Devoted to Good in the neutral party - or "the Paladin problem"

[WarKitty]

We're all familiar with the paladin problem. The character that seems to have an iron rod firmly implanted up their butt. Needless to say this isn't good roleplaying or fun for anyone. Nonetheless, the character that is firmly devoted to an ideal or set of ideals is a long-standing trope, and one that many players find attractive.

The problems come when not all the party shares their ideals. Putting the devoted paladin or cleric in the party with the neutral kill-them-before-they-kill-me rogue naturally results in conflict. Now, I'm not opposed to a bit of in-character conflict. However, it seems in my experience to lead to one of two outcomes. One, the Good character ends up looking like the anal goody two shoes that's always getting in the way of everyone else's fun (or sense of self-preservation). Two, the Good character backs off and ends up looking wimpy and not really devoted to his ideals, as he stands by and watches his less devoted allies violate his code repeatedly. Either way one ends up wondering why this party is still together.

How do you play a devoted character like this while avoiding these issues?

[Zansumkai]

Not sure if this'll be helpful, but I'm playing a paladin in a friend's game (a pretty heavily customized version of BESM, basically D&D modern on mars), and I've found that a sort of wild west lawman attitude is pretty functional as well as keeping with his paladin's code. Sam (the paladin) is plenty ready to strap on his sword and shield and get to work, but against most intelligent creatures he'll give at least half a chance for them to be taken peacefully. I think the other thing to keep in mind is lawful good doesn't necessarily mean lawful dumb. Sam's not going to walk into obvious danger or eschew a good sneak attack unless there is a good reason. Now throw some innocents into the mix and that attitude changes obviously, but for the most part he's not going to deny what it takes to get his job done, i.e an aggressive attitude towards wrong-doers and knowing his own moral code is what keeps him from sinking to their level, even if his methods might not be much better. It's all for the greater good after all

[hamishspence]

One option might be to come up with an array of selfish justifications for not committing objectionable acts, or for helping others.

If the Neutral characters have a reason to not "kill them before they kill me" in their own paradigm, that you can all be acting in roughly the same way- but the rest of the party are doing it for selfish reasons, and the paladin is doing it "because it's right".

Champions of Valor suggests that good characters do this- give the other party members a selfish or pragmatic reason to "do the right thing".

[dsmiles]

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Emphasis mine.

"Okay, rogue, straighten up, or GTFO."

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

[WarKitty]

Emphasis mine.

"Okay, rogue, straighten up, or GTFO."

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

Well, I wasn't thinking only of the paladin. The same problem comes up if you want to play any sort of devoted good character. In this case it's a druid going Lion of Talsid.

Anyways pretty much every DM I've played with has waived or relaxed that requirement. Otherwise it turns into "just don't play a paladin, you'll have to either leave the group or end up as a fighter with no bonus feats."

[dsmiles]

Exalted characters, while sharing some similarities with Paladins, are not bound by as strict of a code, if bound at all. AFB, I don't think Lions of Talisid are specifically bound by a code, any more than any other exalted character. In this scenario, I'd probably have a down-to-earth chat with said rogue. Said conversation may include the fact that I could turn them into a toad at a whim (whether I actually can or not). Lying to preserve the greater good, IMO, is not a foul worth a fall.

[jiriku]

I have two good angles I pursue, based on the authority my PC holds in the group: dominant leader or submissive follower.

If I'm the party leader or the most dominant personality in the PC group, I just push them around and even bully them a little in the direction of good. Think of it like this: "You're in it for the gold? Fine. Do it my way or you don't get paid." or ""This is my plan. We're going to follow my plan or we're all going to end up dead. You got a better plan, let's hear it."

If I'm not in charge, then I try to be a good follower. The group is going to do what it's going to do, and it's not my place to pre-empt the party leader, but I have my personal code and I'll live by it, even if the rest of the party lives by a different code or no code at all. Imagine something like, "You may kill the fallen, but I do not. Do as you will while you fight, but this one is my prisoner -- stand aside." or "Steal the duke's treasure if you will, but I will not rob a friend. I want no part of these ill-gotten gains."

[WarKitty]

Exalted characters, while sharing some similarities with Paladins, are not bound by as strict of a code, if bound at all. AFB, I don't think Lions of Talisid are specifically bound by a code, any more than any other exalted character. In this scenario, I'd probably have a down-to-earth chat with said rogue. Said conversation may include the fact that I could turn them into a toad at a whim (whether I actually can or not). Lying to preserve the greater good, IMO, is not a foul worth a fall.

You are correct about the code. The issue is one of RP rather than falling or not falling.

I guess I should start putting ranks into diplomacy and bluff?

Edit @ jiriku: Nice ideas there, although that sounds waaaay more organized than our party ever is. We're a pretty democratic group with no clear leader.

[dsmiles]

I guess I should start putting ranks into diplomacy and bluff?

That's how I'd roll.

[gbprime]

Yeah, "be good" is a much more flexible approach than a Paladin's strict vows. That allows a lot of leeway, and lets you be the moral point in an amoral (not necessarily immoral) group. Their follies cause arguments and face palm moments, not crises of faith.

overall it's good role play.

[WarKitty]

That's how I'd roll.

This would be a lot easier if I had charisma.

[Jolly]

I have two good angles I pursue, based on the authority my PC holds in the group: dominant leader or submissive follower.

If I'm the party leader or the most dominant personality in the PC group, I just push them around and even bully them a little in the direction of good. Think of it like this: "You're in it for the gold? Fine. Do it my way or you don't get paid." or ""This is my plan. We're going to follow my plan or we're all going to end up dead. You got a better plan, let's hear it."

My DM's generally don't allow PvP, but I'd have a nice IC chat with Mr Paladin about how I know where they sleep and if they want to continue to wake up every morning they'll calm the hell down.

[dsmiles]

This would be a lot easier if I had charisma.

With enuff skillz, you don' need no stinkin' cha-ris-ma.

[Marnath]

Well, I wasn't thinking only of the paladin. The same problem comes up if you want to play any sort of devoted good character. In this case it's a druid going Lion of Talsid.

Druids, even good ones, can party with just about anyone. Remember, that from their point of view, the whole "look out for number one, kill your enemies before they kill you" thing is a prefectly acceptable law of nature. A good druid might personally hold to a higher moral standard than that, but they'll be more than accepting of pretty much anyone who isn't a violent pyschopath.

[Jayabalard]

Needless to say this isn't good roleplaying or fun for anyone.

Why not? Sure, it's easy to turn out terrible, but that doesn't mean that it always does.

[HenryHankovitch]

Lead by example, not by lecturing or moralizing. A truly paladin-esque, capital-g Good character would see his Neutral allies as people capable of redemption, of being "saved," or at least of serving the greater good. In-character, it's best to think of this as a long-term project (and probably something that's never even mentioned openly, just a motivation in the player's head).

Being Good in a non-Good party is like any situation where your moral code clashes with your companions (evil in a non-evil party, tree-hugging druid in a KILL THE BEARS FOR XP group, etc.). Actually pulling it off with require some pretty good roleplaying chops. You have to know when to make a stand and when to let things slide, and most importantly you have to know how to be diplomatic and persuasive when dealing with your companions in-character. You can supplement your persuasion with skill rolls, but don't ever try doing the diplomancy thing on other PCs. Try to highlight the benefits of doing good work ("if we help these villagers, we'll have a much better reputation when we try to get that mercenary contract from the Duke.") Appeal to their enlightened self-interest. And never, ever ask anyone to sacrifice something that your player isn't already giving up. Be willing to forego treasure/rewards in order to bribe your fellow party members. ("Taking out these bandits is so important to me, I'll do it for free--you guys can have my share.")

You don't want to be that guy who constantly wants us to do goody-two-shoes stuff. You want to be that guy who we like having on our side, because he's a righteous bro.

[Chen]

My DM's generally don't allow PvP, but I'd have a nice IC chat with Mr Paladin about how I know where they sleep and if they want to continue to wake up every morning they'll calm the hell down.

So no direct PvP but that would just cause any reasonable paladin to leave. Or attack considering you effectively just threatened to kill him in his sleep. Who the hell would stay in a group where someone made a threat like that unless you're massively metagaming?

[kyoryu]

In theme with my current obsession with old-school gaming, it seems like this is a real holdover from ancient editions of D&D, where typical gameplay would have each player with multiple possible characters.

In those situations, it's pretty easy to deal with the paladin problem - when putting together a group, the paladin only gets put in compatible groups. No problem.

It's an interesting problem in more modern styles of gaming where each player typically has one character. I don't know if it's really solvable with RAW.

Lead by example, not by lecturing or moralizing.

This is good advice, but doesn't address that, RAW, a paladin may not associate with individuals that are evil. If another player wants to play an evil character (or even one that violates the Paladin's "association" rules), there's an inherent conflict. The Paladin falls, leaves the party, the evil character changes, or the evil character leaves. There's no way, RAW, for both players to get the characters that they want to play.

[dsmiles]

@WarKitty: Don't forget to throw in the fact that after you've turned them into a toad, the party wizard would be happy to have a familiar.

[WarKitty]

Druids, even good ones, can party with just about anyone. Remember, that from their point of view, the whole "look out for number one, kill your enemies before they kill you" thing is a prefectly acceptable law of nature. A good druid might personally hold to a higher moral standard than that, but they'll be more than accepting of pretty much anyone who isn't a violent pyschopath.

That is one possible interpretation of the laws of nature. It's not the only one. The specific situation where this came up was a party member deciding to off a prisoner (a low-level minion) after we'd already killed his boss.

My DM's generally don't allow PvP, but I'd have a nice IC chat with Mr Paladin about how I know where they sleep and if they want to continue to wake up every morning they'll calm the hell down.

So how would you suggest playing a good character then without being a total pushover?

[BardicDuelist]

With enuff skillz, you don' need no stinkin' cha-ris-ma.

Intimidate: I got mad skillz.

[Callista]

You have a good talk with the rest of the party and figure out ways to make it work. If you can't make it work, then somebody picks a different character.

If you're going to play a character in conflict with another character, you should always have a backup (and so should they) so you don't miss out on the adventuring if one PC kills the other or if a PC leaves the group. In general, the paladin problem would be solved by the paladin leaving the group more often than not; the best way to get around that is to give them a common enemy and a reason for the paladin to stick around. And the non-paladin players have to understand that their characters would know that some things have to be hidden from the guy who would probably smite them (or, more likely, lecture them for two hours) if he knew what they'd just done.

It's not just paladins, really; it's also greedy rogues in an altruistic party or necromancers in the same party with the barbarian who's freaked out by the undead, or an evil character in a neutral party, or a lawman in a party full of rogues. If you're gonna play a party with characters who won't like each other, then make sure you can make it work first, instead of just jumping in and figuring you'll find an answer somehow. That way leads to fractured parties, PVP, or at least people who are playing their characters out of character because they don't want to rock the boat.

[WarKitty]

Intimidate: I got mad skillz.

I have negative charisma.

[dsmiles]

Intimidate: I got mad skillz.

*facepalm*

[Jolly]

So no direct PvP but that would just cause any reasonable paladin to leave. Or attack considering you effectively just threatened to kill him in his sleep. Who the hell would stay in a group where someone made a threat like that unless you're massively metagaming?

Well, generally I don't play in parties where people make characters designed to not like each other so I don't see this coming up. And really, "Stop being a jerk and acting like I'm a slave and you own me, or else" is hardly an unreasonable request.

So how would you suggest playing a good character then without being a total pushover?

Appeals to enlightened self interest, discuss it with the people OOC during char gen so that they don't make blatantly evil chars, turn a blind eye to low level thievery etc (you respect that they don't hold your moral viewpoint, they respect that you don't want to know about their shady actions). Generally, I just have a rule that I don't make a character designed to conflict with the party.

[HenryHankovitch]

This is good advice, but doesn't address that, RAW, a paladin may not associate with individuals that are evil. If another player wants to play an evil character (or even one that violates the Paladin's "association" rules), there's an inherent conflict. The Paladin falls, leaves the party, the evil character changes, or the evil character leaves. There's no way, RAW, for both players to get the characters that they want to play.

For one, we're discussing the problems of being good in a neutral party, rather than being good in an Evil party. And no, neutrality doesn't mean "I only do evil things half of the time."

Additionally, I tend to presuppose that paladins exist in a world where there are real, capital-e Evils. Bloodthirsty demons, genocidal tyrants, monsters that literally eat babies. Those are the evils that divinely-powered characters are expected to fight, not jaywalkers and tax evaders. As far as I'm concerned, "hey, you just picked that guy's pocket" isn't something a paladin ought to approve of, but he shouldn't be subject to divine wrath for failing to SMITE AND CLEAVE the thief.

But I do realize that my non-douchebag attitudes are not shared by everyone.

[WarKitty]

Well, generally I don't play in parties where people make characters designed to not like each other so I don't see this coming up. And really, "Stop being a jerk and acting like I'm a slave and you own me, or else" is hardly an unreasonable request.



Appeals to enlightened self interest, discuss it with the people OOC during char gen so that they don't make blatantly evil chars, turn a blind eye to low level thievery etc (you respect that they don't hold your moral viewpoint, they respect that you don't want to know about their shady actions). Generally, I just have a rule that I don't make a character designed to conflict with the party.

See I find that ends up with "you must play this type of character whether you like or enjoy that personality or not." IC conflict is fun, as long as you keep it within bounds.

For one, we're discussing the problems of being good in a neutral party, rather than being good in an Evil party. And no, neutrality doesn't mean "I only do evil things half of the time."

Additionally, I tend to presuppose that paladins exist in a world where there are real, capital-e Evils. Bloodthirsty demons, genocidal tyrants, monsters that literally eat babies. Those are the evils that divinely-powered characters are expected to fight, not jaywalkers and tax evaders. As far as I'm concerned, "hey, you just picked that guy's pocket" isn't something a paladin ought to approve of, but he shouldn't be subject to divine wrath for failing to SMITE AND CLEAVE the thief.

But I do realize that my non-douchebag attitudes are not shared by everyone.

The point isn't about falling or not falling, or incurring divine wrath, or whatever. The point is how to roleplay such a character in the party.

[dsmiles]

Those are the evils that divinely-powered characters are expected to fight, not jaywalkers and tax evaders. As far as I'm concerned, "hey, you just picked that guy's pocket" isn't something a paladin ought to approve of, but he shouldn't be subject to divine wrath for failing to SMITE AND CLEAVE the thief.

But I do realize that my non-douchebag attitudes are not shared by everyone.

No, but he should attempt to stop him and turn him in to the appropriate authorities.

[Oomblek]

I would go with what was said before, its usually easier to oust a bad member of a party of the dynamics get all buggered up. not saying that having a moral head to a party is bad.

but, like in real life, some things just dont work when put together; at least not without some give. i've personally have had no luck with lawful good in the games that i've run, mainly because being evil tends to be more fun for the group i DM for, buuuut the main point is keeping the game rolling, loosing a char sucks, expecially if its one your fond of. but in my thinking, its better to loose a finger and not a hand, if conflicts like this are popping up, as ya level its bound to get worse as the rewards are larger and the chars become more powerfull.

so my 2 cents is this, toss the lawful good and work in something else, a chaotic good can still have moral standings... just not so... "firmly rooted"

[Terumitsu]

The Gitper by the name of Psycho has this in their signature. I think it's both applicable and awesome:

"When I first became a Paladin, I thought in terms of black and white. I see now that it's really a spectrum of greys, and that plenty of people stradle my arbitrary line between good and evil.

But you know what? Those people aren't my problem. My job is to sniff out those who live their lives far enough away from that line that I need to squint to see any light, and then kick their ass in a manner most righteous."