Not really. All the things that are classified as evil either have good parallels for the most part, aren't very effective anyways or both. Good or evil, an optimized character will never use poisons. Even if they are an assassin. Poisons are that sad.
'tis true. Anything that I would actually want to use the poison against will most likely make its fortitude save. Anything that is too weak to make its fortitude save is usually not worth the expense of the poison ap.
|
How do you define an anti-hero?I don't like to play evil per se, but I do enjoy playing the anti-hero, which sometimes is LE.
The Punisher is the classic example.
His entire life revolves around stopping "Bad guys" but he does it by breaking the laws of society around him and committing murder on a large scale.
I just find running an evil character to be much too easy.
Generally chaotic types are the same way -- simply put there's no challenge to it.
I just find running an evil character to be much too easy.
Generally chaotic types are the same way -- simply put there's no challenge to it.
I think CE and NE has too low a life expectency if played properly. LE can be fun among a group of Good and Neutral party.
CN -- now that is the ultimate cop-out alignment in my mind. I roll my eyes at players who choose CN.
I just find running an evil character to be much too easy.
Generally chaotic types are the same way -- simply put there's no challenge to it.
I think CE and NE has too low a life expectency if played properly. LE can be fun among a group of Good and Neutral party.
CN -- now that is the ultimate cop-out alignment in my mind. I roll my eyes at players who choose CN.
CN can work -- CE and NE can work too, and LE can also be fun -- I've played everything and have enjoyed the characters I've played, however evil is still just too easy.
What do I do? What's best for me/mine? Done. Yawn -- next.
I just find running an evil character to be much too easy.
Generally chaotic types are the same way -- simply put there's no challenge to it.
I think CE and NE has too low a life expectency if played properly. LE can be fun among a group of Good and Neutral party.
CN -- now that is the ultimate cop-out alignment in my mind. I roll my eyes at players who choose CN.
CN can work -- CE and NE can work too, and LE can also be fun -- I've played everything and have enjoyed the characters I've played, however evil is still just too easy.
What do I do? What's best for me/mine? Done. Yawn -- next.
How did you get the CE to work in the party?
Let me rephrase what I meant. Many people on these boards, at one time or another, have stated that they like to build characters based on some character in a book, or a movie, or a comic, or a viedogame, etc.I think one of my assumptions, which can certainly be debated, is that modern media features more antiheroic characters and outright villainous protagonists than has been the case in the past.
Maybe, although Macbeth and Captain Ahab aren't modern characters.
If you accept that there are a larger number of these examples out there to model characters after, is it that people want to portray what they see and think is cool in other media, regardless of whether that character might be good or evil? So more evil protagonists in games reflects and/or parallels more evil protagonists in literature, movies, viedogames, etc.?
I don't know what you mean by "more evil protagonists in games". More than when? My experience is that playing evil characters is a small proportion of games, just like stories with evil protagonists are a small proportion of stories.
Now if you're saying a Puritan in the 1600s wouldn't have played an anti-paladin in his D&D campaign, I guess I'd agree with you. :-)
How did you get the CE to work in the party?
Ego. Both the appealing and attacking of it. CE cares about dominance, if it is in charge then it will continue to use things so long as it wants to. Without a reason to destroy the thing and with the thing giving you stuff you want you keep it around -- for now. The party would play to the guy's ego, and he would claim them as his (literally -- he killed someone for asking another party member to marry them -- the reason for the death? Because the person didn't ask him after all the party member belonged to him -- or so he believed). If someone attacked what was his he might defend it (more as in attacking something that attacked the toy that he might want to play with later than actual defense per se) and if not the party would simply imply the thing was insulting him/ proving it was better than him (he again prized himself as the best thing there was so anything implying otherwise generally got attacked -- including party members at times).
The thing to remember about CE is that it isn't stupid, and it does want (almost everything) -- it might not actually care but it will generally act in its own self interest and can be bullied into obedience too (for the short term).
Basically the party tended to handle him like nitro.
|
I'm willing to play evil if there's a concept that really catches my fancy and, even more importantly, if everyone else at the table is okay with it.
Even if everyone else at the table is playing evil, I'd still want to be sure they're not playing Stupid Evil and make sure where the lines are going to be drawn. Because my evil characters might be evil but damn it they do have standards.
Really enjoyed my LE character. Professional, polite, cared for his people, pretty much hellbound by his own actions. Good times.
|
How did you get the CE to work in the party?
I once ran a game (longest one I ran, started it at 2nd level and ended at 17th) that was a 3.5 Planescape game and I allowed all alignments, however I basically stated that if you were CE and playing it right your chances of survival were probably slim.
No one picked CE at character creation, the only ones who started out Evil picked LE, most were some sort of Neutral, except one NG aasimar druid, who as time and levels went by started acting more ruthless and bloodthirsty than the rest of the group.
Within 6 months she had gone, quite gradually and with repeated warnings from me, from NG to NE, then her friend joined the group, and wanted to make a NE halfling fighter based around jumping at things with a falchion. His role-playing and the actions of his character had him acting CE rather quickly, and I brought this up to him, reading the alignment description, and he's like "Sure, yeah, I'll be Chaotic Evil, sounds like my guy." I think the character's name was "Zippy".
Anywho, it was a blast running for this party. Zippy managed to get a cloak of invisibility, and mostly started encounters with his sword going through something flat-footed. The rest of the party took this with a "well, that's Zippy" attitude, not to mention the LE necromancer enjoyed the harvest from Zippy's mayhem, and if things got a bit hot they always made sure they had a quick way out of town, or off that plane, or they just ran as far as they could.
Mostly Zippy was held back and distracted by his druid friend's animals, which through survival instincts learned how to placate him by playfully torturing back, until the party needed him and pointed him at something and set him loose.
He never turned on the party because they were the only people who would put up with him for any length of time, all the other groups he'd been in had kicked him out (Edit: I mean Zippy, not the guy who played Zippy. The guy who played Zippy was a saint, which juxtaposition has already been explored before I believe in this thread).
Playing RPGs in order to play someone who's totally different from myself is a lot of fun. But sometimes, I want to play someone who is closer to myself. Hence the evil character.KY, remind me to hide my wife and daughters if you ever come over to my house to game. :)
Ts ts ts..
First, just because I'm evil doesn't mean I'll ravish.
And second, locking them up will mean they can't run away, and doors won't hold me back. }>
But, in the end I think you're right: keep them away from me. It's my Animal Magnetism. You'll have to lock them up so they'll leave ME alone... ;-P
They say the glow in my eyes is the sin of angels, and my smile holds the downfall of saints, at least female ones.
No, wait, that was Greebo...
Lock up your daughter, lock up your wife, lock up your back door and run for your life :DPlaying RPGs in order to play someone who's totally different from myself is a lot of fun. But sometimes, I want to play someone who is closer to myself. Hence the evil character.KY, remind me to hide my wife and daughters if you ever come over to my house to game. :)
You can run away, but you'll only die tired.
If D&D had actual morality, it would be different. But ultimately the only difference between good and evil in D&D is what people you kill. You're still killing people, out of necessity if nothing else. When you die and go to an afterlife you are rewarded or punished not based on what team you played for but how well you played for it. A character who was on Team Good, but wasn't especially Good has a worse afterlife than a highly successful warlord on Team Evil who committed all manner of evil acts before finally being put down.
Not necessarily. In the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, if you were infernal in life (i.e. worshipped the Devil and did devilish things), you're going to Hell. Not as a VIP, but as a victim like everyone else.
You might think it's different, or that you have a special understanding with Asmodeus, but in the end, it's aeons of torment for you.
For a long time now, I've figured that there are a lot of people running around in this world who would commit evil acts all the time if they had the means to do so and thought they could get away with it without consequences.
Uhm... depending on how you define an evil act, there are people who do commit evil acts all the time and get away with it without consequences.
Sure, if you define evil acts as torture, rape, murder, or worse, then it's not necessarily like this.
But there's the low-grade everyday evil (maybe not with a capital E, but evil according to many definitions nevertheless) people do all the time. It's not the premium stuff, but it's mass produced and available everywhere. Discount evil, if you will.
Some would call lying to a naive girl (or boy) to get her (or him - I'll stick to one gender from now on, but I'm not saying that only one gender can do evil) into bed and then never calling them to be evil.
Some would faking love and getting together or even marrying someone for his money to be evil, especially if the other person will then cheat on his partner and treat him like crap evil.
Some would call exploiting people to increase your profits evil.
Some would call teaching children to be racist or sexist or whateverist evil.
That's only some examples. The possibilities are endless, and it all comes down to your definition of evil.
Would it help you understanding this if I told you of the evil campaigns and characters I have seen and/or played?
You let your hair down. You let the devil inside play outside for a while.
Note that this kind of "stark raving mad" behaviour usually loses its "charm" pretty quick, so campaigns like this are either short or evolve into something else:
Sometimes, the madmen games evolve into these types of games, or villain games have madmen elements from time to time.
The lure here is to be the mastermind behind some devious plot. You emulate all the memorable villains (not just bad guys, mind - proper villains!) from books and films and games. And because in a way, you're the protagonist now, you'll do things right. These villains have read the Evil Overlord List and use that instead of a moral compass. They're not here to be a nice challenge to the heroes. They're here to win!
Villain characters can engage in some senseless slaughter, but they usually don't, unless they can get away with it, or let someone else take the blame. They might actually improve the lives of people, or at least seem to. Demagogues, rabble-rousers.
The important part is that they do "good" stuff not to feel good, but to be perceived as good by others, to gain status and prestige, and more power.
I remember an awesome campaign that was like that. It was a Forgotten Realms campaign, and the party (who had an evil mentor who of course used us for his own ends) took over a city on the Moonsea and fought the Zhentarim for supremacy.
They did kill the old mayor (not that he was very popular), and then went and took the power, posing as the people's liberators. They reduced taxes, started urban renewal programmes and so on.
They also took care of detractors (i.e. those who saw through the ruse)...
There was a very popular priest of Lathander the Morning Lord, a deity that only deserves to be called Good with a capital G because you can't double-capitalise that G. He knew we were selfish bastards and tried to work against us.
We turned the people against him. Once he was spotted wandering some slums (they did mar the city's look) tossing fireballs left and right, all the while shouting things like "I BRING YOU THE HOLY SUN OF THE MORNING LORD! BASK IN ITS WARMTH!, he wasn't all that popular any more. (Of course, the priest never did that. It was my character, using magic wands and shapechanging to look like him. You really want an enemy who's a Gold Elf with a healthy dose of succubus blood and experience as rogue with emphasis on infiltrator, impostor and assassin)
Later, when a whole party of do-gooders tried to inveigle the populace to depose us as evil dictators and elect a representative to rule them, we managed to convince the people that they don't want this silly democracy stuff. No, they want to do their job without having to do ours, too, so we do our job and let them do theirs. No need to go to elections and all that nonsense all the time when the farm needs all your attention, after all.
For a long time now, I've figured that there are a lot of people running around in this world who would commit evil acts all the time if they had the means to do so and thought they could get away with it without consequences.Uhm... depending on how you define an evil act, there are people who do commit evil acts all the time and get away with it without consequences.
Sure, if you define evil acts as torture, rape, murder, or worse, then it's not necessarily like this.
But there's the low-grade everyday evil (maybe not with a capital E, but evil according to many definitions nevertheless) people do all the time. It's not the premium stuff, but it's mass produced and available everywhere. Discount evil, if you will.
Some would call lying to a naive girl (or boy) to get her (or him - I'll stick to one gender from now on, but I'm not saying that only one gender can do evil) into bed and then never calling them to be evil.
Some would faking love and getting together or even marrying someone for his money to be evil, especially if the other person will then cheat on his partner and treat him like crap evil.
Some would call exploiting people to increase your profits evil.
Some would call teaching children to be racist or sexist or whateverist evil.
That's only some examples. The possibilities are endless, and it all comes down to your definition of evil.
Actually, the example I had in mind was that a lot of people would blow up the car in front of them on the highway if only they had a rocket launcher and didn't have to worry about the police.
I have a tendency toward the morbid and a natural assortment of gleeful, disturbing laughs. This makes people suspect I'm evil even though I'm moderately neutral good.
Evil is COOL. Watch any production of Titus Andronicus and see if the lines you remember aren't Aaron's. "I have done a thousand dreadful things as willingly as kill a fly, and nothing grieves me heartily but that I cannot do ten thousand more!" I really think that kind of gleeful wickedness fits in gaming, if the characters are all clever and devious enough that it isn't just a bloodbath.
There's a fair few spells in D&D/PF that are sort of epithetical evil -- that is, they're evil because they have the [ Evil ] descriptor. Whether they're more powerful or not (sometimes they are, sometimes not) I'd like to get the chance to use 'em sometime -- some of them have interesting mechanics and, hey, gruesome and morbid make me happy.
I'd be peachy playing a neutral character who casts evil spells to attain good ends, but it doesn't work out that way in D&D. Especially not if there's paladins in the party.
If it weren't for the "this is evil 'cause we say it's evil" of 3.5, one of my favorite "evil" archtypes wouldn't be evil at all. In fact, prior to 3.5, any other version of D&D (1E, 2E, 3E, but not 3.5/4E) would allow them to be Lawful Good without fail. However, since things like Undead were ret-conned to be innately evil without a reason (and yes, there is no reason except "they just are", I've debated this many times and can bring up a very long list of "no reason"s), one of my favorite characters is the most amazingly evil heroine you'll ever meet.
No really. She's a necromancer who specializes in undead. She fervently fights evil undead and those who would corrupt or abuse the gifts of undeath. She's amazingly altruistic, generous, benevolent, and quite lovable, but she's considered quite evil for some reason that's not really ever explained in anything but very bad sourcebooks for 3E, because she uses animate dead a lot.
This causes me to agree with CoDzilla strongly. In recent years, D&D alignment makes even less sense than it used to (and that's just terrible). It really has come down to red vs blue in most cases. As it turns out, evil has more fun toys to play with. For example, spells like animate dead are fun and effective, but there are far more unneeded strait-jackets, not for power, but for concept building on the good side. You can be evil and be a hero. That's just a fact.
Most of my characters fall into the Neutral Good category, though their mechanics might require a specific alignment. That's a problem. Also, Good doesn't play nice with others, which makes good more restrictive.
Don't believe me? Ok, let's look at the Paladin vs Antipaladin. The Paladin is barred from lying ("Oh the innocents you want to kill because they were framed for a murder you committed but I can't prove it? Hmmm, tell you the truth, that they're in the closet and fall. Tell you they're not in the closet and fall...draw steel, in this hospital, villain!"), they're barred from cheating ("Sorry, I could have used loaded dice to win your freedom slave-woman, but it's against my code. You won't mind being the gnoll's sex slave, will you?"), or even working with evil people ("Gods no! I refuse to work with that lout. It's in my contract! If you want me, I'll be in my trailer!").
Meanwhile, the Antipaladin...well his code says that he has to do evil - whatever his idea of evil is. And he can use any method he deems is fine within his evil. He can also happily work with good characters as long as it gets the job done. The antipaladin can save the innocents, cheat to get the gnoll slaves free without violence, and look and laugh as the Paladin throws a hissy fit because his evil-dar is going off. The antipaladin then goes "Ok guys, let's leave Mr. Good to moan and complain. Those kids need to be saved, and I want to get paid; so here's the plan...".
That being said, 90% of the characters I make generally fall in the neutral-good range. Even the evil characters are played as Intelligent Evil, which means most of them are indistinguishable from good characters to most people. The path to hell is paved with good intentions, after-all.
EDIT: For another example, let's look at the Assassin prestige class. The PF Assassin would be a perfect prestige class for a character like Altair, from Assassin's Creed. Heck, it would even appear that several of the new abilities the class gains were based on or inspired by Assassin's creed (including the ability to kill someone in a crowd without being noticed). However, you can't use it to make a character like the Assassins in Assassin's Creed. The character in Assassin's Creed is more neutral than anything. The character in Assassin's Creed II seems very benevolent, and is using assassination to bring down and fight an evil tyranny.
Now you could build a good or neutral version of the class, but then it makes you wonder why the class needed to be evil in the first place, hmm? It falls back to red lasers and blue lasers. There is no difference, except the side of the fence you're on.
Don't believe me? Ok, let's look at the Paladin vs Antipaladin. The Paladin is barred from lying ("Oh the innocents you want to kill because they were framed for a murder you committed but I can't prove it? Hmmm, tell you the truth, that they're in the closet and fall. Tell you they're not in the closet and fall...draw steel, in this hospital, villain!"), they're barred from cheating ("Sorry, I could have used loaded dice to win your freedom slave-woman, but it's against my code. You won't mind being the gnoll's sex slave, will you?"), or even working with evil people ("Gods no! I refuse to work with that lout. It's in my contract! If you want me, I'll be in my trailer!").
... Sorry but, are we talking the same Paladin who would simply avoid answering in such a case? Not being allowed to lie doesn't mean you must tell everyone everything, nor does it mean you must tell entire truths. The same paladin who would see it's his duty to smite the foul beasts known as gnolls, especially if they wish to take slaves? I mean I know smiting everything that moves is frowned upon, but that seems like one of the times where you smite (and maybe power attack) without hesitation.
And as I recall the Paladin is capable of working with evil for the greater good, as long as they ends justify the means, and they end the association once it's no longer for the benefits of everyone, as well as receive an atonement spell for every evil act committed during the alliance.Meanwhile, the Antipaladin...well his code says that he has to do evil - whatever his idea of evil is. And he can use any method he deems is fine within his evil. He can also happily work with good characters as long as it gets the job done. The antipaladin can save the innocents, cheat to get the gnoll slaves free without violence, and look and laugh as the Paladin throws a hissy fit because his evil-dar is going off. The antipaladin then goes "Ok guys, let's leave Mr. Good to moan and complain. Those kids need to be saved, and I want to get paid; so here's the plan...".
And this is the same Antipaladin who may never commit an altruistic or good act? Who must always be committing to actions that have EVIL ends? Always having to impose tyranny, take advantage of people, and always punish those who are good and just? The same antipaladin who can only work with good people as long as the ends are evil and he does his best to defeat whatever good alliance it is from within?
Sorry for going off on that little sidebar, but those comments irked me.
Unless you're speaking of the 3.5e Paladin and Paladin of slaughter, in which case the first quote is right, and the second quote is even more wrong as the Paladin of Slaughter had to ALWAYS commit evil acts, not even being allowed to commit good acts that would result in evil later, they were the ones that if they saw a little lady crossing the street, doing anything outside of breaking her kneecaps to make sure she gets hit would cause them to lose their powers.
NOW then.
Evil campaigns in general can be immensely fun, the only issue is that a lot of people (at least from what I've noticed) can't tell the difference between say, Bram Stoker's Dracula evil and LOLKILLBABIES evil.
... Sorry but, are we talking the same Paladin who would simply avoid answering in such a case? Not being allowed to lie doesn't mean you must tell everyone everything, nor does it mean you must tell entire truths. The same paladin who would see it's his duty to smite the foul beasts known as gnolls, especially if they wish to take slaves? I mean I know smiting everything that moves is frowned upon, but that seems like one of the times where you smite (and maybe power attack) without hesitation.
And as I recall the Paladin is capable of working with evil for the greater good, as long as they ends justify the means, and they end the association once it's no longer for the benefits of everyone, as well as receive an atonement spell for every evil act committed during the alliance.
Yep. Same Paladin. A lie of omission is still a lie.
Likewise, the paladin's associates must be good or neutral. While they can ally themselves under extreme circumstances with evil characters to defeat a greater evil, the average adventuring party doesn't start out fighting great evils. Likewise, it goes on to say the Paladin should periodically seek atonement for doing so; so if you like flushing 500 gp down the toilet from time to time, power to ya.And this is the same Antipaladin who may never commit an altruistic or good act? Who must always be committing to actions that have EVIL ends? Always having to impose tyranny, take advantage of people, and always punish those who are good and just? The same antipaladin who can only work with good people as long as the ends are evil and he does his best to defeat whatever good alliance it is from within?
Yep. Altruism means the Antipaladin is doing selflessly. In the example I used, the antipaladin is getting paid for his acts of heroism, and he is benefiting from it. In this case, he's motivated by own own greed and desire to further his own schemes. It just happens that those schemes can more than likely fit into a typical adventuring party very easily (hey, adventurers kill people and take their stuff, go figure). Even by being heroic, the antipaladin is serving himself - and thus evil - by gaining a reputation that he can use to serve his own dark ends. In fact, the Antipaladin pretty much gets to write his own ticket, since he places his own desires and interests above all else, and may even ignore the usual tenants of his code should it serve his own goals. Likewise, the antipaladin doesn't need atonement for adventuring with good guys, though he tries to bring ruin or defeat to them, and simply adventuring with them in hopes of inspiring them to do evil is probably a good motivator. Evil cares about results, as the text says.
So yeah, I do mean the Paladin and the Antipaladin.
That aside, I agree that a lot of people don't get the difference between evil and stupid ("lolkillbabies" made me laugh :P).
Quotes and additional points
You know, in retrospect I would look upon our posts and realize it comes greatly down to one's interpretations.
While you count omission of truth as lying, I count getting paid for a job is not inherently evil, even if for greedy reasons.So I take back my previous statement saying you were wrong, and just throw the Paladin/Anti-Paladin issue into the air as "depends on the group and the way that group determines what's moral/amoral."
However I would add that the assassin issue you mentioned is definitely one that holds true. Since when were all assassinations done for entirely evil reasons?
Don't believe me? Ok, let's look at the Paladin vs Antipaladin. The Paladin is barred from lying ("Oh the innocents you want to kill because they were framed for a murder you committed but I can't prove it? Hmmm, tell you the truth, that they're in the closet and fall. Tell you they're not in the closet and fall...draw steel, in this hospital, villain!")
That's why paladins need d20 hit dice for following their stupid code.
But that being said:
1) I don't see why the paladin can't just choose to not answer the question, or say something completely true yet unhelpful, such as "Regardless of whether or not I knew where the innocents were, I wouldn't tell you their location."
2) It's not really fair to make a case against the Good alignment using Paladins. They're special. Feel free to interpret "special" in whichever way you prefer, they're all right.
Don't believe me? Ok, let's look at the Paladin vs Antipaladin. The Paladin is barred from lying ("Oh the innocents you want to kill because they were framed for a murder you committed but I can't prove it? Hmmm, tell you the truth, that they're in the closet and fall. Tell you they're not in the closet and fall...draw steel, in this hospital, villain!")That's why paladins need d20 hit dice for following their stupid code.
But that being said:
1) I don't see why the paladin can't just choose to not answer the question, or say something completely true yet unhelpful, such as "Regardless of whether or not I knew where the innocents were, I wouldn't tell you their location."
2) It's not really fair to make a case against the Good alignment using Paladins. They're special. Feel free to interpret "special" in whichever way you prefer, they're all right.
Heh, true, but I chose Paladin / Antipaladin because they're pretty iconic for the good/evil line of thing. Also the Assassin, since it's a core prestige class that requires you to be Evil; but for no real reason other than "I kill people...like every other class".
I mean, most everything else falls into the "my alignment doesn't matter" category, except clerics (since neutral and evil clerics get access to spells like animate dead so they have an entire shtick that good clerics can't do in core). A lawful good fighter is little to no different than a chaotic evil fighter except as far as the character's morality is concerned, and we can see that 3.5/PF/4E alignment has nothing to do with morality by simple observing it and connecting the dots. So even if your GM decides "Hmm, I think your Fighter is Lawful Neutral rather than Neutral or Chaotic Good", you're not limited by the mechanics for your Fighter, so it doesn't really affect you in any real way.
Also, I wanted to mention that choosing evil is far from a metagame power-trip (for those wondering or being concerned about power hungry PCs for one reason or another). Statistically the Paladin should be stronger than the Antipaladin, since the number of Evil opponents in your typical game will probably exceed Good opponents on average. Humorously, an Antipaladin's Aura of Despair is more party friendly than the Paladin's Aura of Resolve, because the Antipaladin will be giving a -2 saves debuff to every enemy within melee range of him, which will be much appreciated by anyone in the party who uses "Save or" effects (all casters, monks, rogues using poison, etc); whereas the Paladin doesn't really do much for his friends unless they are all huddled around him in the 10 ft radius (IE - in melee with him), so his is mostly wasted (and also more limited).
The Antipaladin really is a better team player. :P
But for actually dishing out huge amounts of damage...you're probably better off with the Paladin; since if you're not playing an "evil campaign" then you probably won't be fighting good-guys nearly as often as evil guys (and actually you're very likely to fight lots of evil guys in an evil campaign because evil tends to not get along).
EDIT: On a side note, you're right. The Paladin probably could say "If I did know where they were, I wouldn't tell you", and likely be fine. However, there are cases where doing so might be suicide, or revealing your hand that you're against the big bad (imagine a powerful senator who's supposed to be a good guy, the law, and so forth, but he's actually an evil tyrant who's trying to wipe out those who know of his deeds). The antipaladin could just smile and say "Of course senator. I overheard them saying they were heading west towards the great city - probably plotting terrorism." (*rolls Bluff check*)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
... Sorry but, are we talking the same Paladin who would simply avoid answering in such a case? Not being allowed to lie doesn't mean you must tell everyone everything, nor does it mean you must tell entire truths. The same paladin who would see it's his duty to smite the foul beasts known as gnolls, especially if they wish to take slaves? I mean I know smiting everything that moves is frowned upon, but that seems like one of the times where you smite (and maybe power attack) without hesitation.
And as I recall the Paladin is capable of working with evil for the greater good, as long as they ends justify the means, and they end the association once it's no longer for the benefits of everyone, as well as receive an atonement spell for every evil act committed during the alliance.Yep. Same Paladin. A lie of omission is still a lie.
Err, but that's not a Lie of Omission.
Lying by omission means you're omitting an important fact in order to deliberately leave another person with a misconception.
If the guy bust in and said "where are the criminals?" and you said something like "I saw no criminals enter here (because the people you seek are innocent)", that would be a lie of omission.
Just keeping your trap shut? Totally not lying. I'd even argue that you could change the subject without lying. "Lovely weather we're having" doesn't actually answer the badguy's question, doesn't indicate the presence or absence of the innocents in any way, and (so long as the weather is actually lovely) is perfectly honest.
As an aside: I'd let the paladin bend the truth a little bit in this situation anyway. Basically, if they can get away with saying something in a zone of truth spell (which does allow one to be 'evasive'), then I figure they're OK as far as the Paladin's Code is concerned.
Err, but that's not a Lie of Omission.Lying by omission means you're omitting an important fact in order to deliberately leave another person with a misconception.
If the guy bust in and said "where are the criminals?" and you said something like "I saw no criminals enter here (because the people you seek are innocent)", that would be a lie of omission.
Just keeping your trap shut? Totally not lying. I'd even argue that you could change the subject without lying. "Lovely weather we're having" doesn't actually answer the badguy's question, doesn't indicate the presence or absence of the innocents in any way, and (so long as the weather is actually lovely) is perfectly honest.
As an aside: I'd let the paladin bend the truth a little bit in this situation anyway. Basically, if they can get away with saying something in a zone of truth spell (which does allow one to be 'evasive'), then I figure they're OK as far as the Paladin's Code is concerned.
I should probably point out that I agree with you. My games have recently underwent a complete alignment overhaul, and Paladins felt a huge ripple from it, which led to adjusting their class features. Long story short, Paladins get a lot more love in my games, and have a lot more freedom as well (plus if you want, you can write your own Paladin code for fun). I was just speaking in general PF terms.
In my actual campaigns, there is no antipaladin. There is just "Paladin". You can be any alignment except True Neutral (there's a reason for this, see below). So you have Paladins of Chaos, Evil, Law, and Good, or any combination that aren't directly opposed (for example, you could have Paladins of Chaos and Good, or Lawful and Evil, or just Good or Chaos, etc). Paladins may choose between channeling positive or negative energy, much like clerics (and neither Paladins nor Clerics are restricted based on Alignment). You get Lay on Hands or Hand of Corruption, your choice. Likewise the Paladin and Blackguard Auras were fitted into trees, so at the appropriate levels you can choose different auras that suit your purposes, with a few of them being reserved for their individual alignments (you cannot choose aura of righteousness and aura of sin, for example; but you could have Aura of Courage and Aura of Despair).
In my campaigns, these days, all creatures are treated as Neutral for game mechanic purposes, regardless of your actions or conceptual alignment. For mechanical purposes, Alignment subtypes cause you to be treated as a particular alignment (and also align your attacks, as normal). Clerics and Paladins gain the alignment subtypes associated with their chosen alignments as part of their Aura. Against neutral creatures (IE - everything without an alignment subtype), numerical effects are halved but otherwise function (a holy weapon deals +1d6 damage to most creatures, or +2d6 damage against evil subtype creatures).
Finally, alignment restrictions were almost entirely removed from the game. This has had nothing but a positive effect on the game. There has been far less metagaming based on alignment (essentially you have no alignment unless you have a subtype, and even then, there are exceptions - such as fallen angels who possess the Good subtype but might be less than good themselves), and far more emphasis on actually roleplaying a character rather than an alignment.
I have never played an evil character, but I do plan to play my less character with less restrictions(moral). Sometimes being good takes away a lot of options, and I want to play one character who is interested in the results, more than the "how". I won't be killing everyone. I think that would make the character a psychopath, and definitely evil. I do want to straddle the line though.
As for others, it may have been mentioned, but they may not realize their ways are evil.
I would say the fantasy setting encourages people to play 'evil' characters. In the real world, you have to at least pretend to be a decent human being for most of your life. When you sit down at an RPG, however, and are told you can be anything you want, it can be really relaxing to let go of your social constraints and just be a jerk.
You can be selfish, greedy, maniacal, scheming, traitorous, short-tempered, and (so long as you carry your weight for the party) no-one will care! Or at least, if you put enough ranks in bluff, sleight of hand, and stealth, no one will care.
In short, people play evil characters for the same reason anyone plays any character. To escape from the real world for a while. They're not playing who they necessarily WANT to be, they're just playing.