I need some advice on playing a paladin in a group of neutral characters.

[Othniel]

Hey all. This is my first post, though I've been lurking for a while now, originally drawn to the site by the Order of the Stick comic. I apologize if this comes along as kind of a rambling post.

A few months ago, some friends got me to start playing Pathfinder with them, and I am enjoying it immensely. It's my first tabletop RPG, though I'm familiar with many of the rules and terminology through the Neverwinter Nights computer games. Our setting is a post-apocalyptic real world, with general Pathfinder stuff thrown in (kinda weird, I know). It's a pretty casual group, and fairly fluid. There are 6-7 who play, counting myself, although we're usually lucky if we can get 4 (counting the DM) to show up on a given day (we meet once every two weeks if enough can make it). We usually fill in the story for the folks who can't make it, and though we split whatever loot we get between those who are there, we keep track of the group's wealth by level (with a house rule of 1/2 standard wealth per level, which keeps the number of magic items down).

Thus far, I've played three different characters: 1) A generic Ranger created for me when I started, 2) A Bard that I created and played for two sessions, and 3) A new Paladin that I played for the first time last session. The Ranger was kind of boring to me, probably because I wasn't involved in creating it, which is why I created the Bard (I have more attachment to characters I create, I have realized). I have enjoyed the Bard immensely, but the problem I ran into after two sessions was that we didn't have enough characters in the party with enough AC and HP to get in the face of some of the more nasty encounters. Everyone who was meeting was playing ranged or support characters, and my Bard was built for support/buffing. Being at 1/2 standard wealth, I don't have the cash to buy all the stuff I really want at my particular level (level 8 right now), and I got frustrated, so I created a Paladin (Lancer build with the Monstrous Mount feat for a flying Griffon mount). The problem is that (after one of our players, who was playing a LG Gnome Summoner roleplaying as a sheriff) I am now the only LG character in a group of NG/CN characters, including a Ninja and a newly-created Barbarian. So I'm now playing a LG character, trying to stay within the bounds of the law and respecting authority, while also staying good. The Barbarian is a pretty stereotypical "smash/intimidate everything and everyone" character, and the Ninja acts more like a Rogue (picking pockets when I can't see it in-character and so forth). I stated my intention when starting my Paladin to RP him with the mindset of doing good, and staying within the bounds of the law, while trying to act as a good influence on the members of the group as we confront greater evils (in the current storyline, we're fighting some bandits who are preying on a town). The players behind the Ninja and Barbarian (two friends of mine) have stated (out of character) that they want to try to cause my Paladin to fall (in character), which is something I'd rather prevent. I'm a firm believer that the player behind the Paladin gets to pick when they fall, if at all.

My dilemma is this: How do I continue on in the group as a Paladin when I will potentially have two group members trying to trip up my Paladin in-character? I know each DM is different, and I haven't had the chance to talk to ours since our last meeting about this, so I'm not sure what he'll say (though he helped me flesh out the Paladin, me still being new to Pathfinder and all, knowing that there was a Ninja and Barbarian in the group). I want to stick with the Paladin, and have fun with it instead of frustration, but I'm trying to figure out how. Any advice would be very appreciated. I'm also wondering: Does intentionally tempting a Paladin to fall/violate his alignment/beliefs count as an evil act? For example, if the Barbarian continually tries to force the Paladin's hand, can the Barbarian slide from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil if it goes on long enough? (I ask this because in the "unfortunate" event that this happens, I would like my Paladin to open up a can of SMITE EVIL on said Barbarian).

On an amusing side-note, both the Barbarian and Ninja have kept calling my Paladin a "cleric" first by mistake, and now (of course) on purpose to agitate him. If only there were a "Smite Annoyance" Paladin ability.

[Cazero]

For starter,

The players behind the Ninja and Barbarian (two friends of mine) have stated (out of character) that they want to try to cause my Paladin to fall (in character)

That's borderline PvP. Everyone must be on the same page about what kind of PvP is allowed and what is not. After all, having you paladin fall for killing their characters might not exactly fit what they have in mind.

It's also a weird objective for a character. Have they given any kind of IC justification? Because I can't think of any. Even the most evil of overlords must realize than corrupting/tripping paladins is not cost-efficient and must be made on the basis of opportunity and not on principle.

My dilemma is this: How do I continue on in the group as a Paladin when I will potentially have two group members trying to trip up my Paladin in-character?

Not falling is the easy part. The hard part will be to stick with the party despite what they do. Some kind of "I will redeem you" mentality could help, but stretching it too far would stop making sense.

I'm also wondering: Does intentionally tempting a Paladin to fall/violate his alignment/beliefs count as an evil act?

I would say yes. After all, it is either tormenting you for no reason until you snap (evil regardless of paladin status), associating you to evil acts (wich they had to do themselves), or putting you in a situation where there is no good choice to make (and creating that situation on purpose is definitly evil).

[Yora]

The real question is always "is there any good reason for my character why he would keep traveling with these people?" Sometimes a good character is just not fitting for a specific campaign. If everyone wants plays troublemakers but one, it's usually the best thing to switch out the one character that does not fit with the group.
If everyone wants to play a serious game but one player plays a clown, then that character should be replaced with something serious.

The key is to find a style on which all players can agree, and then have everyone play a character that fits with that party.

[Tengu_temp]

Protip #1: if your intention of bringing a paladin is to act as a moral compass of the group, you might come off as patronizing and a bit of a ****. Especially since the group already has good characters - NG and CG are no less good than LG. Make sure not to become the archetypical Lawful Stupid Miko-like paladin.

Protip #2: If your reaction to getting a paladin in the group is "gotta make him fall", you're being a huge, immature ****. Tell the other players to cut that out. And if they don't... Get the rest of the party on your side, then banish these two characters from the party because they don't fit in. If you can't do that, it probably means your character is the one not fitting in instead.

[Vitruviansquid]

Setting aside your hilariously (from my point of view only, I'm sure) jerksome your Ninja and Barbarian players are, because that's a whole other can of worms I think are adequately addressed by other posters...

Recognize that mortals who have an alignment are different from modrons or slaads or angels who have the same alignment.

If you are lawful good and your group decides to do something sort of chaotic evil, you don't have to approve of it but you certainly aren't obligated to kill them in retaliation or sabotage them or self-destruct rather than participate in the shadiness. Think of your groupmates with different alignments more like friends or comrades who have different political or religious views than you do. You probably have some friends with different political views than you in real life, and you haven't come to blows with them yet, right?

[KnotKnormal]

I find there 3 good ways to play a LG character (not limited to Paladins)
1. Tolerance. this only works as long as no one is forcing your hand. simply deal with the comments, and even return fire occasionally. stick to your views of good and bad, however don't push those views on the other characters. over time your character will gain respect from the others and the comments will stop... also helps to save their lives once or twice.

2. The Blind Eye, this one is actually pretty easy and can be kind of fun after the fact. any time the party would be face with a dilemma such as the hostage dilemma, (kill the people who surrender or let them free) simply state your view of the situation then remove yourself from it. "I believe we should let them go, it's the right thing to do." then turn your back. In this type of play, the character should keep a journal of all the time they made a decision your character did not agree with. and for each one subtly and passively shame them for it later. If you do it right they'll start to feel bad and second guess their chaotic tendencies. also you can the publish the journal so the 2 characters become widely known as baddies. This especially works if the other players put you in a No Win scenario, if both decisions are evil, then refuse to make one.

3. The Conspiracy, this one I do not suggest as it will lead to character death, however it is an option... Basically, become so Lawful Good that you wrap back around to Chaotic Evil. A great example of this is Miko from OOTS.

All of these keep your character LG (except the last one) with no risk of falling. Also it should be noted where if the 2 players manage to put you in a situation of do evil or die, it should not change your alignment. Law and Good are important to a character but Self Preservation take priority, and your god will understand that. However, the person who put you in the position, is undoubtedly evil and should be smited into a fine paste at your earliest convenience.

Hope this helped.

[Lord Torath]

The most important piece of advice here, that's been hinted at but not outrightly stated, is Talk to your DM. Talk to him about what your code of conduct as a paladin requires, what it does not require, and what will make you fall. Then talk to him about your party situation, and discuss what kind of PVP is allowed in your game. As mentioned before, actively trying to make your paladin fall counts as PVP, as does stealing from the party, bodily throwing another character into a dangerous situation, trying to frame party members for things they didn't do, and any number of other "just playing around" actions. Then talk to the rest of the group with the DM to make certain everyone is on the same page. Perhaps even have everyone sign a manifesto.

[Othniel]

Thanks for the replies everyone. This all really helps.

The real question is always "is there any good reason for my character why he would keep traveling with these people?" Sometimes a good character is just not fitting for a specific campaign. If everyone wants plays troublemakers but one, it's usually the best thing to switch out the one character that does not fit with the group.
If everyone wants to play a serious game but one player plays a clown, then that character should be replaced with something serious.

The key is to find a style on which all players can agree, and then have everyone play a character that fits with that party.

Well, we did have another player with a LG character, but after last session (in which he couldn't make it), he announced that he wouldn't be playing anymore, so I believe I'm the only lawful character left.

I find there 3 good ways to play a LG character (not limited to Paladins)
1. Tolerance. this only works as long as no one is forcing your hand. simply deal with the comments, and even return fire occasionally. stick to your views of good and bad, however don't push those views on the other characters. over time your character will gain respect from the others and the comments will stop... also helps to save their lives once or twice.

2. The Blind Eye, this one is actually pretty easy and can be kind of fun after the fact. any time the party would be face with a dilemma such as the hostage dilemma, (kill the people who surrender or let them free) simply state your view of the situation then remove yourself from it. "I believe we should let them go, it's the right thing to do." then turn your back. In this type of play, the character should keep a journal of all the time they made a decision your character did not agree with. and for each one subtly and passively shame them for it later. If you do it right they'll start to feel bad and second guess their chaotic tendencies. also you can the publish the journal so the 2 characters become widely known as baddies. This especially works if the other players put you in a No Win scenario, if both decisions are evil, then refuse to make one.

3. The Conspiracy, this one I do not suggest as it will lead to character death, however it is an option... Basically, become so Lawful Good that you wrap back around to Chaotic Evil. A great example of this is Miko from OOTS.

All of these keep your character LG (except the last one) with no risk of falling. Also it should be noted where if the 2 players manage to put you in a situation of do evil or die, it should not change your alignment. Law and Good are important to a character but Self Preservation take priority, and your god will understand that. However, the person who put you in the position, is undoubtedly evil and should be smited into a fine paste at your earliest convenience.

Hope this helped.

Number 2 really appeals to me here. I think I may do that, and throw in a dash of number 1 as well.

[Ettina]

One comment - not all paladins are Lawful Good. It all depends on what cause they embody.

[Janus]

I'd be careful on turning a blind eye to things, personally. From an in-character perspective, I'd hardly believe in a paladin's professed honor if he kept turning away whenever the party wants to do something evil.

[Tengu_temp]

I'd be careful on turning a blind eye to things, personally. From an in-character perspective, I'd hardly believe in a paladin's professed honor if he kept turning away whenever the party wants to do something evil.

I presume it's more of an OOC agreement than an IC one - the paladin just happens to be occupied by something else when the party tries to do something morally questionable.
But yeah, don't overdo it.

[Esprit15]

One comment - not all paladins are Lawful Good. It all depends on what cause they embody.

I assume they are not playing with variants in which case all Paladins are by definition Lawful Good. Or you're thinking of Crusaders.

[Zale]

Keep in mind that being Lawful doesn't mean you have to slavishly obey every law or tradition. It just means (In my own opinion) that they respect laws and traditions because they bring order.

As a Lawful Good character, you should consider what Order means to you. I'd personally, if I were running a lawful good character, go with the idea that Lawful Good characters respect the idealistic concept of Order- what laws and traditions are supposed to do. They're meant to bring fairness, equality, respect, dignity and safety to people. That's why they exist, and why a Lawful Good character respects them.

But that's the perfect ideal of it. In reality, the law falls short.

Because of this, it's not a good idea to blindly follow every law and tradition- examine them closely in order to understand them, if they're good, follow them- if not, find some way to try to improve them. If necessary, ignore them or try to change them.

A paladin should not risk falling for refusing to bow to the laws of a known tyrant. An unjust law is not a law at all- it is a perverse mockery of all that the law stands for.

Heck, a LG character may well agree with, say, the motives of a CG-Robin-Hood style character (Balancing social inequality and helping people), but not agree with their methods (Violating laws). But they aren't entirely in the wrong, because as personally satisfying and quickly beneficial stealing from the rich may be, it fails to solve the underlying social issues that cause poverty and doesn't help in the long run. /alignmentbabble

However, your team mates should not automatically decide to try to make you fall. This is especially true for people who are supposed to be your friends.

I would personally go for smacking them in the head, but do whatever works for you.

[Othniel]

Keep in mind that being Lawful doesn't mean you have to slavishly obey every law or tradition. It just means (In my own opinion) that they respect laws and traditions because they bring order.

As a Lawful Good character, you should consider what Order means to you. I'd personally, if I were running a lawful good character, go with the idea that Lawful Good characters respect the idealistic concept of Order- what laws and traditions are supposed to do. They're meant to bring fairness, equality, respect, dignity and safety to people. That's why they exist, and why a Lawful Good character respects them.

But that's the perfect ideal of it. In reality, the law falls short.

Because of this, it's not a good idea to blindly follow every law and tradition- examine them closely in order to understand them, if they're good, follow them- if not, find some way to try to improve them. If necessary, ignore them or try to change them.

A paladin should not risk falling for refusing to bow to the laws of a known tyrant. An unjust law is not a law at all- it is a perverse mockery of all that the law stands for.

Heck, a LG character may well agree with, say, the motives of a CG-Robin-Hood style character (Balancing social inequality and helping people), but not agree with their methods (Violating laws). But they aren't entirely in the wrong, because as personally satisfying and quickly beneficial stealing from the rich may be, it fails to solve the underlying social issues that cause poverty and doesn't help in the long run. /alignmentbabble

However, your team mates should not automatically decide to try to make you fall. This is especially true for people who are supposed to be your friends.

I would personally go for smacking them in the head, but do whatever works for you.

I get what you're saying. Maybe I should just ask them nicely to knock it off, but I think my friends are seeing my playing a Paladin as a challenge, particularly the guy behind the Chaotic Neutral Barbarian. Let me give an illustration of how our alignments are working within the group:

Last session, we fought a few bandits and went to town for the end of the session. In town, we found out that the bandits are a problem in the area, stealing from and/or killing merchants and travelers along the road (and said bandits are based in an old keep/fort that had been previously abandoned). Now, my Paladin sees this as a cause for upholding the law, and getting evildoers off the road, so he's willing to work with some more neutral- (and profit-) oriented folks to accomplish the same goal of making the area safe from bandits. My Paladin, being the respectful upholder if the law that he is, decides to pay a visit to the town officials and see what's going on. I speak with one of the officials and work out an arrangement where in exchange for ridding the town of the bandits, my group will be granted right to the fort the bandits are operating from. I reason this is a fair trade, and that while Paladins are called to stamp out evil, there's nothing wrong with this arrangement. After all, if some adventurers set up shop in the fort, perhaps turn it into a profitable enterprise or a way to protect the area, everybody wins (my personal opinion is that LG Paladins are not required to do everything for free. After all, you need some way to cover the costs of smiting evil).

Meanwhile, the Ninja and Barbarian (seeing dollar signs) go in search of the town's merchants and do their best to come to an arrangement with them for a cut of their profits in return for ridding them of the troublesome bandits. The Barbarian even went to the point of intimidating one of the merchants into agreement. That's all well and good because my Paladin wasn't there to object to such behavior, but where does it cross the line? When party members do something of questionable morality that would directly benefit my character (assuming I get a cut of said profits), what does that mean for me?

[Anxe]

If I was a knight in your situation I'd be pretty pissed off. You just negotiated a very favorable deal. Beat these bandits and you become a landed gentleman. What more do you really need? You get an outpost. You can start collecting taxes along the road. Attract peasants to till the land. Etc. All the things a knight wants from nobility.

And these rough companions of yours, who are almost bandits themselves, could've ruined that for you! They're asking for other stuff which means its less likely you'll get the landed title you want. And they intimidated the other people that you NEED to get along with for your new land ownership to really work out. If the nearby town doesn't like you then none of the people there are going to want to move out to your keep to work for you!

I'd immediately try to distance myself from the rogue and barbarian by finding other companions to aid in removing the bandits. Or if I was a particularly Machiavellian knight, arrange for the barbarian and the rogue to tragically die during the fight with the bandits.

But I get the feeling that's not where you want to go with this knight. Maybe land isn't your penultimate desire and you're more of a dogooder traveling monk type who needs only his sword and the stars. Are the barbarian and the rogue helping you do good even if they ruin relationships you'd built in town? They'll still help you bring the bandits to justice after all, even if their intimidation of the merchants was stupid and ill thought out. Maybe they just need a stern lecture and to be kept out of any future contract negotiations.

[Bob of Mage]

I get what you're saying. Maybe I should just ask them nicely to knock it off, but I think my friends are seeing my playing a Paladin as a challenge, particularly the guy behind the Chaotic Neutral Barbarian. Let me give an illustration of how our alignments are working within the group:

Last session, we fought a few bandits and went to town for the end of the session. In town, we found out that the bandits are a problem in the area, stealing from and/or killing merchants and travelers along the road (and said bandits are based in an old keep/fort that had been previously abandoned). Now, my Paladin sees this as a cause for upholding the law, and getting evildoers off the road, so he's willing to work with some more neutral- (and profit-) oriented folks to accomplish the same goal of making the area safe from bandits. My Paladin, being the respectful upholder if the law that he is, decides to pay a visit to the town officials and see what's going on. I speak with one of the officials and work out an arrangement where in exchange for ridding the town of the bandits, my group will be granted right to the fort the bandits are operating from. I reason this is a fair trade, and that while Paladins are called to stamp out evil, there's nothing wrong with this arrangement. After all, if some adventurers set up shop in the fort, perhaps turn it into a profitable enterprise or a way to protect the area, everybody wins (my personal opinion is that LG Paladins are not required to do everything for free. After all, you need some way to cover the costs of smiting evil).

Meanwhile, the Ninja and Barbarian (seeing dollar signs) go in search of the town's merchants and do their best to come to an arrangement with them for a cut of their profits in return for ridding them of the troublesome bandits. The Barbarian even went to the point of intimidating one of the merchants into agreement. That's all well and good because my Paladin wasn't there to object to such behavior, but where does it cross the line? When party members do something of questionable morality that would directly benefit my character (assuming I get a cut of said profits), what does that mean for me?

One way to deal with this, if your know about it IC, is to count the money they get from the townfolk as part of their share of the loot the whole party gets from the bandits. Thus if they asked for too much, they have to pay back the party money to make sure everyone gets a fair share. This also means if there is any good item found on the bandits those two PC will be force to go with mostly gold. Also you can refuse to let them trade for any other peice of loot in place of the gold.

A second idea is to give them a chioce of gold or a share in the control of the fort. What's to stop you from writing them out of the deal since they found thier own reward for the quest? It seems only fair (and there for Lawful and Good) that they get the choice of what type of reward they want (with the added costs that you will not help them if said shopkeeper goes to the law to over his mistreatment).