[3.5] Crusader good or bad

[maxion]

My character wants to play a hellbrand, which would be extremely vengeful for evil characters. Like not only killing but even torturing them. I'm not sure what character should I allow for such a person. He told me he would like to be paladin crusader, but for me it doesn't really comes into paladin's agenda, at least classic one. Would you suggest any alternative paladin or paladin-like class that would fit such character? How would you call such a character? Is it more of a lawful one coz of strict rules? Or chaotic coz of torturing? Is it good coz takes care of evil, or bad coz it gives them a lot of pain? Thank you for help.

[Eldariel]

The character would be evil himself, obviously, because torture is evil. Lawful or Chaotic, it depends on their ethos beyond what's stated in the OP. Torture isn't chaotic or lawful as such, it depends on the context it takes place in. A vigilante would generally be chaotic and this character sounds that way so Chaotic Evil most probably though. Anyways, anyone attacking someone for no reason but their alignment is evil. Outsiders are a different matter, but humanoids have the ability to choose and while someone is evil, they may only do what they perceive is best. Torture of sentient humanoids/monstrous humanoids/giants is most certainly evil.
While harming one’s enemies physically is not inherently villainous, harming their souls is always evil. Only the foulest of villains could actually want to cause pain to another creature’s eternal aspect. Creatures without corrupt hearts simply dispatch their foes quickly, believing that sending a villain off to the justice of the afterlife is punishment enough. But evil beings like to capture foes and torture them to death, and some even prefer to torture the souls of their foes, never granting them the release of death. Worse still, some evil beings use their foul magic to destroy an opponent’s soul, ending his or her existence altogether.
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture...
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve...Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil. Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom:
“I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable."

Inquisitor-kinda stuff lies in the boundary of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil. Much depends on the details. However, this doesn't sound like that kind of stuff: evil means are evil, end of story. In D&D it ultimately makes the universe a more evil place, as evil and good are actual real forces in the universe struggling for dominance. You could run the Crusader class [Tome of Battle] in this sense as it lacks the alignment restrictions and generally suits a Paladinny style character without the baggage.

[Telonius]

Yeah, if the player is planning on torturing his enemies, it's going to be hard to justify Paladin levels. I'd suggest you'd have to go in as something like a Grey Guard (from Complete Scoundrel) or Shadowbane Inquisitor (from Complete Adventurer). If Tome of Battle is available, something like the Crusader class could work very well with the concept.

If you're more worried that, "Hey, I don't think a Hellbred would really work as a Paladin," that's a bit of a separate issue.

[The Kool]

There are a number of paladin variants out there for the different alignments, and a few for different philosophies. Scroll down this page to see them (https://molivero.com/dndtools/USRD/srd/classes/baseCore/paladin.html), and then work from there. That said, there is also a Crusader class in Tome of Battle which should work just fine. Anyone devoted to a cause can be a Crusader, regardless of alignment or deity.

EDIT: Isn't Paladin the Hellbred's favored class?

[JMS]

EDIT: Isn't Paladin the Hellbred's favored class?

Yeah, IIRC (Off books), Hellbred were trapped by the Hells due to a “beurocracy error” and hype to use their second chance at life to get out, often by serving good deities.

[Particle_Man]

Paladins don’t torture and a hellbred who does is screwing himself in the afterlife.

Maybe talk the pc out of torture. I mean aside from anything else you might want to eat while running the game.

[NontheistCleric]

Yeah, IIRC (Off books), Hellbred were trapped by the Hells due to a “beurocracy error” and hype to use their second chance at life to get out, often by serving good deities.

In 3.5 at least, it's less that and more that they were genuinely evil but repented at the very last moment. So, they don't just get let off, hence the infernal aspect of their appearance and nature, but the forces of good at least gave them a second chance.

Although they are also stated to forget much of their previous sinful life, which from a certain point of view could be said to be undermining the whole 'redemption' idea.

[liquidformat]

So sounds like an evil character which goes against the idea of hellbred to start they are humans that were evil went to hell and now are getting a second chance to try and be good. So being outright evil and torturing their enemies seems like a quick path right back down to where they came from.

With that said their are the evil paladin variants from UA (can be found in the SRD). All of them pair relatively well with crusader or you could just go straight crusader too.

[The Kool]

Yeah, it's also canon that most Hellbred suck at being Good and wind up right back on the lower planes anyway. Many try, few succeed, quite a number never even really wrap their heads around the whole second chance thing and just do whatever they want anyway.

[Mr Adventurer]

OP never mentioned Hellbred.

[liquidformat]

OP never mentioned Hellbred.

Well hellbrand isn't a thing in dnd, so we assumed it was a spelling error...

[Troacctid]

Vigilante, crimson scourge, avenging executioner, and justiciar might all be prestige classes of interest.

[Malphegor]

Grey Guard might be what you’re after if you want to keep it simple- ultimately you’re a paladin type who has special dispensation to kick rear ends and do terrible acts for the Greater Good (shut it). You still need to atone for your deeds if you do a bad, but clerics don’t need to pay xp to absolve you of your crimes, and you still cannot go full evil or the god might revoke your 007 rank and your license to be a grizzled old cop.

It’s like if the regular Paladin is a holy figure who is semi-mythic and idealist, whilst a Grey Guard is the pragmatic variant who understands that in the real world you can’t always turn the other cheek- sometimes you need to face the darkness and kick its teeth in and make it beg for mercy, and you’re fresh outta mercy.

[Particle_Man]

Crusader into Blackguard also works, if the pc is dead set on being a torturer.