Since the last two adventure paths (Aow and Stap) were not very heroic, (in the fact that the authors always tried to force you to "parley" or "work with" evil) is the Pathfinder AP going to be in the same way?
Being a champion of good, it's been tough trying to not break the AP by fitting into the story with a paladin or LG character. I know every once and awhile the "moral quandry" should rear it's ugly head, but the enemy of mine enemy thing is getting kinda old...
So you're saying you can only be a hero if you knock your enemy's lights out? Making peace, negotiating, engaging in parley does not qualify as heroic? I'm sorry, but I don't agree.
And remind me, which part of Age of Worms requires the "enemy of my enemy" strategy to succeed?
And remind me, which part of Age of Worms requires the "enemy of my enemy" strategy to succeed?
I believe they're refering to the whole Alhastor dinner party gussying up to the blackguard Prince of Redhand bit. Or maybe Lashonna using them to get at Dragotha... but I should likely read the whole adventure path through before really trying to help on this.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Since the last two adventure paths (Aow and Stap) were not very heroic, (in the fact that the authors always tried to force you to "parley" or "work with" evil) is the Pathfinder AP going to be in the same way?
Being a champion of good, it's been tough trying to not break the AP by fitting into the story with a paladin or LG character. I know every once and awhile the "moral quandry" should rear it's ugly head, but the enemy of mine enemy thing is getting kinda old...
For Age of Worms, I'd think the one time in the story that it legimately occurs (that is, where you are in an evil place for information, rather than to try and kill) is pretty much the meaning of once in a while, since it is meant to run from levels 1-20. There's not really another portion of Age of Worms where you have to play nice with the villains (I wouldn't consider Champion's Belt so much playing nice as taking advantage of a path to strike at the enemy).
I enjoy the mix of adventure types in the APs. It's nice to not have "slaughter everything that detects as evil" be the optimal solution all the time.
Since the last two adventure paths (Aow and Stap) were not very heroic, (in the fact that the authors always tried to force you to "parley" or "work with" evil) is the Pathfinder AP going to be in the same way?
Being a champion of good, it's been tough trying to not break the AP by fitting into the story with a paladin or LG character. I know every once and awhile the "moral quandry" should rear it's ugly head, but the enemy of mine enemy thing is getting kinda old...
It's worth pointing out, I think, that 'Enemy of mine Enemy' or 'Parlay' might be a way of letting players get to know bad guys. I mean, the average lifespan of a D&D villain being a handful of combat rounds... it's hard to get to know the opposition beyond "Whoa, that was a lot of hit points." Look through the Shackled City Adventure Path threads and you'll find some strong threads on re-working the path because the bad guys don't get the chance to make a strong personal impact on the players.
Needing to talk things out at times with villains (or enemies of mine enemies) re-enforces the idea that the Party isn't killing them (later) because they have tusks, horns, or XP & gold, but because the villains are very bad people who want and do very bad things.
|
Seems to me that a Heroic Persona would be more inclined to talk, to negotiate, or "deal" with an Evil Power than to (to borrow a phrase) "give in to the dark side" and resort to violence.
While default D&D is a black & white expression of good and evil, Evil and good are only important when it comes to behavior. The gods may argue otherwise ( a black heart will land you in hell, for example), but in terms of social relationships, its behavior that we observe and act upon.
There are enough "signs" in these published adventures of Good creatures (angels) becoming evil...why not the opposite? A Paladin is prepared to battle the demon lord, he doesn't trust the Demon lord, but if the demon lord is behaves honorably the Paladin has little recourse to attack it. Paladins aren't homocidal maniacs
The above may be a stretch for some campaigns, but you could always play the Mr. T trick: The other players can put him to sleep or something and keep their deals with the devil on the down-low
Or better yet, perhaps the Evil Bad Guy is very convincing at posing as a "misunderstood" philanthropist who is faced with moral quandries on a daily basis...of course *some* people dislike his decisions...
Yeah, I disagree with the OP's supposition that an AP that has you dealing with demons and navigating "enemy of my enemy" situations is by definition unheroic. Even for a paladin. But I also disagree with the notion that charging full bore in to a fight to the death with every demon or evil thing you run into should be the default characterization of a paladin.
I see so many people play paladins that are incapable of or extremely resistant to parley, subtlety, stealth, attacking from ambush or other useful combat tactic, and I don't understand it at all. There's is nothing anywhere that (to me) supports this most common characterization of paladins.
|
|
I guess it wasn't as bad in AoW as it is in Stap. Trying to play a paladin in Stap, is at least very frustrating, if not impossible as written.
I don't get this at all. I am running STAP and read all the adventures, I don't see anywhere that the party MUST help evil to destroy evil, except
FH
Yeah, I disagree with the OP's supposition that an AP that has you dealing with demons and navigating "enemy of my enemy" situations is by definition unheroic. Even for a paladin. But I also disagree with the notion that charging full bore in to a fight to the death with every demon or evil thing you run into should be the default characterization of a paladin.
I see so many people play paladins that are incapable of or extremely resistant to parley, subtlety, stealth, attacking from ambush or other useful combat tactic, and I don't understand it at all. There's is nothing anywhere that (to me) supports this most common characterization of paladins.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I dislike it when paladins are represented as one-note "slay all evil all the time" types. There are so many more ways to play a paladin, including those with shades of grey. The one-note type is not only boring for me, but if played as it usually seems to be played (based on what I've seen from WotC messageboards, etc.) it tends to create a strain on the rest of the party, or workarounds like playing the paladin as ignorant, etc.
Probably the most enjoyable paladin I ever played was when I rejoined my old group after about a year off. Some of them were initially reluctant that I wanted to play a paladin, since not all of their characters played within the laws, but I created a paladin of Sune the love goddess of the Forgotten Realms. Instead of being your typical crusader against evil type, nor was he the "snitch on everyone who breaks the law" type; he was a crusader for Sune's ideals of love, beauty, etc. He still fought evil, especially ugly evil :), but it wasn't his passion. He got along very well with the rest of the party.
Unfortunately that group broke up because of events beyond my control, but since then I've become a DM for another group that includes two of the players in the old group. We still talk about that paladin on occasion. :)
I don't think a paladin should be penalized for negotiating or working with evil beings in certain circumstances if it's for the "greater good". Working out a deal with Orcus in order to make a strike at Demogorgon is not evil.
For instance, it's strongly implied that both the good gods and the evil gods worked together to imprison Tharizdun because he threatened them all.
|
There's a lot of ways to read alignments. I think with respect to lawful good and paladins, my simple litmus test is "what would Superman do?"
I think that's the question in a nutshell; I think other people might very well answer that question differently than me. I personally have never seen the paladin as one to walk very far into the shadows without sword drawn. Like Rorschach in the Watchmen, I don't see the paladin as willing to compromise on principles even upon pain of death.
There's a lot of ways to read alignments. I think with respect to lawful good and paladins, my simple litmus test is "what would Superman do?"
** spoiler omitted **
I think that's the question in a nutshell; I think other people might very well answer that question differently than me. I personally have never seen the paladin as one to walk very far into the shadows without sword drawn. Like Rorschach in the Watchmen, I don't see the paladin as willing to compromise on principles even upon pain of death.
That's an interesting analogy, w/ Rorschach. But you wouldn't honestly claim his alignment would equate to LG would you? :) I'd give him LN, though even that would be too much for some. Sorry for the partial threadjack...
As for the whole paladin/LG thing, I think there's some wiggle room on how to play them. If you wouldn't agree on that, I'd say in any case I prefer the Dragon article(s) that had the paladin-types for the good and evil alignments. (Issues #310: Champions of the Divine & #312: Reavers of the Divine) I always thought that was a brilliant idea. The divine warrior for at least 6 of the 9 alignments. That gets you out of the "straitjacket" epithet some laid on the "lawful awful" interpretations of the paladin.
|
|
I wouldn't dream of thinking Rorschach was lawful good, maybe lawful nutso. I just think his utter devotion to the credo "never compromise" illustrated that point to the nth degree.
Again, I feel that there's as many ways to look at alignments and the meanings thereof as there are people, and I can understand one set feeling that a paladin cutting deals with dark powers, even to attain some greater good, is a little out of character.
I think it's idealistic, but I think a paladin is supposed to be idealistic.
There's a lot of ways to read alignments. I think with respect to lawful good and paladins, my simple litmus test is "what would Superman do?"
** spoiler omitted **
I think that's the question in a nutshell; I think other people might very well answer that question differently than me. I personally have never seen the paladin as one to walk very far into the shadows without sword drawn. Like Rorschach in the Watchmen, I don't see the paladin as willing to compromise on principles even upon pain of death.
Nice litmus test ;-)
I never though about it that way, but asking "What Would Superman Do?" sounds like a pretty good test for how a Paladin (or even LG cleric) might act.
Of course, I can think of several examples when Superman has been forced through circumstances to team up with a "lesser" evil in order to stop a catastrophe or a "Greater" evil. Even if it forced him to team up with Luthor or Darkseid in some cases.
I'd say working with Orcus (among others) to bring down Demogorgon and prevent the Savage Tide is something Superman would do... if he couldn't bring Demogorgon down himself anyways.
*I love it when comics and D&D collide.
|
|
Even if it costs him his life.
And that's my biggest problem with most paladins. Their code makes them very egocentric. "I shall not treat with evil, though it cost me my life."
Oh, yeah? What about the lives of the innocent people who died because you failed? It's not all about you, Mr. Paladin. Buck up, save the world, and then fork over the gp for an atonement.
There's a lot of ways to read alignments. I think with respect to lawful good and paladins, my simple litmus test is "what would Superman do?"
I think that's a pretty good call!
Of course, I can think of several examples when Superman has been forced through circumstances to team up with a "lesser" evil in order to stop a catastrophe or a "Greater" evil. Even if it forced him to team up with Luthor or Darkseid in some cases.I'd say working with Orcus (among others) to bring down Demogorgon and prevent the Savage Tide is something Superman would do... if he couldn't bring Demogorgon down himself anyways.
However, I think that's a pretty good call, too.
I think that if offered the choice of giving the world over to madness, and working with a bad guy to overthrow an even more dangerous badguy, Supes (and most Superheroes,) would have a Team-Up.
---
That aside, I think by its very nature, a game based around swashbuckling, buccaneers, pirates, and/or some combination of the above is going to have morally gray areas. Read up on Treasure Island, or the Three Musketeers. Watch Cutthroat Island or the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. The genre is full of loveable scoundrels with hearts of gold, and anti-heroes who may or may not have a soft spot, and villains who aren't as bad as what you might have to face together.
There are plenty of adventures, campaigns, and paths that would fit a paladin without giving his code a workout. I think it's good to have a path where the scoundrels are at home and the goody-two-shoes need to roll with their decisions.
.
Anyone reading Rich Burlew's Order of the stick has seen a very well-rounded view of how paladins can be handled. They can be deceptive yet noble, and even choose discretion over valor if necessary. Sometimes the most potent sacrifice may be knowing when to simply do nothing.
Creative Director
|
I guess since the RoRl Ap will be dealing with the concepts of "sin" I was just wondering how much will the parties be forced to "work" with evil. In STAP I don't know why the party couldn't have been teamed up with an Avatar of a good good to go after demogorgan. The designer's of the AP "forced" the character's to work with demons to accomplish the goal.
Eh, it was just kinda distasteful to me.
We went with the darker side for Savage Tide primarily because we wanted to do something with a bit more moral ambiguity than the previous adventure paths had. In addition, we'd had a LOT of comments about doing a campaign for evil characters; while I didn't want to go that far, I did like the idea of a campaign where you weren't necessarily the good guys, or that in order to win out against a greater evil, you'd have to team up with lesser evils. Savage Tide is a pretty gritty campaign as a result.
Rise of the Runelords, although it deals with "sins" to a certain extent, won't be nearly as complex on the moral/ethical level. While the bad guys will still be bad, and there'll be a certain element of fighting fire with fire, the point is that the Runelords use sin magic and the PCs are trying to stop them.
In any event, there WILL be some good guys to team up with in the last few Savage Tide adventures. The eladrins certainly have a score to settle with Demogorgon!
|
Creative Director
|
As for paladins not being good choices for Savage Tide... that's probably a fair accusation. That said... I think that the paladin's strict code of honor and ethics can be as disruptive to a game as a PC who's bent on stealing from/screwing over other PCs. If all the characters in the party are of like mind to the paladin, no problem. But since every player in a group has an equal right to play the game and have fun, characters like super-strictly regimented paladins are, ironically, not well suited toward large groups. In solo play, with one player and one DM, they're great. But in multiple-player arenas, a paladin has to learn to accept non lawful good allies, and non lawful good solutions.
Paladins are the hardest characters to play. Savage Tide doesn't soften its edges for them, and indeed, just as rogues might get frustrated by the large number of creatures near the end of Age of Worms that are immune to sneak attack, a paladin character will probably grow more frustrating to play as Savage Tide goes on. Does that mean I should have developed Savage Tide to accommodate paladins? No more so than I should have developed it to accommodate a group of "I only work alone" evil assassins. Both are different extremes, and both will require more work on the DM's part to incorporate into the campaign.
Not every adventure path is perfect for every character, in other words.
That all said, Rise of the Runelords should be a LOT less harrowing for paladin characters. I'm not sure WHAT character class it'll end up picking on... It seems like all 11 core classes should have something to do during its run, but I kind of felt that way going in to Savage Tide and Age of Worms as well. <shrug>
|
People with Paladin woes really should consider checking out the Dragon 310 and 327 articles! The first offers alignment variants for paladins being divine champions and the second offers advice on how to play nice with other characters types. Good stuff.
The game can be fun for everyone if you want it to!
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Might I suggest that you take a look at the Gray Guard PrC? If you want to play a gritty Paladin that does what is "right", even when what is "right" is not the easy thing to do.
Some of the hard choices a Paladin would have to make in the Savage Tide AP would be a good setup towards leading a Paladin into the Gray Guard PrC.
|
|
I am not so sure that "dealing with a demon" is a violation of a Paladins code. Advancing the demons cause, certainly is. Not knowing Ahazu's eventual goal of godhood, the aspect is seemingly confined for all eternity. You cannot destroy it, so much like Tharizdun, permanent imprisonment is the next best thing. The deal to "Swap" one demon for a more powerful is a violation in the sense that the Paladin would be freeing a demon. But the Paladin could agree to a "tougher" deal. Free Shami-Amourae only to imprison her AND another demon later. This certainly serves the interest of good. Its even better than destroying Shami for the same reasons that demogorgon didn't destroy her: its too temporary. Imprisonment is more permanent.
If thats a stretch, perhaps establishing a knightly order to drive the Vargouille out and establish a bastion for good where captured fiends are imprisioned...
In STAP I don't know why the party couldn't have been teamed up with an Avatar of a good good to go after demogorgan.
D00d, it's a pirate campaign! With whom are they supposed to team up, Heironeus?
I can concieve of only two reasons to play a paladin in Savage Tide: the player (and the whole group, at least to some extent) enjoys the tough choices; or the DM is turning a bit of a blind eye at the Lawful part of the code, so that working with demons might be kinda OK if it's really for a good cause and you're not doing it often and...
Being surprised that a paladin would eventually be put in a tight spot in a pirate game is like making a druid for an urban intrigue game and being surprised if you don't get a lot of opportunity to do wilderness stuff.
|
|
In addition to OOTS, I also highly recommend Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Pakesenarrion. According to the author's notes, she saw a paladin played as "Awful Good" in an RPG session and said "That's not how I'd do it!".
It's fantastic writing, excellent historical research, meaty characters, and real moral development.
I can't recommend this book highly enough.
Tom
C J Cherry, " the paladin" (of course)- doing the right thing in a fantasy version of china 200 BC.
I like the reference to the OOTS: Richard Burlew did a fantastic job of describing the deference between various playing styles for paladins. My personal experience is that most people I have played with play either Lawful Neutral or Lawful Stupid paladins. They seem to forget that paladins are meant to be examples of virtue, nobility, devotion, and wisdom and most importantly that paladins are lawful good. The notions of mercy, kindness, forgiveness, redemption, and humility are all but non-existent in most cases. These qualities are what sets paladins apart from other would be law enforcing tyrants. Nothing aggravates me more than the self-righteous, arrogant, condescending paladin who believes they are judge, jury, and executioner. What a narrow minded view of paladins.
After that I apologize for ranting.
I think with respect to lawful good and paladins, my simple litmus test is "what would Superman do?"
"What would Batman do?", I think, is also a good metric.
While I agree with most of the posts here about paladins not havin to be Awful Good or Lawful Stupid, there is something I think bears pointing out. All the suggestions here require the paladin to make the sacrifice, to compromise his feelings, belief, etc. The anti-heroes get to go blithely on their way. Referring to recent OOTS, Hinjo's desire to press on and continue fighting for his city, his home, is legitimate. (OK, I'll stop playing with BBCodes now.) Choosing the lesser of two evils , is still choosing an evil (last time, promise).
Sorry, just felt it had to be said.
I think with respect to lawful good and paladins, my simple litmus test is "what would Superman do?""What would Batman do?", I think, is also a good metric.
Not quite. Batman, although he follows a code, isn't really LG.
Choosing the lesser of two evils , is still choosing an evil.
True, but on the rare occasion when aiding a lesser evil serves the greater good (such as in this case), a paladin should choose the lesser evil, even at the cost of his paladinhood. His paladinhood is not more important than his LG ideals (and preventing a widespread disaster is part of those ideals). Work to mitigate or correct the consequences, yes. Seek atonement afterward, yes. Above all, though, live up to the principles of self-sacrifice and "take one for the team."
I agree with Heathansson's Superman test for a Lawful Good paladin.
IMO, a LG paladin is the least likely to compromise when it comes to dealing with evil forces. It's a slippery slope, sure, and that's why it's hard to be a paladin.
Playing the role of ardent paladin has rarely been good for my character's health.
"What are you doing?" says the wizard to me as I'm web-stuck to the dungeon floor of the slavelords.
"Charging them!"
"Why?"
"Evil is afoot! Death before dishonor!"
"Big words from a man who is glued to the ground. You almost got us killed."
"Let me loose! They're escaping!"
"I will. In four minutes."
His paladinhood is not more important than his LG ideals (and preventing a widespread disaster is part of those ideals).
I agree . . . . if this weren't the case there would be no need for the Atonement spell.
True, but on the rare occasion when aiding a lesser evil serves the greater good (such as in this case),
This whole "lesser evil" argument bugs me. The way I see it, whatever action is the least evil is by definition good. If absolute good is impossible, then minimizing evil is the goal.
True, but on the rare occasion when aiding a lesser evil serves the greater good (such as in this case),This whole "lesser evil" argument bugs me. The way I see it, whatever action is the least evil is by definition good. If absolute good is impossible, then minimizing evil is the goal.
So good and evil are like heat and cold, then? Just as there's technically no such thing as "cold" just the absence of heat, there's no such thing as good, just the absence of evil?
I don't think the nature of good and evil is the real issue. It's when paladins are treated as stupid egotistical maniacs that they become a problem. Just because a paladin is all about smiting evil and serving good doesn't mean he has to be dumb about it. For example, if a ranger happens to have orcs as his/her favored enemy and comes across an army of 1000 orcs, he/she isn't going to just charge to his/her death. What would that accomplish? The ranger would figure out a way to notify the local military about the orc presence, then spend his time trying to sabotage/harass the orc army as much as possible until the local military is ready to confront the orcs. At which point he would be on the front lines of the assault or be leading a special forces type attack on the orcs spell-casters and leaders before the attack occurs. A paladin would do the same thing when he confronts evil, whether it be undead, demons, tyrants, orcs, or whatever evil nasty thing he comes across. Will he focus on destroying the evil and protecting innocents? Yes! Will he just rush to his death without thought for the consequences? No! Hence my opinion that paladins should be lawful good not lawful stupid.
As for dealing with demons/devils? That comes down to what he would need to do. Help a demon kill another demon by killing lots of demons and the demon's minions? I see nothing wrong with this. Especially since that allows the paladin to play the demons against each other, foil some of their plans, learn more about their own conspiracies which would allow the paladin to better counter-act them in the future, and potentially create more division and conflict amongst demon-kind which is always a good thing. Now, if he had to kill innocents or enslave some people in order to help a demon kill an even bigger badder demon, then he probably wouldn't do it or would at least try to find a different way to accomplish things.
I apologize for being long-winded when I write. It's a habit from my academic days. I shall attempt to be much more concise in the future.
Don't apologize.
I agree with you about your paladin view. I dislike what I would deem the "cliche" way to play a paladin...nominally serving good, but in a stupid way, charging full bore into evil to fight it without thinking if there is a better way; and especially the arrogance of believing they're completely in the right at all times.
Yes Miko from OOTS was very irritating to me. :)
Unfortunately the "paladin question" is unlikely to ever go away since many people like to play their paladins like that. And that's fine, to each their own. But you won't ever catch me playing a paladin like that. I've done it before, back in the day. Now if I play a paladin I want the character to be more distinct.
My preference is still to look at the deity the paladin is serving and espouse the views of that deity. There are some that will want the paladin to go charging into battle (Torm from FR fits that mold), but not every deity that a paladin would serve fits that mold. What if your paladin serves a god of protection? What if your paladin serves a god of healing? How about Sune, the love goddess in FR? You can have a paladin serve Sune (I know, I've played one, it's a blast). Wouldn't a deity's world view encompass slightly different goals than charging in all the time? That's the way I play them. They are their deity's holy knights so they should espouse their deity's philosophy not be a walking detect evil/smite (unless that is the deity's philosophy).
Not all paladins are created arrogant/stupid.
Charging into a battle isn't always stupid, as seems to be the incipient concensus here. It's roleplaying with a flair for bravado. For my part, I just caught a bad web. That paladin back in 1984, for all his cuts and scrapes, retired alive at 13th level, and got no one killed who wasn't trying quite hard to die on their own. Doesn't sound to me like he was played stupidly.
Some of us like to explore an archtypical behavior. When I think paladin, I think, what personality type wants to play a class with such demands? What's the difference between a pious, righteous, LG fighter and a LG Paladin if for a code (and magic thtuff)? My paladin didn't make alliances with evil powers. Would my LG fighter strike such bargains? Far more likely, to save a puppy or a tub of maidens perhaps. As always, your mileage may vary.
Perhaps not all character classes fit well into all adventures.
Charging into a battle isn't always stupid, as seems to be the incipient concensus here. It's roleplaying with a flair for bravado. For my part, I just caught a bad web. That paladin back in 1984, for all his cuts and scrapes, retired alive at 13th level, and got no one killed who wasn't trying quite hard to die on their own. Doesn't sound to me like he was played stupidly.
Some of us like to explore an archtypical behavior. When I think paladin, I think, what personality type wants to play a class with such demands? What's the difference between a pious, righteous, LG fighter and a LG Paladin if for a code (and magic thtuff)? My paladin didn't make alliances with evil powers. Would my LG fighter strike such bargains? Far more likely, to save a puppy or a tub of maidens perhaps. As always, your mileage may vary.
Perhaps not all character classes fit well into all adventures.
And that's fine. My post wasn't to try to tell people how to play their paladins. I was just stating that the archetypal behavior for a paladin isn't the type I like to play. Gray areas are very interesting to me, especially for paladins who aren't supposed to have them when played with the archetypal behavior.
As to charging into combat willy-nilly, that's fine too. I've played a ranger like that before (in 3.0). I played him as someone who needed combat to challenge himself because he believed he was a great warrior and needed to prove himself to his party (this came about after rolling several 1's in a campaign that allowed critical fumbles). Charging in willy-nilly though isn't the only way to play a paladin, which was the point I was trying to make with that.
Willy Nilly. Nil (no) will. I love etymologies. I am interested in gray areas too... thus my subscription to Old Dames monthly. ;)
So you're all just going to let this post die on my Old Dames joke? Oh, the pain... the indescribable pain... Where's Mothman with his mystical ability to delete his posts without regard to time limit?
::sinks down to his knees and prays to Mothman::
I just didn't have a good comeback. :)
I'm a bit... torn at the moment.
I guess part of what I'm wondering about at this point is:
Are we debating...
Wwhether or not it's alright (or a good thing,) to have an adventure path that takes the story into morally gray areas.
Or...
Whether or not it's alright to have a paladin in an adventure where gray areas and tough moral decisions are inevitable and sometimes the best thing to do won't be lawful good.
---
Thought Break/Intermission
---
I'm also not wholey sure how to do the Abyss as a long term major campaign environment (such as it is in Savage Tide,) if 'Kill everything there without parley" is the motto. I keep thinking back to that picture of a Paladin in Hell from the old 1st edition books and saying, "Yeah, he's a goner."
And while there's definetely something to be said for portraying the Planes of Evil (or even Amorality) as impossibly terrible environments nothing sane could survive in, (and it sure works for the Far Realms,) I'm also quite fond of Planescape type settings where the planes are there for the players to explore on a long-term basis.
All I can say is that playing a True Neutral fighter/rogue in STAP has saved me a lot of anguish. Evil on the acendacy..not on my watch..whatever the tool required, balance will be achieved..oh yeah, and look at all the loot ..