Paladins: Which do you hate more - LE or CE?

[Torm]

1: snip 2. snip 3. snip.

You state my thoughts on the matter succinctly.

So, really, the lesson in all of this is: If you are LE, distract your paladins with several CE threats, until it is too late for them to stop you.

Also in line with what I've been thinking - and the reason why I would think when possible you would set aside a CE to deal with a LE: the CE threat will probably stay more or less the same if you wait, but the LE one will use the time to expand and improve its evil plan.

 

[FireLance]

Assuming everything else is equal (both are equally powerful and influential and are pursuing equally vile goals with equally bad consequences, etc.), I'd go after the CE creature first.

My answer is premised on the assumption that in the D&D universe, Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are cosmic forces, and that a CE creature somehow adds to the power of Chaos as well as Evil: perhaps, by its example or its actions, more people are encouraged to ignore the law, or the society's accepted codes of behavior, or fail to honor the country's authorities and institutions.

If I was a paladin and working not just for the eventual triumph of Good, but Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil presents a dual problem.

 

[painandgreed]

IMC, hatred is an evil quality and an exalted paladin would love both but do what he does as a holy warrior out of duty to good. He would prefer to not do what he has to do, but such things are required of him. A "normal" paladin might be allowed a little bit of hatred for a specific foe without needing atonement so long as it didn't skew his judgement. As for which one he would go after first, it would be the one he was tasked with taking down, the one he has already fought the most, or the greatest evil.

 

[Thotas]

Priority would be a determination based on immediate threat vs. long-term threat, minor vs. major threat, and strategic considerations. That said, paladins are, I think, designed as a class (or at least built as characters) more to fight CE threats; those are often ones you can best deal with via BAB and smiting. Handling LE tends to at least start with with Sense Motive and Diplomacy ... which are part of the paladin's arsenal, but seldom their focus.

 

[kanithardm]

I would think it would be CE, just because it would be easier to convert LE. They at least have some restrictions based on their own code and could be converted to LN or LG.

 

[hopeless]

Reg: Paladins & whether LE or CE is the greater threat

No offense but what about those running Paladins under the idea that everyone else should bow to their quest to fight evil and ignore the hypocrisy when their home city is run by thieves!
Sorry the last game i played in with a Paladin being run by another player it was more a case of Lawful rather than any emphasis on Good.
Personally CE should be dealt with first BUT not before making sure that action doesn't cause more evil to flourish rather than promote good which should be the point not an annoyance.
I ran a halfling sorceror of Ng alignment who was more inherently Good than the LG Paladin who was willing to use torture and cold bloodedly murder a prisoner simply when it seemed unnecessary to keep the manacled prisoner alive.
That was after ingoring the pleas of an LG Monk and the Sorceror who tried to save the goblin only to have the Paladin chase them down and cut down the unarmed and physically helpless goblin from behind.
The DM by the way said the Paladin's player hadn't broken any part of his code even though he had by this point allowed the player to rewrite one of his actions that involved perverting the law of the settlement who had been subjected to the necromantic magic of a cleric of Nerull he was intent on returning to Greyhawk for questioning and that was after the rest of the group uncovered the cleric's presence and he even endangered everyone in the village by not warning them of who he was out searching for.
He claimed he though he had the nobleman's right to do as he wished even though he was a native of the Shield Lands exiled after that lands conquest by the Horned Society. The druid objecting to his actions killed the cleric but he almost left the village to head back to Greyhawk with the corpse on his horse a journey that takes three days, the DM persuaded him that that was a bad idea... shame he didn't include us I had one or two ideas to get the group going after him mostly because the undead army the cleric had animated would get up the next night and head after their former master...
Don't get me started on what happened when we reached Greyhawk and wiped out a cell of Iuz's followers and shared out the treasure which included a +1 ring of Protection that the Paladin immediately grabbed after the sorceror offered it to the unarmoured Monk noting the Paladin's player had persuaded the Dm to let him roll on 1st edition rules for Paladin players thus the full plate armoured paladin with the best AC ignoring the fact he didn't need the protection as much as others present including the unarmoured Sorceror who identified the magical items and was showing more concern for the rest of the party than the so-called zealot...
Sorry opened an old wound.
Well back to the thread its all well and good to talk about which the Paladin will strike at most as the greatest threat. Unfortuntely it depends on the player, if they're running a Lawful GOOD Paladin then they will be more concerned with the more obvious threat and if aware of the growing problem try to plan a counter plan to the LE bad guys plans.
However the LAWFUL (ignores the Good part) will do whatever he/she wants to fight the evil he/she wants to fight and if that means ignoring the party to needless endanger everyone just because they want to be the centre stage of the entire game regardless whether its detrimental to the campaign or everyone else's attempts to enjoy the game then I guess it boils down to the Dm to recognise and help them realise they aren't the only player and by the way the person who ran that Greyhawk campaign ended it shortly after the Paladin got another character possessed by the ghost of mummy even though he had been paralysed by the mummy's despair ability (the DM claimed special rules I roleplayed it that he needed to atone, the paladin's player ignored the point even acting very unpaladinnic when the Sorceror was directly attacked whilst trying to help another imperiled character) and was as far as I was concerned more evil than the bad guys!
Stuck about to head into the Bright Sands after the possessed elven ranger and the rod (well he's after the rod I want to free the elf) and the DM is more interested in starting a Conan campaign than going back for another round of is the Paladin LG or LE...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But it seems to me that the opposite is true, for the exact same reason: CE is just rampant, unfocused (or at least, not AS focused) evil, but LE is actually using a tool that a Paladin would regard as sacred - law - in a corrupt and perverted fashion.

My paladin does not consider law sacred. He is lawful because he leads a Spartan life, a military man without a military, in essence. Regarding evil, he does not distinguish between chaotic and lawful.

It should be noted that Chaotic-Evil does not mean Chaotic-Stupid. The average Balor has an intelligence of 24. Meaning that the spawn of the Abyss can be every bit as devious and cunning as the children of the Nine Hells.

 

[Nightfall]

Honestly, I hate both but if given the choice of working with an LE or a CE character, LE would at least get less of an askance look than CE. But that doesn't mean I don't want to NOT take down LE. After all, my Tyrist Paladin attacked a Banite outpost.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I hate both but if given the choice of working with an LE or a CE character

You do realize there is no choice here, don't you? A paladin cannot associate with evil. Doing so explicitly breaks the paladin code.

 

[sword-dancer]

Where a rule there is an exception.

1st Exception is redemption

2nd is a greater Thread