Clash of the Alignments!

[Lolzords]

I start a brand spanking new campaign on Friday, a city based one written by a friend of mine. There's one thing I see as a problem though, the alignments.

Our party consists of:

A chaotic neutral human bard (me!), a chaotic neutral half-orc barbarian, a lawful evil human monk, a chaotic evil halfling Rouge/Assassin and finally, this is what I see as the problem, a lawful good human paladin.

What do you think will happen? I reckon it will go darker side of the alignment against the paladin.

I've got my money on the dark side, 4:1.

[Assassinfox]

The Paladin can just go Grey Guard and not have to worry about things like codes of honor or morality.

* waits for the Paladin Code of Honor debate to spill into this topic *

[kamikasei]

A chaotic neutral human bard (me!), a chaotic neutral half-orc barbarian, a lawful evil human monk, a chaotic evil halfling Rouge/Assassin and finally, this is what I see as the problem, a lawful good human paladin.

What do you think will happen? I reckon it will go darker side of the alignment against the paladin.

...Why is this guy playing a paladin? What on earth is the justification for your party's existence, given that he can at will identify half of you as evil and refuse to go anywhere with you?

edit: However, it can be made to work. The DM can be lenient with the paladin, who's not actually prohibited from associating with evil characters (it's not a part of his code). If, say, the party was commanded by the king to perform some task, with the paladin there to keep them in line, and the evil characters weren't stupid!evil or trying to murder puppies under his nose... you could have a viable party.

But really, what's this party supposed to do?

[EvilElitest]

The Paladin can just go Grey Guard and not have to worry about things like codes of honor or morality.

* waits for the Paladin Code of Honor debate to spill into this topic *

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, we almost reached a compermise. The way these paladin threads work is that we wait until they reach 23 pages an length and are now quite certain that no new people or uninterested people will bother reading though the whole thread (after making plenty of references to ealier stories so readers will have to go back to understand, then safe from the the eyes of non paladin people, we will quickly reach a comperise and let the matter drop. When we meet in our secret hide out every tuesday to discuss morals and the paladin class, we add this compermise in the book then repeat the rant on every roleplaying forum to make sure everybody else takes a side with on this matter and reaches teh compermise. We then repeat the process. Now we have no choice but to make this thread 23 pages long.
/sad


.....

On topic, i would think that unless the paladin is working to convert the evil ones to a good cause, this would be assoating with evil
from,
EE

[Lolzords]

...Why is this guy playing a paladin? What on earth is the justification for your party's existence, given that he can at will identify half of you as evil and refuse to go anywhere with you?

Meh, don't know, this is the same guy that has always played a halfling rouge in the past and he always complains that it's underpowered and goes off and has a tantrum when he doesn't do a lot in the campaign.

Then again, would be quite difficult, basically, my bard's main uses in the party are stealing and lying through his teeth. That sort of behaviour may conflict with the paladin code.

Meh, I never did like paladins.

[Dark_Wind]

I don't dislike Paladins anymore, but I used to hate them, and it was situations like this one that were the reason. Paladins work out fine as long as the party as a whole is generally committed to good. When you have a mostly evil/neutral party (worse, one that tends toward chaos), it isn't going to happen. You aught to talk to the Pally player, see if you can get him to play something else. If he doesn't, it'll turn into a rather lopsided PvP very quickly. Tempers will flare, there'll be arguments, and all kinds of bad will happen. Not good for the health of the campaign.

[Mewtarthio]

The only possible reason I can fathom for making a paladin in this party is to go for ten levels and then multiclass into blackguard.

Though I suppose it could work if he's a sort of parole officer or something similar. Which technically violates the paladin code as he is neither prostletyzing nor smiting you, but I suppose you could go with a "lead by example" clause (and a homebrewed code). If the paladin is assigned by a legitimate authority to help you complete your mission to see if you evil people can be redeemed, and if you aren't stupid puppy-killing evil but rather mercenary or manipulative evil, and if you're group is really mature, then I can see it working.

[hewhosaysfish]

...
...
...

I'm guessing the players didn't talk to each other much (or to you) during character gen...
...
Perhaps the fairest option would be to tell them to coordinate better when they're all creating their new characters.


What did you tell them about the campaign?

[headwarpage]

As much as I like paladins, there's a time and a place for them, and this isn't it. A paladin in that party is as out of place as an Assassin in a party of three paladins and a cleric of Pelor. The same would be true of pretty much any LG character, regardless of class.

[kamikasei]

Though I suppose it could work if he's a sort of parole officer or something similar. Which technically violates the paladin code as he is neither prostletyzing nor smiting you, but I suppose you could go with a "lead by example" clause (and a homebrewed code).

Actually, it was established in the other thread about whether a paladin would fall for keeping a tomb mote around that the "never associates with evil" clause is not actually part of the code. Further, if the paladin is acting as a guard or captor, it would hardly qualify as "association".

If the paladin is assigned by a legitimate authority to help you complete your mission to see if you evil people can be redeemed, and if you aren't stupid puppy-killing evil but rather mercenary or manipulative evil, and if you're group is really mature, then I can see it working.

It could work, but I doubt the group as described would go for it. It would have to considerably change the way all the other players handle their characters. The likely outcome seems to me that the other players will kill the paladin in his sleep and his player will have to come back with an evil guy...

[brian c]

A chaotic neutral human bard (me!), a chaotic neutral half-orc barbarian, a lawful evil human monk, a chaotic evil halfling Rouge/Assassin and finally, this is what I see as the problem, a lawful good human paladin.

So, you have:

2 CN
1 LE
1 CE
1 LG

Yeah that Paladin is going to be a little ticked off. I've always felt that it's a bad idea to play CE characters unless it's an all-evil party and someone NE or LE is keeping the CE character in check (works best with a CE barbarian and LE wizard; CE sorcerors and rogues are just headaches). As a subplot, your monk is probably going to get annoyed with the Chaotic people too. Sounds like bunches of fun if you all have a sense of humor, but the way you described the guy playing the paladin... well it doesn't sound like fun anymore. Good luck.

[silentknight]

Zen...seriously...

I dislike telling players what to play, but I will state that the characters will need to get along reasonably well. If the player with the paladin was aware of what the others were making, then I would say he chose paladin just to be a....er....difficult person. I would tell him to make a new character or he needs to convince everyone else to make characters to mesh with HIM.

The game should be about mutual fun, and I am pretty sure he will have no fun when his paladin dies within one hour.

[Aximili]

Nah... he wont die within one hour if his character doesn't go around saying he's a paladin. And he won't have to mention he's a paladin if the others don't go around being oubviously evil.

But he definitely won't last long in the long run.

[silentknight]

If he is a paladin and demands that the other characters "stop their evil/chaotic/immoral ways" I don't think the other characters would put up with that for very long. At least not without casting the spell dagger in the back a couple time in succession.

[Krellen]

Personally, I don't let players be CE unless it's a gimmicky evil campaign, but that's just me. However, a Paladin in a group with that many Chaotics is just asking for trouble - especially when they're Chaotic Neutral (or Evil), not Good.

If the DM's okay with running for the Assassin character, though, the Paladin has to go. He just doesn't fit in.

[Aximili]

And that is why he wouldn't last long.
But the players might not go aroung being all evil just as soon as they meet.

[PMDM]

If he's a story buff, make him fall into an antipaladin of sorts (I recommend the Paladin of Tyranny, but no one else seems to like that cheap build. Try a blackguard.)

[Lemur]

I'm with some of the above posters in my curiosity: how much communication went on between players during character creation? And depending on what it was, what was the paladin's motivation for being a paladin. I mean, if he's going for blackguard, I could see it, but otherwise...

Unless someone treads carefully, the paladin won't last long. Either the paladin has to be extremely lax and tolerant, or the evil characters have to be really sneaky and subtle in any evil actions they do, so as to not alert the paladin. Unless the group is consists of fairly experienced roleplayers, neither situation seems likely.

[brian c]

Personally, I don't let players be CE unless it's a gimmicky evil campaign, but that's just me. However, a Paladin in a group with that many Chaotics is just asking for trouble - especially when they're Chaotic Neutral (or Evil), not Good.

If the DM's okay with running for the Assassin character, though, the Paladin has to go. He just doesn't fit in.

It's funny; I can't imagine any party with a CE and a LG that would work out okay, but LE and CG could get along okay. I guess what it boils down to is that Evil as an alignment is not as rigid as good is; if an Evil character does a good act (builds an orphanage) to set up an evil act (burn it down!) they're still evil whereas a Good character who does an evil act (kill an innocent during undercover work infiltrating an organization) to set up a good act (kill the leader of said evil syndicate) is probably pushed to Neutral. To look at this another way, killing a Good-aligned creature is generally done by Evil characters but killing an Evil-aligned creature is fun for all alignments!

edit: When I talk about rigidity, what I mean is that a LE character still has leeway to work with good characters and stay Evil, particularly because part of Lawfulness is loyalty, compared to the difficulties face by a LG character working with evil characters.

[PMDM]

It's funny; I can't imagine any party with a CE and a LG that would work out okay, but LE and CG could get along okay. I guess what it boils down to is that Evil as an alignment is not as rigid as good is; if an Evil character does a good act (builds an orphanage) to set up an evil act (burn it down!) they're still evil whereas a Good character who does an evil act (kill an innocent during undercover work infiltrating an organization) to set up a good act (kill the leader of said evil syndicate) is probably pushed to Neutral. To look at this another way, killing a Good-aligned creature is generally done by Evil characters but killing an Evil-aligned creature is fun for all alignments!

edit: When I talk about rigidity, what I mean is that a LE character still has leeway to work with good characters and stay Evil, particularly because part of Lawfulness is loyalty, compared to the difficulties face by a LG character working with evil characters.

It's possible to be more exterme and unflinching with your alignment, no matter what alignment you are.

Demons almost never do good for any reason. Pelor would let his paladins justify their ends with their means.

[clericwithnogod]

...this is what I see as the problem, a lawful good human paladin.

Dead paladin is a good solution to the problem. But then dead paladin is a good solution to many problems. Come to think of it, there is no situation in which dead paladin isn't a good idea.

[Deus Mortus]

I always imagined Evil getting more leeway, because they need to keep a low profile in most good based society's. Also if an evil char does something good (even for an evil goal), he might have to contend with some social problems, "Look Vecna, I know I created a cure for the world ending plague, but just play with me, alright?"

[kamikasei]

There's no particular reason why an Evil character has to be subservient to an Evil deity.

[Aquillion]

Meh, don't know, this is the same guy that has always played a halfling rouge in the past and he always complains that it's underpowered and goes off and has a tantrum when he doesn't do a lot in the campaign.

And now he's playing a Paladin?

Listen, you'd be doing him a favor by killing him. Stab him in the back and hook him up with a nice, evil cleric. He gets to be useful and do things. The rest of your party gets a full caster and a cleric, and your DM gets to work with a party that won't constantly be killing each other and working towards opposite goals.

[PaladinBoy]

Ouch. Personally, I would say talk to your players. Try and convince the guy playing the paladin to give it up and play a different type.

Alternatively, if you think your players are mature enough, I see no reason why properly roleplayed and handled PvP can't be fun. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a group that was mature enough to prevent it from being taken personally by the players. That's the sort of thing which destroys groups.

[Roderick_BR]

Lawful/chaotic groups usually aren't a problem, and are even fun, but good/evil is a problem. As it was said, suggest the paladin's player to try something else, or he'll be in trouble with the others characters. A neutral cleric would work better. I'd suggest a lawful neutral(or lawful evil) fighter/cleric with the war domain, or something.

[Mewtarthio]

It's funny; I can't imagine any party with a CE and a LG that would work out okay,

• CE mercenary who fights and kills for the highest bidder gets paid a lot of money to take down some threat to The Innocents. LG guy parties with the mercenary out of the goodness of his heart.
• A massive event threatens the very existence of the Prime Material, so adventurers of all alignments band together against a common foe.
• CE convict travels under the watchful eye of his LG parole officer in exchange for a reduced sentence.
• A planar event strands various people of differring alignments in some godforsaken corner of the multiverse. They all band together to get back home.
• LE Overlord threatens the freedom of the world. LG guy prepares to take him down for the good of humanity, while CE guy joins him because the Overlord would be too oppressive (or else he has a personal reason to hate the Overlord).
• CE guy seeks protection from a noble he's seriously ticked off. Lucky there's an LG guy who seems reasonably strong and is under the naive assumption that the CE guy can be redeemed.
• etc...

Note, of course, that these are all alliances of convenience more than anything else. Odds are, once the common goal is achieved (or the coincidentally coinciding goals diverge), the party will break apart, but it could work for a one-shot adventure. A couple may even last an entire campaign, albeit with much intraparty conflict (it should never pass the verbal/harmless prank level, though, if the characters know what's good for them). There's even a chance that the LG and CE guys will develop a certain camraderie for each other, like the Roy-Belkar relationship.

Note also that I assume the LG guy isn't a Paladin. Paladins aren't exactly the best class to include in parties of diverse alignment.

Note most importantly that these do assume a certain level of maturity among the players. If the CE guy runs around killing pregnant women and shouting "Ha! That's two in one blow!", it won't work. If the LG guy takes every opportunity to call his travelling companion "a foul effrontery to the works of god who should not be suffered to live," it won't work.