|
Hey there. I've been on Paizo for awhile, playing pathfinder and even 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons (As well as 2e. Good times) However, I've only mainly ran games and played chaotic good or neutral characters. Now, I want to twist my imagination a bit.
I'm playing a Fighter/Witch (Who will soon become an Eldtritch Knight) that grew up in the cold nation of Irrisen, where he grew up in a small noble family. However, his mother soon died after birth, and his father was a drunk, as well as an outraged tyrant. He soon ran away from home, trying to live in the cold environment at a young age. He was lucky enough not to be found by the witches of the north, or to be taken away from the harsh world about him. As he grew, he found himself drawing power from the cold itself. Soon, a fox started to follow him out of the swirling blizzard about him. As time went by, they both grew to be friends, but deep inside the young adventurer's mind, he sees the fox grin widely, or something about him look different. He draws his arcane powers, from what he thinks, the cold nation of Irrisen, making a pact with nature to help himself survive, but there is more than to his powers then he knows about.
What I'm really confused on is how could I play lawful evil with this character. We are playing Cheliax first, nation of corrupt government. I have ideas already that can help my character with his alignment, such as bribing (where it is legal in Cheliax) and using the church to his own will. However, how can I go further without making my character seem extremely lawful evil, where he still as morales and the likes. I had an idea or two, where he has a conduct on small things. "Don't harm children" because he himself went through a harsh childhood, where he believes children shouldn't be brought up upon torture as punishment.
I think a good start for this character would be: "Life is pain, and you are not doing creatures a disservice by ending their lives for them." To be a true LE, you can't care about freedom, dignity, or life. So you should start by accepting a morality in which other creatures' lives just don't matter. Why they don't matter is up to you, but based upon what you have described it sounds to me like they don't matter because life is hard a cruel. You're just another means for causing the end.
I think beyond that you could come up with a personality that some might consider "sympathetic," at least to the extent that you can have sympathy for a villain. I wouldn't, but just saying...
Hey there. I've been on Paizo for awhile, playing pathfinder and even 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons (As well as 2e. Good times) However, I've only mainly ran games and played chaotic good or neutral characters. Now, I want to twist my imagination a bit.
I'm playing a Fighter/Witch (Who will soon become an Eldtritch Knight) that grew up in the cold nation of Irrisen, where he grew up in a small noble family. However, his mother soon died after birth, and his father was a drunk, as well as an outraged tyrant. He soon ran away from home, trying to live in the cold environment at a young age. He was lucky enough not to be found by the witches of the north, or to be taken away from the harsh world about him. As he grew, he found himself drawing power from the cold itself. Soon, a fox started to follow him out of the swirling blizzard about him. As time went by, they both grew to be friends, but deep inside the young adventurer's mind, he sees the fox grin widely, or something about him look different. He draws his arcane powers, from what he thinks, the cold nation of Irrisen, making a pact with nature to help himself survive, but there is more than to his powers then he knows about.
What I'm really confused on is how could I play lawful evil with this character. We are playing Cheliax first, nation of corrupt government. I have ideas already that can help my character with his alignment, such as bribing (where it is legal in Cheliax) and using the church to his own will. However, how can I go further without making my character seem extremely lawful evil, where he still as morales and the likes. I had an idea or two, where he has a conduct on small things. "Don't harm children" because he himself went through a harsh childhood, where he believes children shouldn't be brought up upon torture as punishment.
Thanks for the reply. Helps me out a bit. Really like the quote
|
I tend to think of LE in terms of the comic book character, Dr. Doom.
He's a tyrannical despot, and the average Latverian not only fears him more than a little, but also *enjoys his rule,* because he keeps the country safe and prosperous, ruthlessly.
He keeps his word. He honors gentleman's agreements. When he's shown behaving badly under a different writer, the writers who prefer to portray him as a 'civilized' villain came up with the excuse that he's got a bunch of robots that impersonate him, in some cases, quite poorly...
Think of any TV or movie villain who, upon receiving bad news from an underling, shoots them in a fit of pique. This is *not* lawful evil.
Many TV or movie crooks turn on each other, for money, for advantage, etc. and 'no honor among thieves' ends up being the central plot of movies like Reservoir Dogs. This is not lawful evil.
The organized and highly efficient teams of crooks or secret agents working their scams in shows like White Collar or Leverage could be considered primarily lawful evil (although, in general, they are using their skills to do good things, but not as a life-choice, generally, but because they are being channeled to that end by forces beyond their control!). They have a code of conduct, even if it allows them to break certain laws or violate certain standards, that limits their behavior, and they do not turn on each other.
The Joker, in the last Batman movie, was an embodiment of chaos, and is an example of the kind of behavior *not* to emulate. He either personally killed or arranged the deaths of everyone he worked with in his bank heist.
A lawful evil bank robber would honor whatever agreement he made with his flunkies (and just as quickly and coldly shoot in the face any of them that tried to 'alter the deal'), and, a year later, when he's got another heist planned, underworld types would come crawling out of the woodwork to work with him in the future, as his job would be famous (in the right circles) for getting everybody who works with him rich, whereas no one in their right mind would sign up to work with the Joker, since anyone who works with him is incredibly lucky if they just get a bullet for 'their cut.'
From the upbringing of the character you describe, I could see a near-religious devotion to the concept of being cold, not physically, but emotionally. He might have learned at an early age that the harsh climate of Irrisen only respects the strong, and has no mercy and no forgiveness for weakness or error. Get wet? Freeze to death. Lose an article of clothing? Freeze to death. The young, the sickly, the weak, the elderly? Freeze to death. A respect for strength, not just of body, but of mind and of purpose, should permeate the mindset of such a person. Weakness isn't just being sick or frail or injured, it's *caring* about other people, and sharing a blanket that is keeping *you* alive, or a meal that might be all that stands between *you* and starvation. While others allow their heart to be moved by the sight of someone hurting or destitute, your LE sort allows the ice-cold lessons of his past to keep his heart frozen, recognizing that a shared meal or a shared fire may be rewarded by the uncaring fates with a shared death.
That is, IMO, the root of evil. Selfishness and an unwillingness to empathize with others, and the LE sort may believe not only that only the strong survive, but that only the strong deserve to survive. Sharing food, or shelter, with another only encourages weakness, and weakens oneself. The storm does not reward such behavior, and even in the warm lands of Cheliax, there is *always* a storm waiting, even it is not a storm of snow, but instead a storm of fire and blades, at the hands of Hellknights. To an evil soul, the concept that their own personal property or possessions are worth more than the lives of others is not only right and true, but any other notion is just 'crazytalk.'
Note that being lawful doesn't *necessarily* mean that the character will respect the laws of the current nation. He won't flagrantly defy them, but may regard 'some pigs as being more equal' and think nothing of swindling people out of their life's savings, particularly in cases where the law 'doesn't specifically say that I can't do that,' blithely performing acts that are hugely immoral or even unethical, while tip-toeing around the letter of the law. The LE evil character might even regard his own personal codes as *more* sacrosanct than 'the law of the land.'
The fox association might help to showcase how the character doesn't just regard physical strength as a important part of 'might makes right,' but also cunning and trickery. The fox doesn't fight the farmer for the chicken, he slips in and takes what he wants. He is rewarded with a hot meal and another day of life for disregarding the farmer's claim to own those chickens. He is rewarded for his cunning and stealth, and his lack of pesky morals, and this makes that choice the very definition of 'right.'
Thank you very much. I enjoyed reading your ideas on lawful evil and it kind of made up my whole summary of what my character could be in the game. Me and the DM are working a bit on the Witch class before it comes out in the APHB, but we made our own Hex that will help increase my character's background. Everything he cast, spell wise, is all cold damage (if any damage). However, he can never revert to using other elements such as fire, earth, acid, etc. He can and only forever use cold. As well, he can bound himself to a weapon (meditating for about an hour) to allow it to deal cold damage, and nothing more. We call this hex "Witch of the North" XD
Thanks a lot for the help.
Not caring about freedom, dignity, or life makes one amoral, not necessarily evil. Strongly amoral people are often considered insane as well.
The best example of "Lawful Evil" I can think of is of Darth Vader. He works within a system of rules (the Force, and the Empire), he wants to be on top of that system of rules, but he acts with honor (in a way). In Episode 4, he doesn't ambush Obi-Wan, he fights an honorable battle. He expects success, and punishes failure (force choke). He doesn't kill for the sake of killing, he kills to prove a point. "We are the Empire. You will be assimilated." Wait, wrong franchise.
Having a code of conduct and ethics is important, otherwise the character just becomes a generic "evil" guy. If you've ever seen the movie "The Professional," you can see that in the main character. As a hitman, Jean Reno's character has a mantra "No women, no kids." He is also a sympathetic bad guy, since relies on a Mafia boss for his money (lack of intelligence), and he cares for and protects a child against a much bigger evil.
"Payback" is another movie to draw inspiration. Mel Gibson's character just wants his money back. He's ruthless against the people who have his money, but he's not psychotic. He also has rules and a code of ethics, if a bit different from society's norm. He has an ally (Maria Bello) that he protects and cares for.
Good luck.
Oh, and don't be "evil" for the sake of evil. You're playing a hero (even if he's an anti-hero). Don't target your PC allies; make the real bad guys the target of your wrath.
Not caring about freedom, dignity, or life makes one amoral, not necessarily evil. Strongly amoral people are often considered insane as well.
The best example of "Lawful Evil" I can think of is of Darth Vader. He works within a system of rules (the Force, and the Empire), he wants to be on top of that system of rules, but he acts with honor (in a way). In Episode 4, he doesn't ambush Obi-Wan, he fights an honorable battle. He expects success, and punishes failure (force choke). He doesn't kill for the sake of killing, he kills to prove a point. "We are the Empire. You will be assimilated." Wait, wrong franchise.
Having a code of conduct and ethics is important, otherwise the character just becomes a generic "evil" guy. If you've ever seen the movie "The Professional," you can see that in the main character. As a hitman, Jean Reno's character has a mantra "No women, no kids." He is also a sympathetic bad guy, since relies on a Mafia boss for his money (lack of intelligence), and he cares for and protects a child against a much bigger evil.
"Payback" is another movie to draw inspiration. Mel Gibson's character just wants his money back. He's ruthless against the people who have his money, but he's not psychotic. He also has rules and a code of ethics, if a bit different from society's norm. He has an ally (Maria Bello) that he protects and cares for.
Good luck.
Oh, and don't be "evil" for the sake of evil. You're playing a hero (even if he's an anti-hero). Don't target your PC allies; make the real bad guys the target of your wrath.
Lol yes. I know not to kill the party, or harm them. I was thinking of just playing Chaotic Neutral, but the DM is letting me alone play LE and I want to try something new out. Thanks for the inspiration. Going to go check out those movies
|
|
The best example of "Lawful Evil" I can think of is of Darth Vader. He works within a system of rules (the Force, and the Empire), he wants to be on top of that system of rules, but he acts with honor (in a way). In Episode 4, he doesn't ambush Obi-Wan, he fights an honorable battle. He expects success, and punishes failure (force choke). He doesn't kill for the sake of killing, he kills to prove a point.
I considered him as an example, but his habit of force-choking people for 'failures' that are completely beyond their control doesn't really fit the 'lawful' trope as well as I'd like.
Under a LE ruler, you should have a *small* reassurance that you aren't going to be choked to death just because he's annoyed at the failure of his own plan. He might kill you for any number of reasons, but, generally, you can expect him to be as loyal to you as you are loyal to him, and to not flip out and start killing underlings whenever he's disappointed about something.
[Indeed, tangentally, the whole dark side notion of surrendering to your feelings and 'going with' urges to lash out violently and indiscriminately is pretty darn chaotic.]
The Emperor, somewhat perversely, might be better exemplar of LE (or at least a lawful leaning NE), from what we see in the movies. He *never* seems to lose control, which, really, doesn't make much sense, since he follows the dark side, which is all about losing control...
Everything he cast, spell wise, is all cold damage (if any damage). However, he can never revert to using other elements such as fire, earth, acid, etc. He can and only forever use cold.
Sounds like a fun character. I'm thinking of going Lawful Evil myself in our next game. :)
While you're working stuff out with your GM you might want to check out one of our products, The Genius Guide to Ice Magic. It might give you some ideas as well as new [cold] spells.
Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."
The Joker, in the last Batman movie, was an embodiment of chaos, and is an example of the kind of behavior *not* to emulate. He either personally killed or arranged the deaths of everyone he worked with in his bank heist.
You get into a discussion of Dark Knight but don't mention Two-Face as a LE exemplar?
work with others to attain his goals
wont betray his friends, though he wont have many
may use innocents to attain his goals, but likely wont kill them (kidnap, hostage, etc all ok)
keep his word if he gives it, but he wont give it often or lightly
Avidly route out chaos, disorder, demons, fey....this will upset the things that must be
Killing is often the only recourse, sometimes the best recourse.
Nothing must stand in the way of progress, progress is power, power for a purpose is the true path, its the only path that will work!
loyalty is all, disloyalty has only one punishment
power will filter down to the masses. If you fluorish, the kingdom fluorishes, the cause fluorishes
military and symbols are evident. with these people have something to cling to, and follow, and pledge to.
You are not prejudice, you are the righteous. You are the way, the only way that works
etc in that vain
Everything he cast, spell wise, is all cold damage (if any damage). However, he can never revert to using other elements such as fire, earth, acid, etc. He can and only forever use cold.Sounds like a fun character. I'm thinking of going Lawful Evil myself in our next game. :)
While you're working stuff out with your GM you might want to check out one of our products, The Genius Guide to Ice Magic. It might give you some ideas as well as new [cold] spells.
Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."
Yup! I already own it! XD
I considered him as an example, but his habit of force-choking people for 'failures' that are completely beyond their control doesn't really fit the 'lawful' trope as well as I'd like.
. . .
The Emperor, somewhat perversely, might be better exemplar of LE (or at least a lawful leaning NE), from what we see in the movies. He *never* seems to lose control, which, really, doesn't make much sense, since he follows the dark side, which is all about losing control...
I always thought the force-choke was because of a certain lack of respect coupled with the failure . . . but I may just have an excuse to go watch the movie again!
I'm sure an entire thread could be devoted to this, but the Emperor as LE is a great example. He just doesn't get enough screen time in the trilogy (eps. 4-6). I saw the dark side as "giving in to your emotions," which would include vengeance and hatred, but there still had to be a Lawful side to it, since using the force was all about control. Sort of like a monk's requirement to be lawful. But, again, we're just looking at examples, and these are certainly good examples to use as you bring your dark will to bear upon the world.
One thing I have thought about on this subject, is a big diff between LG and LE. Justice and vengeance. Keep in mind, if someone messes with you, you have the right to mess with them back so hard, they never want to mess with you again.
That seems to be more personality trait rather than a morale trait. Alignments, to me, is a set of basic morales (with some alterations from person to person) that help defines what someone believes in within themselves.
|
|
One thing I have thought about on this subject, is a big diff between LG and LE. Justice and vengeance. Keep in mind, if someone messes with you, you have the right to mess with them back so hard, they never want to mess with you again.
I could see that, from the 'honor-killings' of some cultures to the intergenerational 'Hatfield vs. McCoy' blood feuds that have happened not-so-far-away. Blood calls for blood. An eye for an eye. 'That's the Chicago way.'
On loyalty, I am reminded of the old saying, "I against my brother. My brother and I against my father. My family against the outsider."
A loose paraphrasing of a concept that internal differences are thrown aside in the presence of an outside threat. The 'LE' mindset may be perfectly willing to practice 'Klingon rites of ascension' by backstabbing and politically slandering their rivals, but, when there are strangers present, they present a unified front, and deal with the external threats first.
The guy who backstabs an political rival during a fight with the enemy, risking the utter collapse of his entire nation to advance his own career, is *not* doing the lawful thing. The LE warlord-wannabe might fight alongside his hated rival in time of war, and, after the war, might happily take advantage of the man's injury (or just sloppy performance on the battlefield) to secure the throne for himself, but during the fight, his principles and his pragmatism might stay his hand from arranging a 'friendly fire accident.'
He might not feel compelled to challenge a superior in an honorable fashion that guarantees his defeat, but he'll be less likely to spin around and betray that man in a fight against a third party (particularly as compared to a neutral evil or chaotic evil sort).
I always felt the best example of a lawful evil nation that actually existed was none other then Rome. Organized, sophisticated, orderly...as well as cruel, ruthless, and brutal.
The best example of "Lawful Evil" I can think of is of Darth Vader. He works within a system of rules (the Force, and the Empire), he wants to be on top of that system of rules, but he acts with honor (in a way). In Episode 4, he doesn't ambush Obi-Wan, he fights an honorable battle. He expects success, and punishes failure (force choke). He doesn't kill for the sake of killing, he kills to prove a point.I considered him as an example, but his habit of force-choking people for 'failures' that are completely beyond their control doesn't really fit the 'lawful' trope as well as I'd like.
That is the point. They are the Empire. Vader's minions LEt the situation get out of control. They should have had enough Star Detroyers to deal with the Falcon, its not the first time he's heard of it.
They should have been better prepared.
But I'm sure YOU will do a better job...ADMIRAL Set...
(Wheeze)
Pah, Vader? He is just a manipulated peon figurehead. The real power lays with Palpatine and Grand Moff Tarkin
I'm kind of surprised no one mentioned Hitler
I'm kind of surprised no one mentioned Hitler
I thought the OP wanted advice for an LE character, not a psychopath . . . .
I thought the OP wanted advice for an LE character, not a psychopath . . . .
I think Hitler falls under both of those categories.
One "personality" I've considered emulating in a LE character and that I see as a pretty good embodiment of at least one flavour of lawful evil is Dexter Morgan from the TV show "Dexter" and the series of novels by Jeff Lindsay.
Sure, when he violates the "Code of Harry" he edges a bit closer to CE, but for the most part the way he channels his murderous serial killer urges into cold blooded vigilantism definitely strikes a LE chord with me.
I also think DC Comics' The Riddler, when he keeps his cool, makes for an interesting case study in LE behavior. It's not the type of LE personality that fits in with the OP's character background though.
When I see a thread asking for how to play "X" alignment I foam at the mouth.
*Shouts from the rooftops*
YOUR CHARACTER'S PERSONALITY DEFINES THEIR ALIGNMENT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!
When I see a thread asking for how to play "X" alignment I foam at the mouth.
*Shouts from the rooftops*
YOUR CHARACTER'S PERSONALITY DEFINES THEIR ALIGNMENT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!
True, in general, but I think the OP was asking "how the other half lives." Perfectly viable mental experimentation.
Whiplock, a character run by one of my favourite players, is the finest example of LE I have ever encountered (one with above aaverage charisma as well BTW)
Whiplock was originally a 1st level witch, ina party with a ranger (CG) a paladin and a rogue/druid, so he was primarilly the magic support for the party. Whiplock's player describes him as 'Quiet dignity' and then referred me to the programme 'Yes minister' for further clarification.
Needless to say, the Pally and the ranger had some issue with a LE witch in the party, but it was the Ranger who made open issue of it. Whiplock looks the Ranger in the eye and says (To paraphrase) "Look, I respect respect you. You have a fine fighting arm and a keen sense for combat, and I greatly respect, and am a little fearful, of your strength. I will obey your rules, as they make this little party strong, and I see no reason or capacity to counter them. Count on us renegotiating later though.'
Whiplock was a paragon of honesty thereafter. He never lied, though the things he told the truth about were often blunt, often tempered for the sake of the rogue/druid (played as a fairly chipper and naive gnome female). Whiplock was defferential, always offering some, occasionally severe and obscene, advice with the same monotone one should order sandwiches.
One Interrogation scene was not going well, and he offered his services. when the chipper rogue asks what he intended to do his response was..'Nothing nice my dear. you should absent yourself for your own sake. Or steel yourself and watch if you want to learn a little more about anatomy.'
Whiplock enters the room, with a breadroll, some butter and a bread knife. after cutting himself some slices and butering them, he saws off the captives little finger. He then takes the knife to some other places, making hel checks to inflict as little HP damage as possible. he takes about half an hour doing this. When he leaves the room a player asks if he was ever getting around to asking questions/making intimidation checks. Whiplock's player replies oh no... I don't have any ranks in intimidtaion. I was just giving you a circumstance bonus.
Sadly, the players are cresting 9th level by this point, and a fully kitted 9th level witch is quite capable of holding his own. The palladin was disgusted of course but the ranger was outraged. The ranger confronts whiplock that night in whiplocks cabin. The ranger went in with justice in mind and whiplock calmly told him that he had better take his shot now, because his venegence will be swift and merciless. The ranger was quicker and deadlier, whiplock taking too long to erect adequate defences(lost his first shield spell) before being cut to pieces by the rangers multiple attacks.
Whiplock was honest to a fault, agreeable and truthful. he never even entertained the notion of betrayal, even when the opportunity presented itself (and even then he informed the Palladin that the offer had been made). He trusted the palladin and doted on the rogue. But he was brutal, unforgiving and manipulative, and his goals were always safety and power (those words were tattooed on his chest). so undeniably evil, but also undeniably lawful.
Batts
I'm kind of surprised no one mentioned Hitler
Hmm...
Stalin.
|
I'm kind of surprised no one mentioned HitlerHmm...
Stalin.
In the hierarchy of murderous psychopaths, Stalin is on the same level as Hitler. I would say worse than Hitler, but the only reason Stalin (and Mao, for that matter) had a larger murder toll was because he had more time to do it and no international alliance to stop him.
I'm kind of surprised no one mentioned HitlerHmm...
Stalin.
Pol Pot
|
Pol PotI'm kind of surprised no one mentioned HitlerHmm...
Stalin.
How about this?
In most cases, tyrannical leaders that have ascended via non-violent means most assuredly tend towards LE, and many who have ascended via violent means may still be LE? Without being lawful, they would not have the wherewithal to work within the system to gain control in the first place or manage the strength to maintain their rule after they take control. Rulers like Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin have worked within the system to gain their strength, and then via charisma, gall, and shows of power went on to make others believe that their way was the right way. The evil part should be self-explanatory.
The LE dilemma is one of the reasons I hate the concept of Drow so much. For being as powerful as they appear, their NE culture shouldn't be capable of sustaining the leadership necessary to retain control and act as organized as they do.
|
I had a LE Rogue in my Curse of the Crimson Throne game.
He was a cold calculating assassin who really enjoyed his work. The thing is he was always good as his word.
"A reputation takes a long time to build, but moments to ruin."
He had a non-aggression pact with the Paladin:
"We work together to take down the evil things in this city,
you don't try to smite me, and I don't have you murdered in your sleep."
Think in terms of the Devil's Contract. Everything you do is a deal to gain you some advantage. Where the others might hold back to capture the bad guys and bring them to justice, you won't hold back.
"I never signed anything that said bring them back alive."
Your allies are useful pawns, and in time perhaps even friends. Don't betray them, but offer to do what's necessary when the other PCs don't have the stomach for it. (Assassination, Execution etc).
Remember evil is seductive, otherwise nobody would turn to it.
I played a LE Shugenja once, after dealing with a goblin menace we had a room full of Goblin children to deal with. The other players wanted to see them rehabilitated. My answer was: "Make them slaves, or indentured servants. They are by nature evil and destructive, but they can be made useful so long as they know their place."
I've always seen LE as the Renegade option from Mass Effect 2. Ruthless and efficient, but always working towards a greater goal.
KICKASS STUFF
Sir, I tip my hat to that player. Great SN BTW. I'm a huge fan of the Iczer series.
If you have ever seen the movie 'Serenity', the Agent the Alliance sends after River Tam is Lawful Evil. He knows he is evil. But he beleives that the evil he does is necessary so that a good world can come forth. He also knows he will never BE in that world, for when it comes it will have no room of monsters like him, but he is willing to make that sacrafice.
He has a strict code he follows and believes even a monster should have honor. With NO baseline of civilization to guide his actions somewhat he would become a mindless raving killer, like a Reaver and not the surgical weapon he needs to be.
Make commitments. Honor them. But be utterly ruthless and willing to kill if it gets you what you need.
Remember though that killing is a one way track, and that person you killed either gave you no possible choice or better have no value to you in the future or you have wasted a possibly valuable resource.
Life DOES has value, but it's value is finite and you will cut it short if the need is there. And the need is defined by you or your superiors. Often in that order.
If you have ever read the book Shogun you would have a feel for the Feudal Japanese/Samurai way of life. This is about the most perfect example of LE I can think of....
Life has no value, there is only power.
May I also recommend DeNiro's character in Heat? To me, a textbook example of LE. Cold, ruthless, but keeps his word, and has a strong bond with his crew.
May I also recommend DeNiro's character in Heat? To me, a textbook example of LE. Cold, ruthless, but keeps his word, and has a strong bond with his crew.
What about the guy from The Shield? Mackey?
