Warlocks, Book of Vile Darkness, and rulings.

[Elder-Basilisk]

Ambiguously amoral? Yeah, right. You're madly cackling, pure black and white comic book evil. You just happen to be on the same side as some good guys. However, that doesn't change your moral status any more than working against Hitler made Stalin "ambiguously amoral." There's nothing ambigous about it.

So far if it comes down to it, I think he'll go before I do, as I'm probably more like the rest of the party, ambigiously amoral.

 

[Gez]

Haven't you thought of trying a CN Warlock? You'd still be within one step of Orcus' alignment.

 

[Thanee]

About the spell-like ability feats in BoVD. Those are 3.0 and (at least the ones I recall) don't work with the 3.5 rules, so you should take a look at how they work now (i.e. compare the MM/CA version to the BoVD version of empower/maximize/quicken (not sure, which of those were in there, but some were for sure)) and then interpolate accordingly, if your DM is ok with it.

In any way... LG Paladin + NE Warlock = no party harmony.

The very least, the Paladin should do is stop adventuring with the Warlock. Maybe even bring him to justice (praying to Orcus alone would be a crime worthy of death probably in the eyes of a Paladin, of course that would have to be known first, but the evil alignment is automatically detected).

I'm afraid, unless you throw the Paladin codes out of the window and just play the class like a Fighter, one of you will have to reconsider.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Be CN alignment wise. No self respecting paladin would work with a NE creature. And since his char was in the game first you should respect that and plan a character that isn't evil. Or won't force the paladin to make the 'you or me' ultimatum.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Be CN alignment wise. No self respecting paladin would work with a NE creature. And since his char was in the game first you should respect that and plan a character that isn't evil. Or won't force the paladin to make the 'you or me' ultimatum.

Ya, well, it sounds like the DM and the player of the Paladin don't care about the situation. Basically, the DM isn't enforcing the rules and the player of the Paladin isn't playing a proper Paladin.

Whatever works for their table though. Yes, in most groups when following the rules, it would likely go like this:

Evil guy: "Hey. I'd like to join your group. I plan on only turning the Underdark into Hell on Faerun. I won't do anything other than that."

Paladin: I detect evil. Yes, just as I suspected. "Let's kill this vile creature before it infects Faerun with his darkness. After that, let's go to the inn and find another adventurer to help us who doesn't detect as evil."

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, some groups love the PvP games. Most don't. I don't.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Well, some groups love the PvP games. Most don't. I don't.

I agree. I don't as well. So, as a DM when these situations arise, I normally tell the player "if you play that character, it will cause in party fighting. I hate that, so no, you can't bring in the character. Pick a new one that existing party members won't want to kill immediately."

Then again, I have a "no evil at all" house rule to avoid situations like this.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Then again, I have a "no evil at all" house rule to avoid situations like this.

Hey, I thought I was the only one.

 

[Thanee]

I'd guess that no evil alignments is a rather common campaign rule (wouldn't call that a house rule).

Bye
Thanee

 

[smootrk]

I'll give my 2 cents on Evil vs. Paladin in a party.

Can't work... your DM and/or player of the Paladin should not allow this to happen.

But if you infiltrate the party (with undetectable alignment), then somehow turn the paladin... I am thinking Blackguard... you would make a great team.