That Guy

k

If the paladin knew the guy was evil then he is on his way to falling. Knowing aiding evil is grounds for losing paladin powers.

>>51647764
That DM detected

>>51647744
>"By taking the evil guy's money I'm reducing evil's economic power! So it's totally a heroic act see?"

>party enters run down tavern
>rogue starts throwing gold around-buying drinks for everybody
keepthechange.png
>shady mofos start eyeing the party and whispering
>Druid notices
>"dangit rogue! Did you really have to spend all of our gold? How are we going to buy food now"
>rogue responds
>"what do you mean, we have thousands of gold in your bag"

>>51647744
>palidan
Stop bypassing word filters.

>>51647764
>>51647787
This guy was basically a caricature Satan. The player knew he was evil, but purposefully didn't detect evil, even though his character had cast it on pretty much every npc up until this point (I let him cast it an unlimited number of times per day, that was my mistake)

>>51647803

>"what do you mean, we have thousands of gold in your bag"

But that's actually kind of funny not all that dickish. Besides if the bar is full of "shady mofos" then there's a good chance someone was gonna try to rob you guys anyway.

>>51647787
Knowingly aiding evil for coin (which is what it seems to be here) is grounds for falling. If not, why? Should helping evil for profit not be considered against the paladin code?

>>51647872

It's not dickish, just mental illness.

One would assume that a rogue of all classes would be more aware of their surroundings.

As a player I wouldn't be bothered, as it's all in good fun. My character wlhowever would (rightly) assume that the rouge has some kind of mental disability.

>>51647744
>didn't kill him because we all just finished making characters

And here's where I lost sympathy. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If there is a universal trait among That Guys it's the belief that their actions don't have consequences.

>>51647894
Knowingly aiding an evil person doesn't make you evil numnuts. If he was working for an evil tyrant that was offering gold to kill a bunch of bandits, he's allowed to take the assignment and get the gold.
You only risk falling if you do something evil or allow something evil to occur without trying to prevent it.

Someone being evil isn't justification to kill them.

>>51647963
Knowingly aiding evil/working with evil without a great need is grounds for falling. If the tyrant was evil and offering you money to do something good you should not accept the money of the tyrant and do the deed of your own volition. Long term association with evil is also against the paladin code.

>>51647803
People are impressed by people who throw money around. Good decision on the thief.

>>51648005
You are missing the catch.
>Knowingly
OP clearly said the paladin did NOT use detect evil on the guy.

>>51647963
>>51648005
Also you don't have to become evil to fall. Being a paladin is difficult and narrow in both morality and action. The paladin code is very strict.

Long term working for an evil individual, even for performing good actions, is grounds for falling due to long term association with evil.

>>51648029
The code also mentions willful ignorance. Which this is clearly a case of. He is ignoring signs and ignoring looking into it, as the OP also said.

>>51648029
>>51648050
If the tyrant had hidden his alignment, the paladin detected and got a false reading, and went with it then it would be in no way violating the paladin code. However associating with a person who appears evil, and not checking if they're evil, and then continuing to associate with them counts as willful ignorance.

Especially if the character made an exception to checking on this particular individual.

File: isthisevenreal.png (260KB, 713x381px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 713x381px

>>51647744
>Only THAT GUYS play Lawful Stupid

Oh hey, its another thread on /tg/ by a newfag redditor who wants to fit in.

File: Capture.jpg (46KB, 648x197px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 648x197px

>>51648005
That's weird, it says here in the rulebook you're wrong.

God you tards are the worst. By your own logic, a paladin should sit in the church all day helping people and shouldn't be out fighting, since medicine and lay on hands is more useful to helping people than going around murdering bandits who also have families.
There's fuck all about aiding evil, you only need to act if they do something evil. If the evil tyrant is handing out soup to the homeless, your logic would indicate that helping him do it is evil.
Not everything an evil person does is evil. Nor is accepting coin for a job being done, unless you want to say capitalism is evil too.

>>51648050
>The code also mentions willful ignorance
In which edition, anon, because now that matters.
3e version only says knowingly, 4e doesn't apply, and even 5e carries multiple oaths and codes.

>>51648126
You are missing the attached part below it.
>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.

>>51648126
Did you actually just crop out the part below it that supports what he said?

Go fuck yourself.

>>51647943
He's right OP kill him and teach him there's consequences for being retarded. I don't kill PC's unless they're asking for it and in his case he definetly was. Besides a little character death every now and then makes it more real (assuming it's not done retardedly).

>>51648141
3e specifically states association with evil is forbidden.

>>51648126
>cropping out the rest of the code of conduct
Come on faggot

>>51647802
I'd honestly say it depends on what he does for the money, and what he does with it.

If it's just go grab x, it's a job someone else would have done anyway. If he uses the gold to help people, it's still net good imo.

>>51648161
Well better avoid literally half of the populations of the world. That guard that accepts bribes? Can't talk to him to get past the gate. The bank that is foreclosing on people who can't pay their bills? Well I guess you can't get a loan from them. That one woman that stole bread to feed her family? Better rev up the smiting stick instead of saving her lost son from a bunch of goblins, that bitch broke the law. Once.

Learn some fucking logic. The entire paladin code is not hard or fast, else the paladin would explode upon meeting a nation of cannibals. There's fucking decades of philosophical arguments that rip that to shreds.

>>51648324
>not smiting bankers

>>51648249
Knowing association, anon.
The paladin isn't held responsible for things beyond his knowledge, no matter how hard you want to make running a paladin.
>>51648324
None of the examples you posted are of "evil" people, anon, holy shit you are a faggot of the highest order.

>>51648354
>The paladin isn't held responsible for things beyond his knowledge, no matter how hard you want to make running a paladin.
I would say if someone always checks if someone is evil, except in the one instance when the person appears evil, they are knowingly associating with evil and have merely not confirmed it.

Or are you saying that specifically changing one's actions so as to not confirm is a form of innocence.

I would say specifically changing one's actions so as to not confirm means the player does indeed know he is evil and merely wants to try and worm his way out of his code of conduct. Twisting one's code to try and game it should be grounds for falling.

>>51648324
Wow, you're either retarded or trolling, I actually can't tell.

>The entire paladin code is not hard or fast, else the paladin would explode upon meeting a nation of cannibals.
Actually it is, also your definition of "association" is fucked.

>>51648324
>That guard that accepts bribes? Can't talk to him to get past the gate.
That's not what the word associate means. You can speak to the guard to get through the gate, that is not association.

Working for someone is association.

>The bank that is foreclosing on people who can't pay their bills? Well I guess you can't get a loan from them.
Not evil, that is LN unless they did it by twisting the rules and specifically to hurt someone or for personal gain.

>That one woman that stole bread to feed her family? Better rev up the smiting stick instead of saving her lost son from a bunch of goblins, that bitch broke the law. Once.
Doing something against the law once doesn't make you evil, heck a single CE action doesn't make you evil. At worst she may have slipped to CN.

Jesus fucking christ you're stupid.

>>51648402
Why would you make the consequences of the player's metagaming an ingame penalty, anon?
This is something the player need to be called out on, it's symptomatic.
I'd take issue with it because I generally follow the rules when I can, and playing Devil's Advocate, it could be argued that he did not do anything wrong by the measure of the book to justify a mechanical penalty.

>>51648488
>Why would you make the consequences of the player's metagaming an ingame penalty, anon?
Because the paladin in character should be mentally capable to some degree. If the guy was a cartoonish depiction of evil, as the OP said, then I say the paladin is acting similar to that of the player.

>This is something the player need to be called out on, it's symptomatic.
The paladin also has a thinking mind. Unless his wisdom is through the fucking floor he should have also made a connection.

>I'd take issue with it because I generally follow the rules when I can, and playing Devil's Advocate, it could be argued that he did not do anything wrong by the measure of the book to justify a mechanical penalty.
I would say that if you separate in and out of character then one should logically think through what the in character paladin's thought pattern is. He is not a stone or marionette when you take it apart like this, he has in character thoughts. If the player says the paladin didn't connect the dots he better have low fucking wisdom.

Specifically he stopped doing what he normally does, which means he did connect the dots and is trying to game it.

More to the point I would just get rid of the paladin's player.

>>51648577
>More to the point I would just get rid of the paladin's player.
This is the correct response.
>If the guy was a cartoonish depiction of evil, as the OP said
Harum, I thought the guy they took the job from and that dude were different.

>>51647925
All commies have mental disabilities, yes.