Hi, first time I start a thread:
So I've got this character concept in mind for quite some time, and now Paizo has given a class that can play it (thanks for Inquisitor and Alchemist Paizo):
So I want to play an Inquisitor, probably Half-Orc, who seeks to destroy all evil. But he does this, without regard for the innocents, if he can kill the great evil wizard, but killing a few unimportant innocents, he will do so.
In addition to this, he is brutal (orc descent), but to make a point. So the evil clergy will get beaten to death on the street.
So in short, someone who attacks all evil, wherever it is, while using methods that are in fact evil, what alignement has he got?
LG is probably out of the question with killing innocents.
LE however, even if realistic, would make him want to kill himself.
So is LN the way to go?
EDIT: advice on deity and domain is also appreciated
Hello there.
Depending on how he goes around beating up evil, LN probably isn't an option either. If he's willing to bash in heads on the street, with no regard for the laws of the city he's in, then he's probably more like CN.
Being LN has a focus on the law boarding the insane. So a LN character would probably never set aside the law in his quest for destroying evil.
But then again, Alignments are just a framework for making up a personality and morale, it shouldn't become a restraining factor ;)
Being LN has a focus on the law boarding the insane. So a LN character would probably never set aside the law in his quest for destroying evil.
That's not entirely accurate, though it's one possibility.
Lawful Neutral: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
LN could fit, if he's of the "personal code" variety. That said, from what you're saying he doesn't necessarily need to be lawful to be the way you've described, he just has a very strong hatred of evil - it's how he goes about fighting it and how he lives the rest of his life that would determine his alignment (though probably not evil...unless he can't make the connection that he is what he hates, anyway).
I too see little reason why the character can justifiably by Lawful-Anything. True-Neutral or Chaotic Neutral.
A character that is a law onto himself, similar to a monk or a dervish who is "lawful" in the sense of abiding by a strict self-imposed code rather than the laws of the land might allow for a Lawful-Evil character. However, since inquisitors are typically representative of a religion, it might be hard to find one that is not evil and suitably bent on hunting evil without regard for losses.
thanks for all the answers so far. I tought that because the character was entirely focused on the rule, that evil has to be killed, up to the last evil commoner, makes him lawful. I never took "lawful" as being good withing the law of the town you are in, more of "having a strict line of what to do".
But okay, I can see why true neutral makes, because he is right between paladin and blackguard.
so the inquisitor is typically a representative of a religion, but he can also represent an idea. I don't think I want to wrap my character around a belief, I rather want his belief to wrap around his character. Also Inquisitors are kind of more liberal than clerics I assume.
Have you got a god that you think might fit this build?
I'd actually make him Neutral Evil.
Follow along with me...
He will do what he thinks is right without regard for anyone else, without regard for innocent bystanders, yes? If there is a bad guy in an orphanage with hostages, the guy will just burn it down around the bad guy's ears, from your description, and not think a thing about it.
That's someone who has no concern for anything other than their own goals. That's the definition of evil. He has no concern about law or chaos, only his own goals. So Neutral Evil.
As to that making him want to destroy himself, I believe the technical term is 'Balderdash'. He doesn't believe himself to be evil. In his mind, he's doing the hard work those pansy paladins are incapable of doing. He makes the tough choices they are too cowardly to make, even though it's for the good of everyone. This character is very much an 'ends justify means' concept. Every EJM concept I've ever seen usually ended up being NE.
EDIT: For an in game explanation of why he pings as 'evil' on detect evil, his self delusion would be perfectly capable of convincing himself it's all a plot by evil gods to curse him. The evil gods fear him, so they put an aura of evil about him as a curse to make good characters wish to kill him. He'd absolutely believe that, so a 'zone of truth' would ping that as true. Every paladin who encountered him would have the confusion of detecting horrible evil off him, while simultaneously getting 'truth' when he stated it was a curse put on him by evil enemy gods for his good work destroying their minions. :)
|
If he were an NPC, I'd probably go with mdt and say NE. However, from a player perspective, I'd say N, but with a very strong possibility of turning to NE if he isn't too careful.
I think it's a concept that would work better with a more granular alignment system, such as Wiked K Game's Visual Alignment Tracker (Available free on this site... somewhere)
Instead of having him focus so much on evil per say you might want to have him focused on chaos and have him under the delusion that anyone who goes around breaking the law must be evil. He'll do anything to uphold the order. A LE inquisitor for Abadar, the god of law. It makes sense for him if he's going to destroy anyone who is trying to upset the peace.
thanks mdt, your possible explanation is really a good idea. I only tought that he couldn't see himself with detect evil, but yours is better.
For the orphanage, burn it down is probably not the first solution. It's more like if the bad guy threaten to kill the hostages if someone enters, he knocks down the door, and kills the bad guys as fast as possible, because it's not hist fault if the bad guys kill the children. So he wouldn't mind shooting in melee with a meat-shield. He would take the children more as accidents, collatoral damage. He prefers them to live, but that is not his main goal.
For the term "Balderdash", I haven't heard that one before, but as describe it, it is pretty accurate. Anyway, thanks a lot, I hope my GM will be okay with an evil alignment, if I explain what it's about.
LOL
No problem, glad you liked it. Yeah, I've had stuff like this come up in discussions before, it's usually pretty easy to fit a concept in if you tilt it on it's edge a bit. :)
while writing last post, now came 2 new ones:
Enlight_Bystand, yes, making alignment more a "flow concept" would be good, I might suggest that to my GM.
Ion Raven, your idea is good, it doesn't really fit what I wanted to make, but it makes the god/alignment problem a lot easier. Thanks for the input.
The character you describe is Chaotic.
Good or Neutral, I'm not sure, but his methods sound like he is flirting with CE if he considers himself the sole judge of who is worth sacrificing innocent life for.
I would probably call such a character CN, or possibly NN, since he seems to shirk the idea of innocence and right-to-life, but still wishes to combat "evil".
Complicated. Good luck!
MordredofFairy, I oversaw your answer before. Yes, I imagine him a bit as a spanish Inquisitor, only that he can really detect evil, and doesn't kill women just because they have a black cat. He might try to find out or prove what it was/is, that makes those people evil. (It's not the, detect evil=kill concept).
I can see your point for being lawful, it was my first guess too.
Evil Lincoln, so you think it is more chaotic and not that evil. The not so evil I get, chaotic, well that's more difficult. Yep it is complicated.
So to resume the answers so far.
Lawful for having clear goals, chaotic for not having rules put up by someone else, neutral for killing evil, evil for evil methods (no respect for human life).
I think I'll tend to neutral evil, very clear goals don't make you lawful, but should keep you away from chaotic, and evil is less absolute than good, so an evil guy can have a good thing, like his goals, but will use any method to reach that goal.
If someone got some good ideas how to roleplay (make a backgroundstory) for an evil person who doesn't perceive himself as evil, please contribute. (Note that he will use detect evil a lot, so he can't be oblivious to his aura)
thanks for all the answers so far, I see that I'm not the only one struggling with this
I'm pretty sure now that he is lawful evil, because he doesn't like the evil part, he likes to clean the world of evil guys. That is his main theme, and he is absolute in the persue of this. He sheds no tears for those he kills, but he didn't kill them for himself, rather for the sake of an ideal world.
So he doesn't care that he isn't free to do whatever he wants, he has a call he follows. So it will be a typical LE with the taboo, that he can't let evil persons alife. Sounds funny ^^
For your comment about detect evil spells, I considered them as the advice of a very good friend. I wouldn't kill for it, but at least I would very toroughly investigate because of it and then, if I am convinced, kill.
For picturing the character, you might think about Raz-Al-Ghul of Batman begins (but without the big picture plots he got, that would be the burning orphanage all over again) or the red hood of the last batman animated movie. (batman under the red hood)
If I were making the character, I think I'd suggest LE, and have him be a (somewhat unwilling) servant of Asmodeus. Play his as an anti-hero, with the question of the ends justifying the means.
Make it so he is not fully aware of the deity that grants him his power, just that some lawful power allows him to defeat evil. I'd make him ICly unaware that his actions are evil, and unwilling to believe that he is evil as a result of his actions.
The idea would be to have him slowly become aware then come to terms with the fact he has crossed a line in his pursuit of the eradication of evil. When he realizes that it is an evil god is using his obsession to further the god's own agenda, will he turn from his path and attempt to find another patron, or will he accept the role he has been given? Could he even be thankful to the evil god and seek to change the perception of Asmodeus into something that polices other evils? Perhaps he'll "break" and swear he serves a different god.
I think I know the background now, thanks Lazarus.
The Half-orc was raised at the beginning by orcs (came to be by rape), whose techniques disgusted him, so he fleed to humans where he was teached to fight.
He always was easy to anger, so once nearly beat a man who called him an orc, to death when he was in training. A man appeared, an offered saving the victim if he would become the trainee under a holy man he knows, teaching him how to fight evil.
Believing he would serve a paladin, he accepted, so that no death would weight on his conscience, but he didn't (and still does not) know that this holy man was a blackguard, and the other man was a highranking adept of Amsodeus.
The knight showed him how to slaughter tribes of orc and similar atrocities. The protagonist however, was strong of will, and the blackguard realized he couldn't corrupt him into killing good and innocent people. He tells his trainee that he has failed him, and will never become a holy man, and to compensate for the help many years ago, he has to make a hit on someone from time to time.
So now the Half-orc wanders around of his own, sometimes getting a notice from someone (of the church of Asmodeus), so that he has to kill that man. Those are normally people who made a contract and broke it. (they are mostly evil when making a contract with asmodeus I guess)
He still thinks that the evil aura is an aftereffect of his anger many years ago, and think that if he can cleanse the world from all evil (especially orcs), he only then can repent his sins.
What do you think, does this explain a LE guy killing evil guys, thinking he is good?
The reason I think it is chaotic is this:
A lawful evil character will not kill someone if they are honor-bound to avoid doing so. They share this with their lawful good counterparts, it is merely that the Good code of honor is more... strict.
A chaotic good character supports attaining the goals of good by any means necessary, and are not bound by external codes in making that decision.
In truth, I think you've hit upon a personality that is very hard to model. Slaying evil does not make your character good. Disregard for innocent life would make him evil, or at best neutral.
However, a lawful neutral character would observe others' right to live. That is the basis of a great deal of law.
Yeah. Still complicated. I would play this character as true neutral, and make a few notes about his moral compass for the GM. Some GMs like to have really abstract interpretations of true neutral (not unlike some with CN), so make sure they know what to expect and you should be good.
He is not Lawful because he is not bound by codes to attain his goals.
He is not Evil because he abhors evil and takes measures to combat it.
He is not Good because he will take innocent life to attain his goals.
I'd like to hear your rationale for his not being Chaotic.
My vote is Lawful Chaotic Evil Good. :)
Wielding the Righteous Sword of Damnation, and the Damned Sword of Righteousness!
My vote is Lawful Chaotic Evil Good. :)Wielding the Righteous Sword of Damnation, and the Damned Sword of Righteousness!
Two weapon fighter, eh? Might work with Inquisitor.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
My thinking is LE. I think he has a code he pursues, and he also might have a formula for equating what an innocent life is worth. Will he avoid innocents and collateral damage of no harm can come from it? Does he think the souls of the innocents are tainted by their association with his quarry? If so, I think LE is the clear answer. He has a code, a scripture or equation for morality to live by, and his actions are guided by that code.
For a guy like this, I'd prefer an evil god who lies to him about his responsibilities. Maybe the lesser god of senseless death causes him to seek out enemies of the church, but the real goal of the god is the burning of orphanages and the filling of graves. Or maybe he is just the loose cannon his church lets out of the cellar when an enemy of the state has gone too far. His zeal makes him lawful, even if his acts are more difficult to categorize.
My vote is for Neutral Evil. Here is my thought of your characters mentality with this alignment.
He will use any means available to root out and destroy evil. He will make an example of those that are evil so others will be afraid to do evil themselves. We is willing to let others suffer and die so that the greater world can be better.
He knows that in the end he will be judged and found wanting for all of the horrible things he has done. But someone has got to fight fire with fire and evil will not just go away if the saintly wish it to be so.
He is in the thick of the mud and the blood. But someone has to do it. If another comes along and can punish him for his sins let him try. Once there is no more evil in this world he will kill the last evil creature by taking his own life as his reward for a job well done.
On a side note... are you aware of the TV show Dexter. I picture him as a type of modern day version of what you may be looking for. (But a total psycho for sure.)
I would say this is a special form of madness, if you were to ask the character what he was, he would answer LG or NG. Now is your alignment how you perceive yourself or how others do? Others would certainly see him as NE or LN at best. For more on this I would suggest reading the Shadowbane Inquisitor entry in Complete Adventurer (as it seems really close to the concept you are going for, and has a lot of fluff on this subject) or Check out everyones favorite webcomic, The Order of the Stick to witness paladins making poor choices while blinded to the greater good by pettiness :)
Definitely Evil of some variety. The Law-Chaos axis can be debated a bit, as it's always been defined more nebulously than the Good-Evil axis. I'd put him at NE, myself.
Hi, first time I start a thread:
So I've got this character concept in mind for quite some time, and now Paizo has given a class that can play it (thanks for Inquisitor and Alchemist Paizo):So I want to play an Inquisitor, probably Half-Orc, who seeks to destroy all evil. But he does this, without regard for the innocents, if he can kill the great evil wizard, but killing a few unimportant innocents, he will do so.
The root of this character is hatred. That pretty much says evil to me. He's just defining 'evil' as people who do certain 'evil acts' which he personally avoids. A person can be a productive, law abiding citizen while still being 'evil' (selfish within legal bounds, or too cowardly to commit crimes); such people will not be on this guy's radar. So he's not so much a slayer of evil as he is a ruthless upholder of certain laws. I'd go for LE. 'Evil' for him is just a convenient descriptor for 'Lawbreaker'.
So in short, someone who attacks all evil, wherever it is, while using methods that are in fact evil, what alignement has he got?
emphasis mine
Well, you got one axis right there: He's evil.
As for the rest, he's got a driving goal which IMHO, does not makes him necessarily Lawful (yet). That would depend on how the character approaches this driving goal. Planned, deliberate and methodical elimination of evil characters would suggest Lawfulness. Destroying evil wherever he sees, whenever he sees it and using whatever means possible would suggest a more chaotic behavior. Anywhere in between would be Neutral Evil.
All three evil alignments would be justifiable with a minimum of descriptions on his "methods of operation"
'findel
LE however, even if realistic, would make him want to kill himself.
As for the "killing himself thing", I don't see anything illogical about it.
Your character could very well understand that in the end, he will have to be destroyed as he, himself, is a righteous yet just as evil incarnation of what he seeks to destroy. He may *want* to kill himself once all evil is eliminated, but knowing that this is not likely to happen tomorrow, does not need to worry about it just yet.
He may realized that his soul is condemned just as much as those he is condemning, that he accepts to be doomed in some self-righteous sacrifice for all other souls.
'findel
Oddly enough I would say lawful good. The character concept sounds a lot like the Grey Guard from Complete Scoundrel, a more gritty prestige class of the wholesome Paladin. Evil is unconcerned about whom they have to kill to get their way, this inquisitor is not going out of his way to hurt innocent people. Chaotic people would not put themselves into such a position they are far too self-centered to make a grandiose quest of vanquishing all evil. While he may be ignoring the immediate laws of the area he is driven by a higher ethical code that would affirm his belief structure. In a way he is like a batman style inquisitor of Iomedae, a vigilante who has to transcend normal ethical bindings to bring a justice for everyone.
I'm actually switching to the NE (and deluded) camp.
I'm very happing to see so many constructive responses, without having a flame-war.
He knows that in the end he will be judged and found wanting for all of the horrible things he has done. But someone has got to fight fire with fire and evil will not just go away if the saintly wish it to be so.
He is in the thick of the mud and the blood. But someone has to do it. If another comes along and can punish him for his sins let him try. Once there is no more evil in this world he will kill the last evil creature by taking his own life as his reward for a job well done.
On a side note... are you aware of the TV show Dexter. I picture him as a type of modern day version of what you may be looking for. (But a total psycho for sure.)
This statement is pretty much exactly how I picture him. I really like dexter, altough he isn't the inspiration. Dexter is more sneaky, and less kicking in the door, which is normal in "real life". The Punisher might be more accurate.
Laurefindel:
"Planned, deliberate and methodical elimination of evil " Is definetly more accurate, all the evil he kills on the way to a big evil, is more opportunity taken. He definitly sees himself along the lines of paladins, only that they must make compromises between helping the innocents and destroying evil. He sees himself as completly without compromise.
I would prefer if he didn't want to kill himself. He might not be at peace with his acts, but at least he doesn't see himself as just another evil. I mean, is the general "not negociating with terrorists" evil, because hostages might die?
"The root of this character is hatred. "
sorry, but that's not the way I imagine it. He is more of an idealist, and doesn't take pleasure when killing.
It's more like an "all is fair in heaven" thing, and if innocents come to harm, they'll have a nice afterlife, knowing that their loved ones are free of danger from evil (at least the one killed).
The Grey Guard has still too many restrictions, altough he can deliver a few bruises, he still has a code he can break. (+ I would have to start as paladin + I don't like his class features ^^)
"I would say this is a special form of madness, if you were to ask the character what he was, he would answer LG or NG. "
yes, he definetly has mental problems, he's like the person who asks in the cop-school if he could bring his own 44 magnum, and if he could aim for the kneecap if someone tries to run.
He will never be a paladin, however thinks that he would make a fine one, and be more effective then them, where in fact he didn't understand what being a paladin is really about.
Altough it probably doesn't get cured by normal means to remove madness, he certainly would stand out in a psychological test.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I would say he's actually Chaotic Evil, but doesn't recognize himself as being such.
He's clearly willing to kill anyone and anything that stands in his way without regard for consequence, which makes him Chaotic at the very least. His willingness to kill innocents to achieve his "mission" to me speaks of Evil rather than Neutral.
Face it, we're looking at a sociopath who won't let anyone stand in the way of his mission. He has an agenda: Kill all evil. He has no qualms about killing others who stand in his way. He has no fear of repercussions, as long as his goals are achieved. I'm not seeing how any of this could even remotely be considered Neutral.
It would be a neat role playing moment if he inadvertantly cast Detect Evil on himself and discovered his true nature...
|
If someone got some good ideas how to roleplay (make a backgroundstory) for an evil person who doesn't perceive himself as evil, please contribute. (Note that he will use detect evil a lot, so he can't be oblivious to his aura)
thanks for all the answers so far, I see that I'm not the only one struggling with this
Have you seen the movie Serenity? The operative seems like a good way to look at this character. The character is evil because he feels it is necessary to free the world of men such as himself. The classic "you have to fight fire with fire". The character is clearly convinced that the ends justify the means. It wouldn't be necessary to kill himself for being evil. He/She is after all needed! LE
Law, neutrality, chaos, I tend to look at as goals or purpose. While good, neutral, and evil are means. For this character I have trouble picturing neutral/G/E. The character is too hell bent one way or another to end evil beings.
So I guess it would come down to the purpose for hunting evil. Was the character wronged at some point by an evil being and now is hell bent on a personal crusade to defeat all evil? If so I would see that as Chaotic. Is the character doing this for the better of society? If so I would go with Law (see operative from Serenity)
You mentioned this character would be willing to kill innocents to fulfill his goals so that would rule out good IMO. I could see neutral from the example above of the hostage situation. You do not want innocents killed but that is not your doing its the BBEG. As neutral you are here to get things done in doing so you will not negotiate with a terrorist. The evil guy may take the easier route and just say, light the building on fire and kill everyone. The ends justify the means.
Hope this was helpful. Alignment in my games is more of a moral compass. We roleplay alot and certainly have character arcs. (Spolier) You may also remember the operative in serenity has such an arc at the end of the film and may no longer be LE. Perhaps Shepard may have had a similar experience. I would draw from those examples but im sure there is a myriad of possible inspiration for this theme.
Actually, I'm kinda suprised no flame war errupted, too.I have failed! I must commit ritual suicide to atone!
You are an idiot and i hate you. (hope I just saved a life)
CE.
To me, absolutism tends toward evil, as does the idea that the ends justify the means.
You are an idiot and i hate you. (hope I just saved a life)Actually, I'm kinda suprised no flame war errupted, too.I have failed! I must commit ritual suicide to atone!
*rises* I live....again...
*rises* I live....again...You are an idiot and i hate you. (hope I just saved a life)Actually, I'm kinda suprised no flame war errupted, too.I have failed! I must commit ritual suicide to atone!
+1, sir. +1 indeed.
I'd guess Neutral Evil. Part of the ways that someone can be evil is to not realize or accept their actions have consequence and meaning.
To set the stage, certainly an LG character could sacrifice an innocent life to destroy a great evil that is certain to kill more. That's just making an intelligent choice. But an LG character would be torn up, distraught, guilty. They would spend a lot of time going back and trying their best to do what they could to atone for having had to make the hard choice. That's not what you describe.
Your character concept considers innocents collateral damage. Like stepping on bugs. That callousness, that lack of consideration says Evil to me. The torture of captured evil creatures just reinforces this.
Finally, while an obsession suggests lawful, the wanton slaughter of anyone who gets in the way doesn't support it. Neutral it is.
Well you can check this links:
-Knight Templar and Well Intentioned Extremist if he beliefs himself good.
-Necessary Evil if recognices the evil of his deeds and may kill himself.
Humbly,
Yawar
PSD: Goblins plays nicely with this concept.