed place and didn't get many news from thhe outside. she has an inkling of the group's tendencies, but nothing very specific. Furthermore, she has little money, the quest is unlikely to offer much loot (of course it will end up offering level-appropriate loot, but only the players can know it), and she's looking for someone of reasonably high level willing to work for nothing but an "i owe you a favor" card, and so the party is her only choice. it is not plot-sensitive and the pc can screw up as much as they want.

and hey, I once made a plot-mandatory quest with an accompanying NPC and the players liked it so much that they later went to seek the npc to do another quest with him. it helps that the npc in question was half awesome and half comedy relief.

[Gildedragon]

Paladin might take as pay for the Barbarian to behave in a non-E fashion... Or at least non-murderous
It is suitably altruistic and doesn't directly police the party.

[Goaty14]

Have you introduced the pally yet?

Paladin variants.
There is also a CG paladin prestige class somewhere.

[logic_error]

Have you introduced the pally yet?

Paladin variants.
There is also a CG paladin prestige class somewhere.

Paladin of Freedom. With an eagle and all ;).

[TheFurith]

Classic problem that. Now the party could, as I would in this situation, simply insist that the paladin stay home and out of the way. Because regardless of party adding something to it that isn't going to work, well, isn't going to work. Or have the paladin vow to follow our way of doing things so long as they travel with us. Putting the dilemma entirely on the NPC to either break one vow or another. But that's on them, not you.

You could actually succeed in killing this NPC. Since you seem to prefer that. Just put more effort this time. Do a paladiny self sacrifice thing or something. Preferably before the barbarian does what barbarians do. They don't have that name for no reason.

Or, if the NPC is high enough level to qualify, I suggest the Grey Guard. Because that solves your problem no matter what direction this goes.

[Lacuna Caster]

The party has a tendency to be fine with morally grey behavior, and wants to bring a paladin along with them? Sounds like they want to be lectured by someone has loftier morals than them.
This. If the party actively wants to bring her along, they either need to shape up or prepare for a filibuster or two. Since I find PCs matching the barbarian's description exceedingly tedious, either way I have no sympathy. And If the argument is that, realistically, she would insist on going, well... you can invent realistic reasons for her to be elsewhere.

[Goaty14]

Is the barbarian dumb? Because according to BoED, a creature that has the always evil alignment shouldn't be worth converting -- Therefore if the barb thought anyone he kills is always evil, then he has "just cause" (It is also explicit that redeeming enemies shouldn't be a first though in an encounter)

He doesn't even have to be dumb, he could just as easily convinced that any fool that wants to fight him must surely be evil. If the paladin cannot prove the dead corpse was actually pure neutral, he cannot be discredited, and the paladin cannot declare it a wrong act.

[Ellrin]

Preferably before the barbarian does what barbarians do. They don't have that name for no reason.

Yeah, they have that name because they speak a hideous "barbar" language no civilized Greek can understand.

[King of Nowhere]

Is the barbarian dumb? Because according to BoED, a creature that has the always evil alignment shouldn't be worth converting -- Therefore if the barb thought anyone he kills is always evil, then he has "just cause" (It is also explicit that redeeming enemies shouldn't be a first though in an encounter)

He doesn't even have to be dumb, he could just as easily convinced that any fool that wants to fight him must surely be evil. If the paladin cannot prove the dead corpse was actually pure neutral, he cannot be discredited, and the paladin cannot declare it a wrong act.

well, i don't use the "always evil" tags except for demons and similar creatures. plus, i don't want any looopholes.
the barbarian is actually fairly smart (good rolled stats), and the player is very unpredictable - not necessarily in a bad way, but he's the guy who always finds the shortcuts to overcome the challenges, so i expect pretty much anything from him.
I suppose if he starts torturing the prisoners she can just coup-de-grace them, though. she would probably do it herself, since they are guilty and she has no facilities to hold them anyway.