That Guy

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

>Only THAT GUYS play Lawful Stupid

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

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.

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

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.

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

Go fuck yourself.

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).

3e specifically states association with evil is forbidden.

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

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.

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.

>not smiting bankers

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

>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.

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.

>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.

Why would you make the consequences of the player's metagaming an ingame penalty, user?
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.

>Why would you make the consequences of the player's metagaming an ingame penalty, user?
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.

>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.

All commies have mental disabilities, yes.