is it evil to do evil to evil if you do it to help the good, i had the idea of a character who fights for good and to save the lives of the innocent but fights evil using what ever tactics necessary.
is it evil to do evil to evil if you do it to help the good, i had the idea of a character who fights for good and to save the lives of the innocent but fights evil using what ever tactics necessary.
It's not necessarily "evil" but it's usually definitely not "good." It depends on what you mean by "whatever tactics necessary." Is it evil to torture a man who you know has planted an atomic bomb in the city but won't tell you where it is? Philosophers have debated this sort of moral conundrum for thousands of years.
In general alignment terms, if you do something like murder a suspected murderer, that's an evil act even if you think you are doing "good" by doing it. In that sense the ends do not justify the means.
However, torturing a captive to learn of their genocidal plans may or may not be evil. It's certainly not "good" but it may well be "neutral."
There's no easy answer to this question. There never has been.
The ends do not justify the means IS the simple answer to this question.
You can't do good by doing evil, because evil is intent.
That doesn't mean your anti-hero can't be a sympathetic or even tragic figure. He can.
And it also does not preclude somebody simply doing what he has to do to save himself or somebody else. We don't call our veterans evil for killing enemy combatants, because they did it without malice (the military is careful to drill that into soldiers and to monitor those that are slipping) and because it's what they had to do. It would be evil if they liked it and sought it out to fulfill some sick urge.
But if you do something evil, that is to say, if you do something with malice aforethought, then it is evil. Nothing good can come from the deception involved in hiding what you've done from others, from yourself, etc.
I think you have to ask yourself what constitutes evil in the first place. Jack Bauer has done some pretty awful, terrible things. We tell ourselves he does them to protect his country, and we bargain with ourselves to like him, anyway. And we do like him, because he's tragic. He started out meaning well, and he fell from grace. But really, he's done some unforgivable things.
is this a trick question to justify non-paladin behavior for a paladin? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the difference between Evil and Villainy.
An anti-hero, who acts Heroically, can still act and be of evil alignment. For example, Rorschach from the Watchmen, who tortures and murders without remorse, but still ultimately serves the cause of "good". Or the Inglorious Basterds, from Tarantino's movie.
Similarly, a Villain doesn't have to be evil. If you watched the series Angel, the vampire hunter Holtz is a good example. Or a misguided group of good monks who zealously guard a powerful artifact that you require in order to defeat evil, but won't be swayed to give it up due to the powers it could unleash.
If your idea is for an evil Hero - that's great. That's called an anti-hero. The down side is most people don't know how to roleplay that fine line, and since you're pretty much walking on that tight rope, you can fall into NPC-dom and true villainy really easily. I'd consult with your GM prior to busting into the table with this character, and make sure you know where the GM draws the lines between "heroic bastard" and "villain".
|
There is a difference between
1) "I am a Heroic Character with an Evil Alignment"
and
2) "I am a Villain or a Sociopath or a Prick".
A "Heroic Character who is evil" requires permission from everyone in the group, including the GM, because it can make people uncomfortable and often leads to the party destroying itself (yes, there are exceptions, but anyone who's been playing long enough has seen "poorly RPed evil" and what it does to groups).
For the record, a Paladin should also require permission from everyone in the group, because they close off choices/options that some players/characters prefer to use.
im looking at playing an Inquisitor who is willing to do most anything but only to evil creatures or people, he would never harm or allow to be harmed innocent people, he fights to protect them and keep them safe but there is no line he wont cross to do this.
i don't have a problem if that makes him evil i just need to know his alignment, basically if evil does it he is willing to do it to evil.
|
The correct answer is....
If the player running the PC explains why it's evil then it IS evil.
If the player running the PC justifies why it's not evil then it's NOT evil
End.
of.
story.
Whenever a DM tries to force his or her individual ideas of the Alignments on the PCs, he or she is guilty of Railroading.
Railroading is bad.
If you Railroad your players you're bad.
It's the DM's job to come up with problems for the PCs to solve.
It's the Players' job to come up with solutions.
im looking at playing an Inquisitor who is willing to do most anything but only to evil creatures or people, he would never harm or allow to be harmed innocent people, he fights to protect them and keep them safe but there is no line he wont cross to do this.
i don't have a problem if that makes him evil i just need to know his alignment, basically if evil does it he is willing to do it to evil.
Can you give us more background? Like what god? By everything...do you mean everything? Is there really a line he won't cross? How does he determine innocence? What about doing harm to innocencent people to save more incocent people?
I mean all we have are generaliets....saying there is not a line he won't cross...is pretty ambigious...as we all have different defination.
Personaly I think it is a character who might start out as good...but over time starts to become neutral or even evil. But than agin most of my characters change alignment though out their career...it just makes sense to me.
im looking at playing an Inquisitor who is willing to do most anything but only to evil creatures or people, he would never harm or allow to be harmed innocent people, he fights to protect them and keep them safe but there is no line he wont cross to do this.
i don't have a problem if that makes him evil i just need to know his alignment, basically if evil does it he is willing to do it to evil.
I think it would be hard to justify a good alignment for this character (although you could make a case for CG depending on what "anything" means), but I can certainly see him being some type of neutral. In the end, you should work this out with your GM during character creation. Describe to him your character concept, then ask for suggestions for alignment and the types of behavior that would be consistent with those alignments.
The correct answer is....
If the player running the PC explains why it's evil then it IS evil.
If the player running the PC justifies why it's not evil then it's NOT evilEnd.
of.
story.Whenever a DM tries to force his or her individual ideas of the Alignments on the PCs, he or she is guilty of Railroading.
Railroading is bad.
If you Railroad your players you're bad.
It's the DM's job to come up with problems for the PCs to solve.
It's the Players' job to come up with solutions.
Whoa there, buddy. This is an extremely limited vision of the GM's role, and a definite expansion of player power. May work for you, but I'd hate that style of play, whether I was GMing or playing. Someone needs to be in charge at the table on rules issues, and alignment interpretation is a rules issue, given that many spells, abilities, etc. depend n alignment. Alignment issues should be discussed between the GM and the players, and consensus arrived at as to what alignment means in any individual campaign and what types of actions are consistent with that alignment, with the understanding that alignment isn't a straightjacket, and occasonally characters will do things that don't match their alignment perfectly. The GM should listen to all input, but have final say if there is disagreement.
well i cant pick my deity until i figure my alignment but i want him to be able to work well with good characters, they may not always agree with what he does, by no means is he a monster that they should fear. as long as his foe is evil then murder and torture and blackmail are all things my character would be fine doing to them but only if it is a means to an end, he doesn't go around torturing evil things just for fun.
|
|
im looking at playing an Inquisitor who is willing to do most anything but only to evil creatures or people, he would never harm or allow to be harmed innocent people, he fights to protect them and keep them safe but there is no line he wont cross to do this.
i don't have a problem if that makes him evil i just need to know his alignment, basically if evil does it he is willing to do it to evil.
Still evil.
Just because he only does bad things to Evil Creatures does not make his actions any less Evil. If he's willing to do anything it takes, he's evil, even if he only restricts himself to Evil targets.
While I dislike playing the rape card, I think it works here: a Rapist who only Rapes other Rapists isn't any less of a Rapist. A person who will do "whatever it takes" to only Evil Creatures isn't exactly on the moral high ground.
this is true and like i have said i don't have any problems with this character being evil if that is what his alignment has to be, i just wanted to get some opinions of his alignment. to see if anyone thought he could count as neutral
this is true and like i have said i don't have any problems with this character being evil if that is what his alignment has to be, i just wanted to get some opinions of his alignment. to see if anyone thought he could count as neutral
Curious...what your DM stance on all of this. I mean asking us is mostly useless if the DM is a black or white kinda of guy.
Have you discussed this with the DM yet? If so what has he said about this? Or if you have played with this DM before...how does he treat alignments?
i wanted to figure out his alignment first before i talk to my GM, honestly my one concern is if there is a Paladin in the party which i don't know yet.
i dont really know how he feels about alignment really
i wanted to figure out his alignment first before i talk to my GM, honestly my one concern is if there is a Paladin in the party which i don't know yet.
i dont really know how he feels about alignment really
Ok I would go with probably neutral(maybe Lawful or true...depending). But be prepared to change this with what the DM says.
If this is a new group to you...I probably would not bring a complex character like you are talking about till you get to know them better..and they get to know you better.
It depends on how the player of the Paladin plays the Paladin..and howe the D?M also plays it. It could cause alot of trouble...or really great RP...it all depends.
For PF's Creative Director's opinion go here.
So… if you as the player think your character is doing evil things, then it’s evil to do those things. If you as the player do not think your character is doing evil things, but the GM does, then it’s still evil to do those things.
It’s been said many times before and I agree. Committing evil acts does not immediately change a character’s alignment.
But if it’s a core part of the characters personality as you describe, then yep you’re probably evilly aligned. Though if you balance it out with a roughly equal amount of ‘good’ actions and character traits, you may be able to pull of Neutral.
He's still essentially evil, possibly Lawful Evil because ultimately his concern while it may have started to protect the "innocent" devolved into getting the truth out no matter what the collateral damage results even if that damage is apocalyptical in scope. Rhorshack IS a killer, a murderer, only his targets aren't that objectionable to his readers.This is the difference between Evil and Villainy.
An anti-hero, who acts Heroically, can still act and be of evil alignment. For example, Rorschach from the Watchmen, who tortures and murders without remorse, but still ultimately serves the cause of "good".
The last part of this could be applied to the legal system as well. All the collateral damage and what not makes him chaotic, and Rhorshack is also most definitely a sociopath no doubt about that. I would however argue that the legal system puts people to death or imprisons them indefinitely all for the sake of the greater good and the innocent. I think just from a point of reference the standard legal system (say one we find in the current US or Europe) would be as a whole LN.
I would also argue that you could make an argument that the inquisitor in question would also be LN. Alignment is on some levels a personal thing, although it gets tricky because it also requires a sane mind. However if you are upholding a code that care neither about good or evil, and is there to protect the innocent then that seems neutral to me. If you take glee in the pain and suffering you cause when doing "whatever is necessary" however, then you fall more into LE or NE.
First, LazarX - that's exactly my point. Rorshach is a hero who is of evil alignment. (And I would say extreme lawful evil at that, to the point where he's almost wrapping back around to CE, but that's a different thread.)
Timothy - have you ever played Planescape, or read any of its works? In it there is a faction called the Mercykillers, and you can see through the Mercykillers' eyes all three versions of "justice".
Lawful Evil justice locks you up, throws away the key, or hangs you from the leafless tree for the merest offense. Lawful Neutral justice metes out appropriate punishment for the appropriate crime - it's less a question of punishment so much as it is a question of balance. Lawful Good justice seeks to rehabilitate and conform.
Doesn't really steal away from the fact that you can be evil, and still play a heroic character.
The answer to your question is this: The ends do not justify the means.
The answer to your question is this: The ends do not justify the means.
My friend put it another way: “Good characters don’t murder a baby Osama Bin Laden that’s what the Neutral ones are for.”
That is ‘too black and white’ for some people, but it works for me as a rule of thumb. In a game with alignments like those found in PF (these can be houseruled away of course) it is necessary to define Good and Evil actions. There should be wiggle-room and there is going to be a range of gray, but a purely relativist approach just doesn’t work.
There is a difference between
1) "I am a Heroic Character with an Evil Alignment"
and
2) "I am a Villain or a Sociopath or a Prick".
This. In Pathfinder terms, I'm an Evil character but I am loyal to my friends and generally believe in protecting the institutions of society. I would willingly adventure with a Good party for as long as our goals were compatible and they were willing to tolerate my company.
In the right company and under the right circumstances, I could be a hero despite my Evil alignment. I'd be a productive member of an adventuring party, and the constraints of working with Good allies would moderate my Evil tendencies.
A "Heroic Character who is evil" requires permission from everyone in the group, including the GM, because it can make people uncomfortable and often leads to the party destroying itself...
Absolutely. An Evil person behaving Evilly creates party tension from Good characters, and the ability of the group to resolve that tension varies from group to group. Groups with new members should probably play similarly aligned-- and generally Good-- characters until they've measured their ability to cope with inter-character tension.
For the record, a Paladin should also require permission from everyone in the group, because they close off choices/options that some players/characters prefer to use.
This, a thousand times this. I've seen more groups broken by an inflexible Paladin player than by Evil PCs.
I prefer group character creation - that is, the entire group creates characters in a sitting, instead of everyone creating a character and then coming into a session cold.
I don't think people should ask permission to play something - Evil, paladin. (Actually, I do think that players should ask the GM for permission to play evil, but not the other players.) But the players should find a way to work out why their characters would, in the face of otherwise destructive conflict, choose to associate.
For example: The evil character and the paladin in the same party? They could be siblings. The paladin clearly disapproves of his evil twin's behavior, but he's not going to be killing his brother cold either. (Remember, in Pathfinder, you could associate with evil, so long as you take your atonement pills.)
|
|
Whoa there, buddy. This is an extremely limited vision of the GM's role
I'll have to consider this.
Up front I'd completely agree at least that the DM needs to "be in charge" of rules issues. And, of course, that the DM should "listen to all input" (I'd add that the DM should be an "active part" in an "open dialog") and then "have final say."
I guess my earlier post is a reaction as much to the "typical Alignment discourse" here on the Boards where we all promote our views of Lawful and Chaotic actions and personalities -- views that are ultimately subjective, as it is to the OP.
With Crunch rules, though, it's easy to reference the Core Rulebook and decide whether your game is RAW or not. With Alignment you can't do that.
. . . .
Thinking it through a bit, I don't agree that Alignment is a "rules issue" here. I don't think that Dictum, Blasphemy, Detect Evil and such cause these kinds of issues -- and I think that in cases where Atonement is needed and Class powers are lost, the DM must tread carefully with metagaming considerations.
I posit that one can't take away a Player's ability to play the game just because the DM feels a Paladin can never do "x" and the Player feels that "in this case" the Paladin can sometimes do "x." That ruins the game (Of course, I see that what I'm really saying here is that it "ruins my style of game" and can't be an absolute.).
Nonetheless, I still feel that a DM who has an "absolute" definition of what the LG PC can and cannot do is the same as railroading, which is bad DMing.
Finally, though I think this should go without saying, I point out that these "Alignment issues" are the ones that are shades of gray -- not black and white. Now, as far as when the shade of gray gets too close to either black or white to still be considered a shade of grey, well, that's when the DM and Player must have the "open dialog" I mentioned earlier and, yes, you're right, the DM must have "final say" and "be in charge."
I posit that one can't take away a Player's ability to play the game just because the DM feels a Paladin can never do "x" and the Player feels that "in this case" the Paladin can sometimes do "x." That ruins the game (Of course, I see that what I'm really saying here is that it "ruins my style of game" and can't be an absolute.).
Nonetheless, I still feel that a DM who has an "absolute" definition of what the LG PC can and cannot do is the same as railroading, which is bad DMing.
For me, that attitude just lends to confusion in a game with PF alignments. If an action is something that the player argues is generally evil except for in certain cases, then it rounds up to evil. It’s an evil action. If the player argues an action is neutral – the circumstances determine if it’s good, evil, or just plain neutral – and the GM disagrees about what that action means in ‘x’ situation, it’s the character’s job to navigate the world, not vice versa. That’s not railroading that’s making players’/characters’ choices mean something.
Alignments don’t have to be ‘rules’ for the GM to have final say. Alignments are an intrinsic part of the setting which is under the domain of the GM.
It’s a difference of play style, I agree. It’s just IMO, if that’s the play style you enjoy it makes more sense to house rule the alignment system. Just remove them all together or use some other character personality and setting morality system(s). Most other RPGs that I’ve seen (D&D is the exception :P) don’t use an ‘alignment system’ very similar to PF’s, and I don’t have to tell you why. :)
All that said, I completely agree with you about GM’s being open minded, having a dialog, and putting a player’s (and the players’) fun before their precious, precious creation or ideals.
is it evil to do evil to evil if you do it to help the good, i had the idea of a character who fights for good and to save the lives of the innocent but fights evil using what ever tactics necessary.
One thing you should keep in mind is that no one imagines themselves as "evil." I'm sure even the evil queen of Cheliax believes she's the hero of her people. If you can come up with a character who does evil things, but you can understand and even agree with their motivations then you've done a great job at creating a villain or anti-hero.
|
|
Hmmm, it's certainly food for thought, Opal.
I'm not sure, though that I completely understand what you and Brian are saying, nor am I sure that what I'm saying is coming across clearly.
So let me put out an recent example in my game, hopefully so you can see my opinion:
The party Paladin Detects that 1/2 of the dozen recently hired henchmen are evil while the other half are not. With the consensus of the party he separates the henchmen into 2 groups.
Then the party has a dilemma -- what to do with the evil group? They hired them for a job; firing them and letting them leave is okay. Everyone agrees that easily.
Is murdering them?
The party as a whole feels that it's "Not Good" (and it shouldn't matter if the DM feels one way or the other; the Players (LG Pallys and others) have discussed it amongst themselves in-game and come up with an answer they're satisfied with.).
(This seems no different to me than situations where the party decides whether they should storm the castle or not, make camp here or there, or disguise themselves and mingle or just hide. Whatever the Players come up with is okay).
Is staging or manipulating a situation where the PCs see the evil group do something evil -- just to have a justification for killing them -- okay?
The Paladin talks it through with the other PCs (who remain neutral on the matter) and decides it would be okay to manipulate a situation like that and if the NPCs who detect as evil commit an evil act that the PCs are witness to, then the Pally can kill them.
Again, the DM's opinion should not matter here. The PC running the Pally thought it through, talked it through, and came up with an answer based on his feeling of the Alignment.
If the party fires the Henchmen and lets them leave, the henchmen are likely gonna go out and commit evil acts. Should the PCs pause their current goals to follow them???
And whatever the LG PC and other PCs decide to do should be allowed.
If they let them go then the DM can make one of those NPCs grow into Hitler -- that's a reasonable DM action -- NOT taking away the Pally's abilities and making him get an Atonement.
-------------------------
Take a similar situation and apply it to kobolds who surrender instead of human henchmen the PCs hire. Again, whatever the Players (usually Pallys & Clerics) work out themselves as to what is or is not "good" or LG should be acceptable by the DM.