Paladin of Slaughter

[rye0006]

I'm starting a new game soon and one of my players is new to d&d (but has rpg experience) and wants to play a religious knight type character who is evil and calls for freedom of actions - clearly a paladin of slaughter!

I've never played that class before, so can't really pass on any advice to her.
What would people say are important things for her to be aware of?

[teslas]

Be prepared for most of the world to hate her. Tell her to bribe the DM for a cool mount at level 5.

[kamikasei]

Well, the first and most important piece of advice I'd give to anyone considering such a character is that playing a chaotic evil character religiously dedicated to being a paragon of chaos and evil is likely to be really, really annoying for the rest of the group.

Before she gives to much thought to a specific class, how does she envision the character actually functioning within a party? Who and what are the other characters?

A CE Crusader or Cleric may be a better idea in any case - anything that opens up the possibility of "falling" for not being enough of a baby-eating psychopath just sets off a lot of alarm bells.

[MarkusWolfe]

A CE Crusader or Cleric may be a better idea in any case - anything that opens up the possibility of "falling" for not being enough of a baby-eating psychopath just sets off a lot of alarm bells.

It can't be to hard to maintain Paladin of Slaughter status. If you can't benefit from not killing someone, you kill them immediately.

Watch Fist of the North Star. See how the baddies act? Treat them as your role models.

[DragonBaneDM]

Every day when she prepares her spells, she rolls 2d4.

The result is the number of orphanages she must burn down on that day.

[Vemynal]

I'm gonna second the Crusader class here, if only because its a better class and she will feel more useful to the group.

And yeah, the not *having* to be a baby eating psychopath is helpful (she can still be one as much as *she* wants to be but its just not *forced* on her)

[Choco]

It can't be to hard to maintain Paladin of Slaughter status. If you can't benefit from not killing someone, you kill them immediately.

Watch Fist of the North Star. See how the baddies act? Treat them as your role models.

The problem aint maintaining status, the problem is doing so without pissing off the rest of the group to the point where they PK you.

In general, chaotic evil types are hard to make work in most groups, even evil ones, cause a lot of people (ESPECIALLY new players) tend to play them chaotic stupid. Honestly, I would tell her to hold off on that until she thinks she has the RP experience to make that work...

[Sarakos]

The problem aint maintaining status, the problem is doing so without pissing off the rest of the group to the point where they PK you.

In general, chaotic evil types are hard to make work in most groups, even evil ones, cause a lot of people (ESPECIALLY new players) tend to play them chaotic stupid. Honestly, I would tell her to hold off on that until she thinks she has the RP experience to make that work...

or you can point her to a certain webcomic depicting a chaotice evil halfling who (kind of) works in a party for roleplay ideas/guidance

[Kylarra]

Yeah, I'm not seeing this ending up well, combining the worst of the CE with the worst of the paladin is... yeah.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Not all CE are chaotic stupid...

I meen classic example is drow... there CE and aren't Chaotic stupid.

[Hammerhead]

Being a wandering murderer is kind of what D&D characters do. I wouldn't worry about that.

Bonus points if you can keep the party in the dark about your deliberate psychosis.

I guess I'll just drop a link to the old Paladin's Handbook here, so I look like I'm positively contributing somehow.

[Callista]

I was going to mention the Drow, yes. That is a very good example of realistic CE. Drow do tend to be NE almost as often as they are CE, though.

re. Belkar: Belkar isn't just CE. He's extreme CE. He is not just Evil, he's outright Vile. Most CE characters are not as extreme as Belkar... no, not even Paladins of Slaughter. (Though I suppose the CE paladin is more likely than most to be that extreme.)

You need not focus on Evil for a paladin of slaughter. Paladins in general, of all alignments, have two allegiances--Law or Chaos, and Good or Evil. Very few are dedicated to both equally.

For example: LG paladins. Miko is focused on Law; Hinjo is focused on Good. Very different concepts.

So, if you were to make a CE paladin who is focused on chaos, you'd have the classic anarchist: Tear down all government. Let the strongest rule over the weaker. And, if I have to kill innocents along the way, so be it. In fact, killing innocents is one of the best ways to destroy civilization because it shows everyone that no one is safe; we all have to watch out for ourselves--you can't trust anybody else to take care of you. Ever. Especially not the government, which is ineffective and should be torn down at the first opportunity.

That kind of person could work with a party--though it would have to be an Evil party.

[kc0bbq]

Not all CE are chaotic stupid...

I meen classic example is drow... there CE and aren't Chaotic stupid.

Drow society is chaotic stupid and in no way is sustainable other than plot fiat. Not the best argument. :)

[Callista]

It's quite sustainable. It's only sustainable because Lolth is the most powerful person in that society and she wants it to be sustainable, so she intimidates everyone into not creating extinction through wholesale slaughter... but it's sustainable.

[Mando Knight]

I'm starting a new game soon and one of my players is new to d&d (but has rpg experience) and wants to play a religious knight type character who is evil and calls for freedom of actions - clearly a paladin of slaughter!

I've never played that class before, so can't really pass on any advice to her.
What would people say are important things for her to be aware of?

Like others have hinted at, it has the worst code of conduct out of the entire set. I mean, just read it. (Emphasis mine)

Additionally, a paladin of slaughter's code requires that she disrespect all authority figures who have not proven their physical superiority to her, refuse help to those in need, and sow destruction and death at all opportunities.

It's not a Paladin, it's a crazed swordsman. What's the difference? One's a class, the other's mental illness. It's... not possible to be a functioning member of a group and remain a Paladin of Slaughter. Paladins of Freedom and Tyranny can work in groups (but not with each other, of course), but Paladins of Slaughter are maniacs who get hunted down by every last person with a sense of decency.

A much better build would be a Rogue 4/Fighter 3 going into Blackguard, then finishing up with more Rogue levels (except possibly going for that fourth level of Fighter. Fighter 3 is the very definition of a dead level).

[Callista]

Blackguards are just as bad as paladins of slaughter...

Just like LG paladins don't go Detect-Smite at every opportunity, CE paladins don't have to randomly kill everyone they meet. CE can work with others--as long as they're useful, when they're more powerful, or if they find those people amusing. What they do have to do at all opportunities is "sow destruction and death"--and there are times when leaving someone alive is more destructive than killing them.

Incidentally, and for the record: Evil hasn't got anything to do with mental illness--mental illness happens to every alignment. CE people, for the most part, are perfectly sane. And isn't it more scary to play someone who does horribly evil things, while still being perfectly in his right mind? I know that maybe we like to reassure ourselves that it's got to be insanity because people couldn't do horrible things willingly and knowingly; but the fact is, they can and they do. That's why well-played Evil characters make people so uncomfortable sometimes.

[quiet1mi]

CE does not mean you have to eat babies... heck you can even show restraint... the restraint allows you to spare the life of one bandit so that you may slaughter the entire camp...

When in doubt act like a bully, the role model for CE. You do not have to be obvious but deep down you are a thug and a bully. If someone does not give you what you want, intimidate them (Ie:Bully them)...

Evil is not needed to define, The Chaos vs Law part tells you how you are evil...

You are impulsive and might avoid making long term plans, but by no means is this a license to be an idiot... Like I said earlier, you can bully one bandit to lead the group to the camp.

A great role model is Belkar, the sexy shoeless god of war. CE means violence is always a good answer. Belkar functions within the party as the pitbull, a strong lawful character is needed to keep them in check and on a "leash". In a fight, the leader can point them at the enemy and let go of the leash.

The only way I can see a GM making a Paladin of Slaughter Fall is if the Paladin promotes peace, with no intention of future violence to justify it...

Now go forth and promote more Violence!

[Callista]

Yup. A paladin of slaughter would fall for doing something like sparing the life of a weaker enemy--say, he wants to kill a man he can't get at otherwise, so he's tricked the man into a duel, and despite the paladin's poisoned blade and ace-up-the-sleeve magic, the man fought so well that he impressed the paladin; so that when the paladin won and had his sword to the man's throat, he simply spat on the man and left him there, unable to kill someone who showed such obvious power and resourcefulness.

That would be against the paladin's code--a proper paladin of slaughter would have disemboweled the man before leaving, especially since someone who is so close to your own power level is a threat. Showing respect to a worthy opponent is a Lawful trait and also a violation of your code.

So yeah, it's a real RP challenge. I don't know that I'd recommend it to a newbie. (Why is a newbie playing in an evil game anyway? Those are the hardest to manage as-is...)

[Keinnicht]

I'm starting a new game soon and one of my players is new to d&d (but has rpg experience) and wants to play a religious knight type character who is evil and calls for freedom of actions - clearly a paladin of slaughter!

That doesn't really sound like a Paladin of Slaughter, although that's the only class that fits. It might be better to use the Antipaladin PF variant. Given that a Paladin of Slaughter isn't so much for "freedom" as he is for "KILLKILLKILLKILLKILLKILLKILL."

CE does not mean you have to eat babies

No, but being a Paladin of Slaughter does. It's right there in the Code Of Conduct:

A Paladin of Slaughter will never knowingly fail to consume a humanoid infant that is within 100 feet of him.

[quiet1mi]

To expand on why it is difficult to play an evil character:

It is difficult because of the *Slippery Slope effect* and justifying staying with the party, especially if they do not share your alignment... It is just too easy to become Snidely Whiplash with the requirements to eat babies to power-up...

"If your soo Evil, Why Don't You Eat This Puppy!?"
or
"Aren't you going wash your hands?"
"No, Because I'm EVIL."

[Callista]

I think if this newbie really wants to play Evil, the important thing isn't which class to play but whether she's any good at figuring out who the character is and why he does things.

I suggest you find a mechanically simple class with few role-playing implications--a blank template on which she can put her own character's personality.

[hamishspence]

Blackguards are just as bad as paladins of slaughter...

Not necessarily. They don't fall for committing Good acts (unlike paladins of Slaughter, or paladins of Tyranny). A blackguard has no code of conduct to follow- only a "Must be evil" requirement.

Played right, a blackguard who takes "Pay Evil Unto Evil" as their guiding principle, could be almost indistinguishable from the average adventurer- except for just how cruel they are toward "the enemy".

[Choco]

re. Belkar: Belkar isn't just CE. He's extreme CE. He is not just Evil, he's outright Vile. Most CE characters are not as extreme as Belkar... no, not even Paladins of Slaughter. (Though I suppose the CE paladin is more likely than most to be that extreme.)

If you think Belkar is extreme CE, I should introduce you to my group... Belkar would look like a REGULAR paladin compared to some of the characters those psychos have played.

[Keinnicht]

To expand on why it is difficult to play an evil character:

It is difficult because of the *Slippery Slope effect* and justifying staying with the party, especially if they do not share your alignment... It is just too easy to become Snidely Whiplash with the requirements to eat babies to power-up...

"If your soo Evil, Why Don't You Eat This Puppy!?"
or
"Aren't you going wash your hands?"
"No, Because I'm EVIL."

I hope you realize that Slippery Slopes are a logical fallacy, not a valid point.

The trouble with the PoS and PoT is that, depending on your DM, it can be stupidly easy to fall. I mean, "never commit an evil act" is a lot less of a problem than "never commit a good act." For one thing, depending on a PoT's goal, what he's trying to do could be considered good. Think about it, if he's trying to instill tyranny into a chaotic and evil region, couldn't the creation of the tyranny actually PREVENT a lot of evil?

Especially Paladin of Slaughter. I'm not sure it's possible to play a Paladin of Slaughter who isn't just Chaotic Stupid. Especially because they benefit from a high wisdom score, and someone with a high wisdom score has good judgment. High wisdom won't stop you from being evil, but it should stop you from being Chaotic Stupid.

Before you argue, it says you must spread death and destruction at ALL opportunities. Depending on your definition, walking into any civilized area is an opportunity to spread death and destruction. For that matter, being anywhere except a totally barren desert is an opportunity to spread death and destruction. Are paladins of slaughter REQUIRED to burn down every forest they see, destroy any crops they pass, kill everyone they meet? Because that seems like a recipe for very, very short-lived servants of evil.

[Callista]

If you think Belkar is extreme CE, I should introduce you to my group... Belkar would look like a REGULAR paladin compared to some of the characters those psychos have played.

That'd be difficult to do. Honestly, it would. I don't count "wading through the gore" as evil (is that what you're referring to? Stuff like kicking the puppy, then raping it, then eating it? Yeah... "gross evil"...) It's possible, of course, to play an evil character who lives to corrupt others--possibly the only way to be more evil than Belkar--but these tend to be LE.

Thing with Belkar--he simply doesn't have a conscience. That's as bad as you can get. He's got no concept of helping others, no concept of caring about anybody but himself. The only reason Belkar isn't a more effective evil character is that he doesn't have the attention span for it. But even if you gave him that attention span and let him effect more widespread destruction, he couldn't be any more evil than he already is--only more devious about it.

Not every CE character is like that. Quite a few are likeable. Quite a few have limits on what they're willing to do.

Lemme tell you about a CE guy I knew in real life, for a typical example of non-extreme CE.

He's an ex-con because, a few years ago, he got caught stealing his friend's car and trying to sell it for gambling money. He doesn't want to try to live a legit life because he doesn't like being tied down, and doesn't have the discipline to get an education so that he can get a job that's better than McDonald's. Periodically he gets hired for some low-level job, but he never sticks it out and usually gets fired for stealing from work. Eventually he figures that the best way not to have to work is to find himself somebody to support him; so he seduces a woman with a couple of unruly kids by telling her that he can handle those kids that are driving her crazy. He believes that he loves her; maybe he does, or maybe he just thinks she's hot. In any case, he quickly establishes himself as head-of-the-household. He impulsively hits the kids whenever he gets mad at them and convinces his new wife that if she tells anybody, they'll lose the kids forever. He steals the kids' college funds and his wife's savings, claiming to be attending college, even though he isn't. Then he gets busted and ends up in jail again, and all his lies come out. Eventually, as soon as he gets off probation, he leaves his wife and kids abruptly, having gambled away all their money and leaving them in the lowest income bracket.

Okay. That's a pretty typical CE. He's too impulsive to think ahead; his first thoughts are for himself; and while he claims to love others--and would probably even defend his family if they were attacked--when it comes to everyday practicality, he doesn't really care what they're feeling. And note that this person--to the best of my knowledge--has never killed anyone and is probably not capable of premeditated murder (though I wouldn't be surprised to hear he had killed someone in the heat of the moment.)

So, yeah, you can't get much worse than Belkar. When I say "CE", the kind of people I think of are more like the above example than they are like Belkar or Xykon. You don't have to go extreme-CE to play a character of that alignment, just the way you don't have to go extreme-LG to play a decent PHB paladin.

[mobdrazhar]

if you want to still go down the Paladin path i would suggest going Paladin of Tyranny as it's much more party friendly (unless it's an evil campaign).

[Callista]

I wouldn't suggest any Evil for a newbie in a Good party, actually--Tyranny, Slaughter, or anything else. It's too tricky to RP. I suppose it wouldn't be that much of a problem for experienced role-players learning a new system, but they aren't really true newbies in any sense but the "still learning the mechanics" one.

[quiet1mi]

Newbies need to play Druids or Clerics... they are powerful and forgiving mechanically...

[faceroll]

Being a wandering murderer is kind of what D&D characters do. I wouldn't worry about that.

Bonus points if you can keep the party in the dark about your deliberate psychosis.

I guess I'll just drop a link to the old Paladin's Handbook here, so I look like I'm positively contributing somehow.

Yeah, if you play it smart, the party won't even realize you're anything more than a little more cutthroat than usual. Your usual approach to problems should be violence. "Let's just kill the guards." Don't bother worrying about repercussions, or ethical dilemmas. If such a debate comes up, try and twist it as best as you can. Try and lead off any such debate. Even better, get ranks in bluff and tell your party that you used detect evil and the curs must be felled like grain too long on the stalk.

Any situation that allows you to spread chaos, go for it. If it makes things more complicated, do it. But always with a veneer of expediency. "Come on guys, we don't have much time, and torching the evidence (and the tavern) is the quickest way!!"

[Mando Knight]

Newbies need to play Druids or Clerics... they are powerful and forgiving mechanically...

Hey, actually, that's right. She could play a Cleric. Find a deity with the stuff she likes (or have her be a "cleric of an ideal" since that seems to work out alright in 3.5 ), and go forth. Makes a better Paladin of X than Paladins do. (Except if she wants the pony. You have to work a little harder to get the pony if you're a Cleric)