Paladins and Redeeming/ Working with Evil PCs

[Yamo B. There]

Instead... Paladins are more likely to demonstrate behaviour (mercy, charity, standing up for people with neglected grievances, fighting an evil or tyrannical regime), lead causes, right wrongs... which would cause foundational myths of certain evil worldviews to crumble and maybe fall in line with a Paladin's worldview. By their actions, they shock people out of chaos and selfishness and cynicism, they work unrelentingly toward what they believe is right, they name and fight evils.

This is the correct path for Paladins trying to redeem evil. While later editions of D&D would trash the "don't party with evil" restriction and make "the Greater Good" something Paladins can actually utilize, the version EFU seems to be running off, stock 3.5, is very cut-and-dried about it: it is not to be done. That's not to say someone Evil can't be in the presence of a Paladin or the Paladin has to be unpleasant to them, but this usually takes the form of the baddie being a prisoner. The stereotype of a fiery-eyed stick-in-the-mud Paladin who is only barely restrained from killing an Evil PC in town because it would be unLawful is not the only way to be.

Clerics and especially Paladins are given very special knowledge about the nature of morality, the heavenly/hellish planes, and the cosmic interactions therein. A lot of people don't like to play this up because it seems very high fantasy, not gritty enough, too black and white when "shades of grey" is the new hotness, but 3.X D&D absolutely is a universe of moral absolutes and many characters can reasonably know these things IC. Someone with Evil on their character sheet isn't just a shitty person, they either have a very long history of doing bad things or make wilful choices to that end. Their intentions, and even those of the Paladin or Good-aligned characters, do not matter; "the Greater Good" as most people imagine it does not exist in the D&D rule cosmology as written, and only present action means anything, regardless of consequences down the line. Serving the common "Greater Good" is often seen as the harder choice for a Paladin, but the hardest one is not doing that.

The scales of alignment are also heavily weighted. An Evil action by a Paladin is far more damaging to their personality goodliness and the balance of power in the planes than that same act being done by a Good Fighter, which is more grave than the same act done by a Neutral Fighter, which is more impactful than the same act done by a Blackguard. On the flip side, a Blackguard saving a politician's daughter from a burning housefire just so he can ingratiate himself with the upper class and exploit them towards twisted ends later is still a bigger kick in the devils' nuts than a Paladin saving 20 young ladies and a whole orphanage.

A Paladin getting tainted is a monumental deal, and while "travelling with an Evil person" is not an Evil act, it is still a breach of their oaths. That leads to them not being a Paladin anymore, which is essentially the death of a paragon of Goodness, which has some pretty big ramifications. That means the true Greater Good involves not teaming up with Captain Shitheel and the Murder Bunch to take down that balor; whatever that balor is going to get up to is peanuts on a metaphysical level, even though the peasant villages it's about to raze are unlikely to see it that way.

I, personally, hate the awkward moments where a group of individuals are heading out to do something that is overtly good, but a paladin is forced to not take part because of that one evil aligned individual. The quest could literally be banishing a demon and saving 100 children from slaving duergar, and I would say that most paladin PCs would not take part if there was a single evil person also taking part. I think there is no IC justification for that, and the IC action is solely derived from the OOC rule of "don't quest with evil, ever."

Here is the almost-never-considered flip side to the Paladin's inability to party with or do Evil: most wilfully, hideously Evil PCs should generally not be doing Good, even if it is simply out of greed for a reward, to twist it to their own ends later, or to keep up appearances. A character who routinely deals with infernal powers, summons devils, or serves a really Evil God should not be rescuing orphans if they or their patrons value the current blackness of their soul. Everything works both ways; there are actions and quests that Evil PCs should not partake of just as there are ones that Good PCs cannot. Evil is Evil with a capital E, it's not "Selfish Power-Hungry Dick Most Of The Time". Now, if you're just a nutjob who likes stabbing people and really is a power-hungry dick, that's one thing, but people who know they're Evil, revel in it, and consort with the hells must hold themselves to a higher (lower?) standard just like the goodie-goodies. In the former case, they shouldn't have much reason to care about Duergar enslaving kids; in the latter, they should actively not want untaint themselves by getting involved. Players of super evil PCs should probably ask themselves, more often than they do, "Is this consistent with my character and the moral absolutism of D&D, or do I want to go along just to be in an event and get some XP/loot?" Not only is this more in keeping with how all alignments work, but it also shifts a lot of weight off of the Paladin player's shoulders, and they almost always have the rougher time of things because we all tend to forget that wilful Evil should not be doing Good.

There's still various different rules for redeeming Evil PCs that even Paladins can take advantage of, it's just kind of a hassle to coordinate on EFU because they tend to involve lengthy imprisonments. If you can convince the DMs, the Watchers, and another player to let you jail some PC for IRL weeks on end, more power to you. Getting the cooperation of a level 9 Cleric or Druid and a DM to cast Atonement is probably an easier sell.

For what it's worth, I'd love to see more players open to redemption and more PCs seeking that (either for themselves or for others), because at least from my perspective in my short time here, I've seen way more Falling than Lifting.

 

[Rookie]

I don't disagree with the current explanations of how Paladins are, or what they should be doing in accordance with 3.5 rules. I disagree with the current assumption that how paladins currently are is feasible for a PW like EFU.

To me, Paladins have no more place in any player hub than a Druid does in Dunwarren. The difference between the Paladin and the Druid is that the Druid has an entire faction to support it's RP restrictions, while the Paladin has... nothing. I see the solution to this as allowing Paladins to attempt to redeem evil.

For a Paladin to be in Upper Sanctuary, he has to at least be a little tolerant of evil. At least a little. Same thing for Lower Sanctuary. Same thing for the Stewards. Same thing for pretty much anywhere. I see that little bit of tolerance as "hope for redemption." That little alteration gives Paladins a place in the server. No, that is not how a Paladin should act according to 3.5 rules. Yes, that is traditionally a Cleric's role. I'm suggesting the change to allow Paladins to be able to do it too, to, again, give them a place in the server.

All past Paladins (that I've seen) have operated within Sanctuary's laws to some extent. By not outright killing an evil person on the streets, you are being tolerant of evil.. to some extent. By all the posts I've just read, a Paladin is supposed to be utterly intolerant of any evil. This is, again, why I feel this 3.5 adaption of Paladins isn't feasible for a PW, and why I think the small change of allowing a Paladin to "hold out for redemption" is a good one.

I think I would feel differently if a Paladin was an app-only class, or significantly more powerful, or had a feasible player hub akin to the Stewards.

I'm content to lay the issue to rest, though.  It's very clearly a personal pet peeve as opposed to a concern any significant portion of the server shares.

[Big Orc Man]

Just keep in mind that paladins aren't idiot berserkers, either.  A paladin isn't going to see an evil adventurer and attack him on sight for having some evil in his heart.

He isn't going to help that adventurer either, however.

[EventHorizon]

Since we're now getting into the question of, "How shouldst one play a Paladin, then?" here is a post that has really informed the way I play Paladins, and the way one can conceive of Lawful Good:

http://i.imgur.com/fQWag.png

[Letsplayforfun]

I think we all have different views on what paladins are, and DE or "questing with evil" are just the tip of the iceberg. As it stands, most I see are played like LN zealots, seldom "good", and that doesn't suit me, for example, although I'm quite aware others don't think this way and in a multiplayer world, one has to compromise. Imo they should be app only a class and followed by a specific DM. It's the kind of class that should be extremely rare, the eye of the god upon you a real thing, not just spell casting abilities. In most stories we know, there's just "one" pally, the others are "just" knights. LG figthers, clerics, ftr-cleric fullfill most of the needs we usually have.

[Kandebyn Olar]

It's a good thing that paladins have been revamped in 4th and now 5th edition, because none of you seems to have the same idea about what paladins are and how they should be portrayed.

I mean, lol, I think the only threads as common as those are the random HP ones.