Playing Evil


Advice

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I'm building an Evil [NE] Inquisitor character to join in a LoF campaign, with Lamashtu as his deity.

I don't want to de-rail the campaign with silly in-party fighting about alignment so I'll probably hide my alignment from the other players.

The problem is how to play an Evil dude. I don't know the whole LoF story [currently on book 2] but I get the impression that the overall campaign story isn't all that alignment biased so I should be good to go.

My character is primarily adventuring for power and for the general enjoyment of killing stuff, because he is going to have a pretty low intelligence and isn't all that good with money, he'll probably give his cut of loot to one of the other party members to "look after".

So, how do I play an Evil dude in a group of non-evil dudes without falling into the Evil-Stupid pit hole of wanting to kill other party members?


An evil character doesn't always have to start intra-party conflict. The evil could come out in how he deals with opponents (torture?) and other NPCs (sef-serving nature, not really caring what happens to others or who your actions may hurt).

Where you may run into problems is the choice of a Lamashtu worshiper in LoF. There will be things in the AP that will test you loyalties to your deity and/or your party.

As far as specifics as to what you can and can not get away with, you will want to talk with your DM.


Where's the Weed? wrote:

I'm building an Evil [NE] Inquisitor character to join in a LoF campaign, with Lamashtu as his deity.

I don't want to de-rail the campaign with silly in-party fighting about alignment so I'll probably hide my alignment from the other players.

The problem is how to play an Evil dude. I don't know the whole LoF story [currently on book 2] but I get the impression that the overall campaign story isn't all that alignment biased so I should be good to go.

My character is primarily adventuring for power and for the general enjoyment of killing stuff, because he is going to have a pretty low intelligence and isn't all that good with money, he'll probably give his cut of loot to one of the other party members to "look after".

So, how do I play an Evil dude in a group of non-evil dudes without falling into the Evil-Stupid pit hole of wanting to kill other party members?

As you yourself said, evil does not mean stupid. It also realises that if it makes friends it can count on those friends to come through in critical or dire situations.

Evil working with evil usually has to worry about backstabbing and betrayal. Evil working with good doesn't for the most part and can afford the luxury of a little trust.

After all, adventurors are usually pretty badass. Why NOT have them be loyal friends? You can count of them more than the rest of the weak idiots in the world.

Yes they will probably not approve of some of your moral choices or actions, so just don't do 'evil' stuff anywhere they can see or in any way that it can be traced back to you. Face it, unless you start with a ring of mind shielding or some such, at some point a detect evil will go off on you and the party will find out. Just make sure that up to that point you have earned enough party trust and shown them how reliable you are so that they are willing to over look it.

Only really betray them if it gets you a REALLY GREAT deal of gain. Short gain is nothing compared to the long gain of a group of loyal non-evil patsies. I mean adventuring companions. Evil won't come after you when the dragon drags you away. Your good companions might if you have done it right.


Pick out character traits that people like -- loyalty, honestly, or fairness are nice options and stick to them with your character.

This isn't really a "redeeming quality" just one that helps him get by that he sticks to. Remember that evil doesn't mean "I kick puppies for fun" it means that you are willing to hurt people to get what you want, and are willing to hurt people. This can be mental, physical or emotional. You could be abusive (controlling) or you could simply like inflicting pain on others (sadistic) but you'll need a means to still seem like a person, that is what the character trait above is for.

Have a backstory for why this character trait is important or how it developed.

Some more 'negative' traits that could work: submissive (almost a perfect slave to someone else's will), xenophobic (hates all outsiders seeing them as a threat on mortal life), domineering (you don't mind doing good -- so long as everyone realizes that it is you doing good and does it how you tell them too), and overly accepting (you don't mind what the others are, lets all live and let live -- don't mind me I'm just living over here sacrificing this animal to dark gods -- what? I don't bother you while you are drinking yourself stupid leave me and my gods alone!).

Some of the best evil characters are those that twist "good" concepts around to serve base wants and desires.

Give yourself a reason to be with the party and what them to succeed -- maybe you are in lust with one of the other characters and helping the party seems a good way to get what you want. Perhaps the people they are trying to stop are arch enemies of yours also, and it is a case of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" If you are playing a mage with crafting feats you might be "taking care of customers."

The key in all cases is in knowing who your character is -- a "good guy" in an RP can get by with just being good -- to play evil, and play it well (without people getting upset/ derailing the game) you must put more into it -- the other players at least need to have an idea of what the character's motivations are, and how to get him to work with the party too.

Trust is the last major key to this working -- you have to trust the other players to not just off you for being evil -- they have to trust you to not ruin everything and the player/GM trust is the same issue as always.


To me, a good character puts other people's needs first. A neutral character may not put other's needs first, but doesn't necessarly enjoy harming others to get what he wants. An evil character enjoys harming other people to get what he wants.

He may or may not betray his friends, will torture for pleasure, definately kill or take advantage of an unarmed foe, lie, cheat, and steal.

Evil people don't usually think of themselves as evil, having a lot of excuses and rationals, "You should have protected yourself better; I'm teaching you a lesson; If not me, than someone else; How stupid are you?; I have to get what is mine, for no one ever did anything for me."

Realistically, a LOT of people are evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The simple answer is just don't be Evil-Stupid.

The longer answer:

Evil is no more extreme than Good. Going out of your way to hurt people, kick puppies, and burn down orphanages is all well and good when you can get away with it or it's a special occasion but you don't always have the option. Same as the Good guy who doesn't always have the option of saving a burning orphanage or adopting every stray puppy on the streets or make sure everyone is without hurt or hunger. There just isn't enough time in the day, resources, ability, whatever.

The Chaotic Stupid guy who runs giggling into town, shanks all the guards, burns down all the orphanages, steals all the bread, draws mustaches on all the paintings, and moons the mayor, that guy's just trying too hard. That's not Evil, that's just plain Stupid. So just don't be Stupid, be Evil.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One idea I've been contemplating is Evil, but a nice guy. This works if you view Evil as the belief that just because someone is alive doesn't mean their life is inherently valuable. So This would be the character who would gladly torture and kill strangers as a favor to his buddys.

"The shopkeeper was cheating you. I cut off his hands, heres your money back." (smiles genuinely)

Dark Archive

The evil guy can always justify doing good by saying it allows him to do great evil later.

The evil guy should not advertise unnecessarily his evil deeds. Though he should not be afraid from doing what is necessary, i.e., killing the BBEG when all the other heroes argue on what to do with him.


Evil (as I see it) is the belief in [something] over and above anything else in the great wide world.

For example, evil can be as self centered as a personal quest to be the richest person in a country no matter what (100's of people have died in the mines that I own. Sure it's unfortunate but did we post a profit this quarter?). Or it can be an external infatuation that twists a moral concept such as the eradication of a specific group of humanoids in the guise of making things safer, more prosperous, etc (it is sad that we have to destroy the native americans but we need to make the land safe for our settlers). There are many many other examples I could rattle off because evil is as complex an alignment as good.

You can also have some fun roleplaying moral quandries with evil characters in the same way you can with a good character. What I am getting at is: the lawful good soldier that obeys a foul order that results in the death or persecution of an innocent person will be haunted by the experience and be the thing that they wake up in a cold sweat about. The lawful good paladin that refuses a completely foul and evil enemy's request for mercy and attonement may replay that moment in their moments of self doubt. For an evil character they would be bothered by the times that they had to turn from their chosen path to aid another, or set it aside for another typically heroic reason. Do enough of these things and alignments change. Just as a good character can fall towards evil. An evil character can present a story of redemption.

The above situations are illustrations of extremes though. There will be many other situations where an evil character is not going to appear dangerous or villainous at a glance. I bet all of us have stood in line at a super market with a chaotic evil person, and went about our days whistling away. An evil character doesn't have to be any more dangerous than nature. There are plenty of surfers and swimmers out there that have played for years in shark infested reefs and waters without so much as a scare. The reason is that they didn't look like food to the shark, or simply didn't encounter an aggressive species. Now of course I'm not trying to say sharks or any other natural predator are evil. One is based on impulse and instinct. The other has intent on its side.

Step one is defining what your cleric of Lamashtu is bent on. You just need to do some work to make sure your goals are something that the other characters won't string you up for. Showing up and saying "I wanna put babies on spikes" is probably not a good idea. But if you are opposed to something they are up against? Well Sonny Jim you have a better shot. Sure you might be opposing their enemies so that you can assume his/her place. Maybe there is some internicine religious conflict between your subcult of Lamashtu and one the party is fighting against? These are ways you can share a common END with the party without having to agree on the MEANS.

Once you figure out what your character is after, let them off the chain and see where it takes them. Your character could easily travel for years with a group of nuetral and good characters wherein they might save the LG paladin from drowning on multiple occaisions, save the world from destruction, and any other heroic acts, all without killing the party in their sleep or making off with all the treasure.

They might take exception to the time you call down a swarm of abyssal gnolls to destroy your enemies only to have them rampage through the nearest town slaughtering everything in their path...can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. Maybe he/she makes the other characters utter a prayer to Lamashtu before they get healed...talking is free but the roleplay implications are disturbing :)


I'm a fan of Blindness/Deafness for torture, it's way worse then killing and way more enjoyable. I agree to wait on being evil until you are powerful, I have only had 1 party conflict which I did not start but I ended it with 1 enervation and the threat of 2 more enervations to come!


oooo I know this one!!

You play it the same way as you do good. When you are a good character do you only act on the behalf of good? giving party members all of your treasure, sacrificing yourself to save bad guys, etc.?

No probably not, what you do is give your character a personality, things that peeve him or make him happy, and you give them goals. Just because you are evil doesn't mean your only goals and only pleasure in life is killing others. That is like playing a good character that refuses to keep any material goods that could be given to help someone else (including your sword and shield).

As long as you make him a real person (like you would with a good character) then he shouldn't be a greedy, self consumed, serial killer who has to kill the party if he gets the chance.

The extremes are what the paladin and anti-paladin were made for. (these can still be screwed up by playing like an angel or demon instead of a person)

Silver Crusade

As mentioned above, playing smart-evil(ie: Don't-@#$%-Where-You-Eat Evil) curbs most of the problems that arise from evil characters. You've also really got to give the party a good reason to want to keep yoiu around.

But what's probably reallly going to give you trouble in this campaign is the Lamashtu worship. I'm a player in this AP, so I don't have a bird's eye view of the situation, but if all the stuff in the player's guide and art hold true, you're likely to run into severely conflicting loyalties, with your goddess and her followers on one side and the party on the other.


You see, the key to being an evil character in a non-evil party is to convince them that they need you. A good way to get your villainous kicks is to do things that the majority of the party views as unfortunate but necessary. Above else, be tolerable. Be affable and avoid heinous acts of evil whenever possible. In time, they will rely on you as a tool of convenience, letting you do the dirty work. Evil thrives upon the tolerance and convenience of good.

Take the comic Looking For Group, for example. Richard the Warlock is outrageously evil and incredibly dangerous, but the party needs him because he alone can supply the power they need on many occasions. As a result, they grudgingly tolerate the occasional roasted gnome or "collateral damage." Also, Richard has an affable bond with many of the characters, and some positive qualities.

The most successful villain is the most morally complicated one.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm playing through Legacy of Fire currently and one of my fellow players is an Inquisitor of Asmodeus. As far as evil deities go, Asmodeus is probably the most "player friendly". He wants people's souls, and it's very easy to play a character who is evil and willing to "make a deal".

Perhaps you might consider switching from Lamashtu (who is a bit more crazy evil), to Asmodeus. Heck he's even worked with Sarenrae in the past, so many of the Sarenrae references in the campaign could be of interest to you.

Hope that helps.


I played a NE halfling fighter in Council of Thieves.

Lorn the mighty.

Essentially, Lorn was self-centered.

There was a neutral good ranger in the party he clashed with a bit, but none of the other party members really even knew he was evil.

there was one part where you could see something depending on your alignment, is i could see something the others could not, but it didnt really end up mattering, and no one figured out it was alignment based.

Lorn disappeared alot, but never on purpose... (0ne of those halfling things I guess) which mean he returned to town a few times before everyone else to sell off loot he happened to be carrying, even if, say someone else int he party could have used it.

"gosh i never knew if i would ever see you guys again"
"no i didn't get very much for it. oh really? I should have been able to get at least that much for it? Oh my I guess that dishonest storekeeper got me for a sucker!"

Lorn always drank his potion of healing first, even if he was only mildly injured, and labeled his potions in halfling, which no one else int he party could read, so just in case he was unconscious or sleeping no one would know what he had (forcing them to use spells on him to revive him).

He always claimed to be out of potions, if he thought someone had a spell.

Lorn would maneuver during combat to make sure he was in range of a Channel positive energy, rather than maneuvering to better manage his duties as a fighter and worry about healing later.

Lorn did ALOT of coup de grace and even managed to kill the town mayor for nothing more than the sheer pleasure of looting his body. (no one else wandered down the alley to meet with the mayor, it was just lorn, the mayor didnt take lorn to be too dangerous as he was just a halfing, except he was a 7th level fighter, haahaha)

all in all he was a very useful member of the party, even being on level behind them (he missed some major combat via one of his disappearing episodes)


I think the key here is to not play an antagonist. Your character is a protagonist in the story along with the other PCs.

You are not required to murder every innocent child you cross, nor stab every offending bartender.

As an Inquisitor of Lamashtu you need to decide what facet of her doctrine you are enforcing. Keep in mind as an inquisitor your main job is hunting down enemies of the faith, including internal enemies that are corrupting the doctrine... as you have been taught it.

Personally I would really pick a different deity. Lamashtu is a really hard one to do. The goal of "personal power" doesn't mesh directly well with Lamashtu's over all goals. Power is only a means to and end in her service, that end being to warp the world into monsters, to create more members of her "family." One way to spin an Inquisitor of Lamashtu is that you are a defender of the "family". This could include everything from protecting deformed children to weeding out inferior "pretty" bloodlines of the monster races. You should actually be able to get some traction in LoF going this route. This keeps you in the least amount of conflict the party, and even makes you look like a good guy sometimes. It also gives you justification for "kill" monsters you encounter as they may not measure up to the standards your particular outlook on Lamashtu's teachings.

However at the heart of it all you over all "evil" goal is to see more monsters be created.


Remember, approximately one third of all humans glow under detect evil. Are they all stealing from orphans? No, they're plowing their fields, watering down the tavern drinks, playing with their dogs, spreading gossip about their neighbors, and in general being NPCs. Does the fact that they're evil mean some paladin can come through town smiting them? No, that would be murder. You don't murder the CE tavern owner because he waters down his booze to increase his supply for less cost, thereby making more money. Is the CE tavern owner being evil by watering down his drinks to fleece the drunks out of their money by selling them less booze than they paid for? Yes. And he's being chaotic. Is he kicking puppies? No.

Can an Inquisitor of Lamashtu do fine in Legacy of Fire? Sure. Are you going to have to fight worshippers of Lamashtu? Possibly. Is this easy to reconcile? Sure! Announce yourself to your enemies as an Inquisitor of Lamashtu, then when they still attack you are required by Her to smite them for refusing to recognize you as an extension of Her authority. It's like attacking a cleric. Only with more smiting.


Nebulous_Mistress wrote:
Remember, approximately one third of all humans glow under detect evil.

I want to know where you get that little fact from.


3 alignment tiers; Good, Neutral, and Evil; probably.


Kierato wrote:
3 alignment tiers; Good, Neutral, and Evil; probably.

Yeah but that doesn't wash -- just because there are three different moral alignments doesn't mean the population is spread equally among them.


Doesn't mean it doesn't either. But I would probably say 25% good, 50% neutral, 25% evil.


Kierato wrote:
Doesn't mean it doesn't either. But I would probably say 25% good, 50% neutral, 25% evil.

It also depends on what you are balancing -- are you balancing the world -- or the specific populations of each race?

And what does that say for free will in the world if your have such a strict balance? Also races like Drow which do have the assumption in pathfinder of "always evil" would cause a real dent.

Going to world balance again races like Drow cause a problem -- there are not many (if any) races that are "always good" so the races that aren't "always evil" have to have a higher percentage of neutral and good to "balance" the evil in the world.

Either way the very idea of "balance" within the alignment system is too dodgy to simply declare "One third of the humans are evil."


The strict balance represents free will, otherwise everyone would be one alignment. It's my, or her statistic, we don't force anybody to use them, so why do you care?


Core Book wrote:
Humanity is perhaps the most heterogeneous of all the common races, with a capacity for great evil and boundless good.

It does imply humans average out to Neutral. Which implies a bell curve of some width. I could go all Gaussian but assuming human alignments fit into a Normal distribution is the same error of assumption as calling it "one third".

Math errors aside, my point is there are people who are just Evil. Evil people who sit in the tavern drinking beer discussing local sports teams. Probably fewer Evil people become Villains (of any strength, from mook to BBEG) than LG people become paladins. Are they doing Evil things? Sure! Spreading the rumor that the town harlot has the pox because she turned you down three years ago before she joined that brothel is a fairly Evil thing to do. You're removing her ability to practice her trade and put bread on the table because of something minor that happened three years ago.

[rakshasa]Evil is in the details, my friend. Even Evil people will donate to charity if it means getting all these filthy beggars off my front porch. Killing them is messy, where do you hide the body? Who's going to clean it up? That's work. That's what the servants are for.[/rakshasa]

Contributor

There's also the business where petty virtue and petty vice tend to get magnified when there's a lack of serious saints and sinners, making it so that the guy who waters his ale is classed in same category as the guy who sacrifices virgins in the basement and bathes in their blood.

You can't have it both ways. Either the guy with the petty vice shows up the same shade of "evil" as the mass murderer or else he doesn't and the vast majority of petty vices and virtues aren't enough to keep one from still being basically neutral.

I'm fine with it going either way, but just be consistent about it.


I'd say the 'petty vices' don't even keep you from being Good, let alone Neutral. "Steal from the rich and give to the poor" still involves, you know, stealing. And in fact the guy who coined that phrase in our literary tradition did it via violent holdups at weapons-point. It's safe to assume that those who resisted actually got "the point", too. But Robin Hood is a 'classically good' figure nonetheless.

As far as playing an evil character in a party, it's usually enough to just not start conflicts for the sake of starting them. Start conflicts when there's a reason to that points to your character being evil... but also kinda makes sense. Like questioning if the poor villagers actually have enough money to give you the reward they promised, and asking to see the money or get a downpayment as proof. It's a reasonable suspicion if anyone stops to think about it, but you being the one to act on that suspicion points to your alignment because it makes it clear that you're in it for the reward, not in it for helping people, and also because it shows you don't trust people.

Another way is to simply be uncaring of people outside your party. Advocate strategies that maximize your party's success and minimize their risk, even at the expense of others. Like going 'around' an goblin raiding force to strike at their camps and ambush them on the way back when they're loaded down with plunder and have taken damage from attacking a town, even though that means they'll probably hurt the townspeople in the meantime.


Another example of Evil working with good is in the Dragonlance series. Raistlin. I'm actually surprised he didn't get mentioned earlier.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alexander Sommer wrote:
One idea I've been contemplating is Evil, but a nice guy.

In otherwords the Affably Evil trope?

The Mayor of Sunnydale. Cheerful. Fatherly. Wants to be a giant snake demon. The definitive best example of this trope.


LazarX wrote:
Alexander Sommer wrote:
One idea I've been contemplating is Evil, but a nice guy.

In otherwords the Affably Evil trope?

The Mayor of Sunnydale. Cheerful. Fatherly. Wants to be a giant snake demon. The definitive best example of this trope.

I liked that character. Even at the end his cussing was mild. :D Props to the CG team that modeled his head when he stuck it into the library as the demon.

=====

And no 1/3 of do not glow evil. Nor do 1/3 glow good, nor lawful, nor chaotic. This is because no creature under 5 HD has a visible alignment aura.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dorje Sylas wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Alexander Sommer wrote:
One idea I've been contemplating is Evil, but a nice guy.

In otherwords the Affably Evil trope?

The Mayor of Sunnydale. Cheerful. Fatherly. Wants to be a giant snake demon. The definitive best example of this trope.

I liked that character. Even at the end his cussing was mild. :D

=====

I remember his to do list.

Photo Op.
Groceries..
Assume Absolute Power.

Dorje Sylas wrote:


And no 1/3 of do not glow evil. Nor do 1/3 glow good, nor lawful, nor chaotic. This is because no creature under 5 HD has a visible alignment aura.

Unless of course they are of the Palladinic or Clerical sort.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fallen_Mage wrote:
Another example of Evil working with good is in the Dragonlance series. Raistlin. I'm actually surprised he didn't get mentioned earlier.

Raistlin is a bit off of the beam for the Affably Evil trope or even the Evil trope. Depending on where you look at him in his timeline his alignment changes drastically.


Nebulous_Mistress wrote:
stuffs

Yeah I just wanted to cover the 1/3 part of it -- some reason that part rubbed me wrong mainly since it seemed to be an empirical statement without reason or logic to back it up.


Fallen_Mage wrote:
Another example of Evil working with good is in the Dragonlance series. Raistlin. I'm actually surprised he didn't get mentioned earlier.

I saw Raistlin as someone who sort of transcends the morality scale. Sure, he murdered Gnimsh, sent a bunch of dwarves and humans to their deaths. But, when he was wearing the Red Robes, he tended to the sick and dying. He sealed himself in the Abyss with Takhisis to prevent her coming back, and helped the other gods track down Krynn, later in the series.

But, yes, Raistlin would be a good source of inspiration for an evil character that doesn't screw over the party at every turn.

Scarab Sages

But specifically as a servant of Lamashtu, you might want to just pick one of the Overarching goals of the deity as your character's Secret Agenda. Act like your average neutral adventurer, save when it benefits your agenda. For flavor, throw in the occasional slip, where the Evil shines through the mask.

For Lamashtu:
1)Promote the spread of monsters, the stronger and more bizarre the better.
2) Wipe out the infidels (Monsters) who do not show proper respect.
3) Take an unnatural interest in a teammate such as the Aberrant sorcerer, or the Druid's animal companion.
4) Pose as a follower of another faith and discredit them. Try Pharesma.

Best stick to only one or two of these, subtlety is the idea, at least at first.


Raistlin was neutral for a long time.

just like annakin skywalker, just because you KNOW hes gonna be darth vader (or the most powerful dark mage in the campaign world) doesnt mean he's evil working with good.

I think annakin as a young boy, would have been a good example of chaotic good. In the second movie hes chaotic neutral (imo)

He moves to lawful evil to become darth vader because he's lawful in that he finally sucumbs to rules and regulations, and choses to follow them and evil because they are the wrong ones and the wrong way, and he darn well knows it.

Raistlin is neutral evil, all he cares about is his self and power, nothing else matters.

Water down beer hardly qualifies ones as chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil, murder and destroy for pleasure, they are violently destructive.

watering down beer is dishonest. Not evil. could easily be done by a neutral bartender.

Poisoning the drinks of dwarven patrons because he is prejudice?
hmmm maybe lawful evil?

CE are ogres, red dragons, destructive monsters, and their minions.

can a bartender be CE yes, but its not because he filching you for your watered down beer, but it might be, because his bar is a face for his illegal human trafficking ring that he runs out of the basement and the gladitorial games he holds twice monthly were halflings get fed to crocodiles.


I think the one thing you have to remember is that evil characters don't have to be Jerks.

I played a character bent on amassing power and strength all to carryout one goal: Kill an Arch-mage. The feats I choose, the artifacts I went after were all geared towards this single focus.

99.9% of the time he was a great party member. He was the model team player but when ever he saw a chance to bring himself closer to that goal he took it and left a wake of death and destruction in his path.

I based the character loosely on Edmund Dantes (count of monte cristo) and had a the end justifies the means mentality.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mage Evolving wrote:
I think the one thing you have to remember is that evil characters don't have to be Jerks.

This. A million times this.

Also, as Sniper put it: "A professional has standards. Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

Spoiler:
Also relevant for some evil PC's outlook:

"I'm not a crazed gunman, Dad. I'm an assassin.

...

Well the difference being that one's a job and one's a mental sickness!"


I played a Lamashtu-worshipping Summoner who went with a Neutral party for the sole purpose of finding a specific world-warping artifact. Then, the whole party decided to abandon that quest and become heroes-for-hire in a small town. Staying in character, I had to begin undermining them and trying to get them back on their original quest. I ended up framing them for murders and the like to make them want to leave the town. It didn't go well. Things spiraled into insanity and the players got all paranoid and everyone died. The entire group got more than a little pissed by the chaos I caused. Try not to do something like that. But it was fun, I admit.

Contributor

The trouble is, the crazed gunman and the polite assassin both detect as "evil" with no shades of gray, moral relativism, or even the possibility that "even evil has standards."

You need to either let those with "detect evil" differentiate between shades of gray, or at least know that they're unable to differentiate once someone gets sufficiently bad to ping "evil" but not so sufficiently bad that they run around in a rampage of sex and gore at the slightest provocation.


Hey! Good people can run around in a rampage (though we usually call it an orgy) of sex and (possibly) gore too! Lets not blame those sorts of happenings only on evil people!


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

The trouble is, the crazed gunman and the polite assassin both detect as "evil" with no shades of gray, moral relativism, or even the possibility that "even evil has standards."

You need to either let those with "detect evil" differentiate between shades of gray, or at least know that they're unable to differentiate once someone gets sufficiently bad to ping "evil" but not so sufficiently bad that they run around in a rampage of sex and gore at the slightest provocation.

i thought detect evil had changed anyway, isnt it more if the focus of the spell is plotting evil right now, vs. is generally evil?

I.e. Mr. chaotic evil wizard is petting his familiar and thinking about that day long ago when he first acquired little fluffy 5, the paladin walks in, detects evil and gets nothing, goes about his business. The wizard looks up, recognizes the paladin as having been that squire that a few years back slew his old apprentice and starts plotting what spell to fry him with, and how he can murder his wife and children,now at this point if the paladin tried again, he'd get evil....

vs. the old way in 1e when you detected it was basically an alignment indicator?


Pendagast wrote:

i thought detect evil had changed anyway, isnt it more if the focus of the spell is plotting evil right now, vs. is generally evil?

I.e. Mr. chaotic evil wizard is petting his familiar and thinking about that day long ago when he first acquired little fluffy 5, the paladin walks in, detects evil and gets nothing, goes about his business. The wizard looks up, recognizes the paladin as having been that squire that a few years back slew his old apprentice and starts plotting what spell to fry him with, and how he can murder his wife and children,now at this point if the paladin tried again, he'd get evil....

vs. the old way in 1e when you detected it was basically an alignment indicator?

Kinda, sorta... If the old wizard has an evil alignment and more then 5 HD, or is under an evil spell, then he still shows as evil.

Now say the wizard is chaotic neutral, but the "avenging" the apprentice thing still holds. All that murder and death the wizard is actively plotting makes him count/detect as evil.

It is possible to get false positives now on "[creatures] with actively evil intents." Is that wizard really evil, or does he just really hate you that much?


Great feedback guys, thanks!

I think I'll focus on a few points/ideas posted here.

Firstly to limit his Evil-ness to "killing for pleasure". And when it comes to Lamashtu worshiping monsters, I'll probably announce myself as an Inquisitor of Lamashtu and demand they bow down to my command [being convinced that he is a higher ranking official regardless of who he is addressing (he's stupid)]

I think in general terms I'll have to concentrate on making myself as "required" or "valuable" to the party needs as I can, as others suggested above.

The "beast" thing is a little tricky to pull off as I'm supposed to like beasts/animals. I can't think of a better idea than the "culling the weak" standpoint for getting away with killing beasts/animals, as they are clearly not deformed enough to be allowed to live...

The rest of the party is...
Barbarian [stupid] that has just taken a level in Cleric [Sarenrae]
Bard, Arcane Duelist >> Dragon Disciple
Cleric [Desna]/Sorcerer >> Mystic Theurge

Shadow Lodge

Pendagast wrote:


Water down beer hardly qualifies ones as chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil, murder and destroy for pleasure, they are violently destructive.

watering down beer is dishonest. Not evil. could easily be done by a neutral bartender.

Poisoning the drinks of dwarven patrons because he is prejudice?
hmmm maybe lawful evil?

...

can a bartender be CE yes, but its not because he filching you for your watered down beer, but it might be, because his bar is a face for his illegal human trafficking ring that he runs out of the basement and the gladitorial games he holds twice monthly were halflings get fed to crocodiles.

I agree with this thoughtful assessment.

"Selfish and or dishonest" = Neutral

"Deliberately harms innocents" = Evil

Watered down beer is being sold and drunk in quantity. If that caused harm, it would be a different thing, but as it is it generally boils down to the patron overpaying for their alcohol.

Poison, now that's another matter...


Nebulous_Mistress wrote:
Remember, approximately one third of all humans glow under detect evil. ....

Not in Pathfinder.

Evil under 5th level gets a free pass.


therealthom wrote:
Nebulous_Mistress wrote:
Remember, approximately one third of all humans glow under detect evil. ....

Not in Pathfinder.

Evil under 5th level gets a free pass.

No... it just doesn't have an aura -- it still registers as evil.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mcbobbo wrote:


Watered down beer is being sold and drunk in quantity. If that caused harm, it would be a different thing, but as it is it generally boils down to the patron overpaying for their alcohol.

Poison, now that's another matter...

I actually consider that a low grade of Neutral Evil. Not enough to register on a Paladin's radar though.


Now detect evil seems to not be foolproof. Consider the common house cat. A 4th level paladin walks by a territorial house cat (most cats are quite territorial) and the cat waiting to for an opportunity to pounce at the intruder. The paladin drops detect evil. Does he spot it?

Quote:
Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them. Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.

(emphasis mine)

The cat (an animal) fully intends to attack the paladin (an evil act). So by one sentence the cat should not be detected and by the very next sentence it ought to show up.

RAW it is very easy to fool detect evil as it should be. The BBEG reminiscing about his familiar fluffikins will slide by, yet just about any angry person would crop up. In order for this to reasonably be adjudicated working out how detect good ought to work is necessary. Would the BBEG reminiscing about fluffikins show up on detect good?


The cat does not have an evil intent, it's doing something natural, protecting it's home from perceived invaders. If the paladin was planning on attacking an evil orc raider, does he(the paladin) detect as evil?


Kierato wrote:
The cat does not have an evil intent, it's doing something natural, protecting it's home from perceived invaders. If the paladin was planning on attacking an evil orc raider, does he(the paladin) detect as evil?

I'll twist your example back on you. What if the paladin was planning on attacking what he perceived to be an evil orc raider when it is some one undercover to destroy the evil orc raider base? Does that detect up as evil? There's a lot of danger in defining good/evil along individual perceptive grounds.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Playing Evil All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.