|
I think the OP Is onto something. They're definitely evil. They have no redeeming features. Their apathy combined with their penchant for hurting other people for personal gain pretty much slaps the big E on their foreheads.
Damiel's a lot of things, but apathetic ain't one of 'em. He's a bit mad, and still sometimes does bad things in the grip of madness...but he's legitimately trying to help people and otherwise be a good person the rest of the time.
As for Alain...his attitude really is very reminiscent of Gorum's. Is Gorum Evil? I suppose it could be argued he is, but the arguments otherwise are also persuasive, IMO.
Can you honestly say this with a straight face. Do you think he didn't know what the poison was going to be used for?Are all weapon smiths now Evil?
Because using poison and using a weapon are equally Evil in Pathfinder, no more. Using poison is dishonorable, and thus Chaotic, but not inherently Evil. So making poison is no more Evil than making a dagger. Now, making a dagger you know will be use for an assassination is a little shadier (and debatably the situation Damiel was in)...but see below about how alignments change.
I get what you're saying, but that's not quite the same thing. Weapons can be used for a variety of reasons. Killing monsters, defending yourself, heck, having parade dress could be considered an appropriate use for a weapon, or a show of force.
Damiel was crafting poisons FOR AN ASSASSIN'S GUILD. Using poison usually requires forethought, saying "hmmm, I'm gonna murder something today, better prepare for it." or "I want to drop this into the dignitary's gazpacho soup and have him die in agony a few hours later."
Point being, no, not all weaponsmiths are evil. But a dude willingly making weapons FOR AN ASSASSIN'S guild, and ONLY for an assassin's guild might raise some eyebrows. Damiel knew what he was doing, and didn't care that he was making stuff directly for the express purpose of murdering people.
Poisons don't just kill people, you know. Only poisons that deal Con damage actually have the capability of killing a person, as reducing any of the other 5 stats to zero reduces the subject to unconsciousness, temporary paralysis, or temporary comatosis. Having counted them up a little under half (17/37) have the capability to kill. In addition, the Daggermark Poisoners' Guild does not strictly carry out assassinations - that'd be the Assassins' Guild. He could, of course, infer from the type of poison he's creating about whether someone could die from it or not. One could argue that he is evil because of this.
Of course, weaponsmiths could also infer the weapon's purpose based off the client and the type of weapon requested along with any special requests for decorative features. If guards want weapons for parade dress, they'll likely order in bulk and commission their weapons from the same weaponsmith. If the military needs weapons, they will likely hire their own weaponsmiths specifically for that purpose, and I can guarantee that they know their weapons will be used for combat.
So what makes them different? They are both creating tools that can be used to kill and have an understanding of what said tools will likely be used for, yet one is evil and the other is not?
The difference between making a tool that can be used for murder and a tool that will be be used for murder is all the difference in the world. Making poison is not the problem. Making poison for an assassin's guild is the same thing as making a weapon specifically for a murderer to murder people with.
Consider the following
You are knowingly working for a guild whose entire purpose rests around murdering people for personal gain. You are profiting off of that murdering. You are aiding in that murdering. You know that when someone's son or daughter doesn't make it home tonight, it was because you aided their killer for your own convenience and gains. You're not making poison to kill rats, you're not making swords to defend people from other dangers, you're knowingly and intentionally assisting in committing murder. In alignment terms you are hurting, oppressing, and killing for personal convenience and gain. You are EVIL.
That is the textbook definition of evil in D&D/Pathfinder (and quite frankly, I'd hope it was for most people in reality as well).
Now I'd be willing to buy into the idea that you could possibly be Neutral if you're at least off doing the good side of that scale too. I mean, if you're also acting altruistically, protecting innocent life, and showing concern for the dignity of others, you're probably going to be neutral 'cause you're a mixture of both good and evil.
But that's not what was presented. What was presented seems like a fairly apathetic disregard for life for personal convenience. Literally profiting on the murders of others knowing good and well that it was an industry, a business, of murder.
He could have just as easily, as an alchemist, been working as a pharmacist. Antitoxins and antiplagues are things too. But, no, he was working for an assassin's guild and collecting his paycheck for his part in the murders that the guild carries out. If anything, he is at the very least an accomplice in every murder that was carried out that his poisons were used in, and it was intentional.
|
|
Ashiel, even if tall that's true (and I don't necessarily agree with all of it)...that was years ago. Possibly decades given that Damiel is an Elf. Even if he was Evil back then...people change, and he's explicitly looking for redemption these days. That seems like sufficient justification for a Neutral Alignment to me.
Ashiel, even if tall that's true (and I don't necessarily agree with all of it)...that was years ago. Possibly decades given that Damiel is an Elf. Even if he was Evil back then...people change, and he's explicitly looking for redemption these days. That seems like sufficient justification for a Neutral Alignment to me.
That's fair. Out of curiosity, has he actually done anything for redemption? I didn't see anything on it in the pathfinder wiki, only that he is a little less sociopathic than he was a while ago.
The difference between making a tool that can be used for murder and a tool that will be be used for murder is all the difference in the world. Making poison is not the problem. Making poison for an assassin's guild is the same thing as making a weapon specifically for a murderer to murder people with.
Consider the following
You are knowingly working for a guild whose entire purpose rests around murdering people for personal gain. You are profiting off of that murdering. You are aiding in that murdering. You know that when someone's son or daughter doesn't make it home tonight, it was because you aided their killer for your own convenience and gains. You're not making poison to kill rats, you're not making swords to defend people from other dangers, you're knowingly and intentionally assisting in committing murder. In alignment terms you are hurting, oppressing, and killing for personal convenience and gain. You are EVIL.That is the textbook definition of evil in D&D/Pathfinder (and quite frankly, I'd hope it was for most people in reality as well).
Now I'd be willing to buy into the idea that you could possibly be Neutral if you're at least off doing the good side of that scale too. I mean, if you're also acting altruistically, protecting innocent life, and showing concern for the dignity of others, you're probably going to be neutral 'cause you're a mixture of both good and evil.
But that's not what was presented. What was presented seems like a fairly apathetic disregard for life for personal convenience. Literally profiting on the murders of others knowing good and well that it was an industry, a business, of murder.
He could have just as easily, as an alchemist, been working as a pharmacist. Antitoxins and antiplagues are things too. But, no, he was working for an assassin's guild and collecting his paycheck for his part in the murders that the guild carries out. If anything, he is at the very least an accomplice in every murder that was carried out that...
Kyonin's government exiled Damiel for "plagiarism", which is similar to having a flashing neon sign over your head that reads "Not trustworthy, do not hire". Any pharmacist with half a brain wouldn't even consider him for a position, so finding honest work as an alchemist was probably not an option.
Damiel worked for the Poisoners' Guild, which often works with the Assassins' Guild but not solely for them. In addition, such a secretive organization likely runs on a need-to-know basis, and Damiel would never know for sure just who his wares are sold to. The same poison that kills innocent people in the hands of an assassin might kill a dangerous criminal in the hands of a guard. Poison that paralyzes or knocks out a target could be used to assist a kidnapper in acquiring his target or offer an adventurer a (relatively) non-violent means of ending conflict that causes no lasting harm.
Now, I'm not trying to excuse him from any wrongdoing - he was in a bad position and getting a job from the Poisoners' Guild would have been an enticing deal, but he likely knew going in that some of his creations would be used by evil people to commit crimes. He did make a bad decision in joining their guild, but that alone doesn't make him evil. If he was evil at the time it would've been a result of his own activities while under the effects of "The Change". It would be much easier to determine his alignment at that point in time if we knew the nature of his excursions while under "The Change", but the wiki doesn't clarify anything beyond saying they got him kicked out of the guild. My guess is that he committed one too many high-profile crimes and was kicked out for drawing attention to the guild, but that's just my interpretation.
I'll say it again - Damiel could have been Chaotic Evil during his time with the Poisoners' Guild, but if so it was likely due to his own exploits rather than his poison-making for the guild. Regardless of his past, Damiel is now on the path to redemption, and as long as he can keep himself under control he might actually succeed.
|
|
That's one thing that bothers me about him (and some of the other Iconics). All that happened before first level? Really?
Not necessarily, as you note. Also...what's he done that a 1st level character couldn't? Murder a random commoner? Have an unreasonable goo Craft (Alchemy) check? All sounds plausible to me.
Or are you worried about timeline? Because an Elven Alchemist starts between 120 and 170 years old. If you assume Damiel's exploits started at the tender age of 120 or so...he's got 50 years to get them all in before he's not within the starting PC age range.
I guess you could argue he was higher level when he started "adventuring" and could be a PC, but you could certainly play him at 1st.
You could. But all the Iconics backstories as such tend to assume slightly higher than 1st level capabilities (though not a lot higher...mostly), just because that makes for a better story.
Is he available for PFS? I never could quite figure out which iconics were.
As noted, he is not.
That's one thing that bothers me about him (and some of the other Iconics). All that happened before first level? Really?Not necessarily, as you note. Also...what's he done that a 1st level character couldn't? Murder a random commoner? Have an unreasonable goo Craft (Alchemy) check? All sounds plausible to me.
Or are you worried about timeline? Because an Elven Alchemist starts between 120 and 170 years old. If you assume Damiel's exploits started at the tender age of 120 or so...he's got 50 years to get them all in before he's not within the starting PC age range.
I guess you could argue he was higher level when he started "adventuring" and could be a PC, but you could certainly play him at 1st.You could. But all the Iconics backstories as such tend to assume slightly higher than 1st level capabilities (though not a lot higher...mostly), just because that makes for a better story.
Is he available for PFS? I never could quite figure out which iconics were.As noted, he is not.
Not mention, like any iconic, you also don't have to play him at level 1. There are stats for 1, 7, 12.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Alain is an excellent example of how the evil alignments do not have the copyrights for being a douche. Truth be told, I wouldn't be surprised to see Scumbag Alain memes:
"I killed your brother?"
*Alain lounging against something, eating an apple*
"Was he someone important?"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm pretty sure a first level barbarian didn't slay a giant and gain the ability to use his large-sized bastard sword at level 1. Some of the iconics may have entered the story at a higher level.
Actually...she found it on a dead giant. So that one works.
Harsk now, he killed giants in his backstory.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I killed your brother?"
*Alain lounging against something, eating an apple*
"Was he someone important?"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here you go."I killed your brother?"
*Alain lounging against something, eating an apple*
"Was he someone important?"
That's great! I'm gonna make a few more if you don't mind:
"I killed your brother? I don't remember, he must have had NPC levels"
"I killed your brother? Any idea how much XP he was worth?"
"I killed your brother? Wait, peasants can have brothers?"
"That was a nice song bard, . . . But it didn't contain enough... Me"
"My standard-bearer died in my arms! Now I'll have to find a wizard to prestidigitation this armor clean! Again!"