He's for a homebrew setting, and is an NPG antagonist to throw at the PCs. Whether he is neutral or evil is important in case the PCs start casting alignment related spells like protection from evil.
Now, I will first provide some background.
"Up until around fifty years ago in Devaia, arcane magic took several times as long to cast as it now does. Do to this, arcane magic was a rarity, and most arcane spellcasters were witches. Due to the rarity of arcane magic it wasn't seen as trustworthy or moral to use, and witch hunts led by divine spellcasters were highly common. Around a hundred and twenty years ago this attitude towards arcane magic cooled a bit after the church started losing influence, and the study of arcane magic became a good deal more common. About fifty years ago new discoveries in casting methods increased the effectiveness of arcane magic, and the study of arcane magic really took off. Some still vehemently oppose it's use, but it's become fairly common, and doesn't have the stigma it once had."
This inquisitor has been in suspended animation for around two hundred years. Back in his day, arcane magic was rare, mysterious, and seen as irrevocably evil. He grew up in an era where the general opinion of witches, no matter how good they appear to be on the surface, invariably use their magic to harm their neighbors and fulfill their greedy desires. As such, witches had to die, because to leave them alive is to put innocents everywhere in danger.
Now, witches aren't irrevocably evil in this campaign setting, but he doesn't know that. Having emerged from suspended animation, he has seen the mainstreaming of arcane magic and completely flipped out. He feels he must fix this problem for the good of all, and that means stopping rid of the witches. With fire.
Hmm. The thread has disappeared from the thing that shows all the newest threads. Curious.
Inquisitors can use "Detect Evil" (or Good, Law, or Chaos for that matter) at will. There is no excuse for why he would be confused about whether or not a given spellcaster was evil. Likewise, he would not have killed witches in the past that were actually good--only the evil ones, because he can tell, for free.
In games with concrete alignment systems like this, there can be no confusion. No, that's not true, he could be confused by the fact that spellcasters are not all evil. But he absolutely knows that witches aren't irrevocably evil because he can detect it.
So, yeah, he'd probably be Lawful Good.
If you want to run this sort of story, you have to do one of several things:
1) Make sure the guy is not actually and Inquisitor, but is, instead, a class that can't Detect Evil. Perhaps a Ranger with favored enemies in Human, Elf, Dwarf, etc., or houserule in the 3.5 PHB2 Favored Enemy option: Arcane Caster. Then he could be Lawful Neutral or Evil.
2) Give the guy some archetype that replaces his Detect Alignment ability and somehow justify why he never just casts the spell. This would also allow him to be LN or LE.
3) Change the way alignment works, in which case, it really doesn't matter what alignment he is. I think this is your best choice, personally.
mplindustries got a point, till now he would be LN as all he killed was evil, but he will probably soon turn evil if he kills good witches.
I don't allow detect evil, though. Never have. It's way too easy in adventures where I want moral ambiguity. I removed detect alignment as well. I still allow alignment based effects, I just don't allow players to have a magical method of detecting alignments.
He does kill good witches, because he believes that there is no such thing as a good witch.
I don't allow detect evil, though. Never have. It's way too easy in adventures where I want moral ambiguity.
You can't have moral ambiguity in a world of absolute morality. It's not possible. A lack of ambiguity is the entire point of alignments.
Why do you disallow Detect Evil, but allow Protection from Evil? That means there's still no ambiguity, they just have to use context clues instead of a direct spell that tells them.
I don't understand--if you want ambiguity, why use alignment at all?
He does kill good witches, because he believes that there is no such thing as a good witch.
You can't believe that in a world where absolute good and absolute evil exist. There's no room for that unless you're insane. Even if he can't cast Detect Evil (I hope you compensate him somehow), he can use Protection from Evil and realize when he gets no bonus against witches. He can use a Holy weapon and realize it doesn't hurt them. There are dozens of things that might commonly happen that will point to the fact that not all witches are evil.
I am totally serious when I say that this concept makes no sense in the context of Pathfinder's alignment system. However, I am also totally serious when I say that removing alignment completely won't hurt the game in any way whatsoever and will allow for moral ambiguity that actually makes sense. I've never used alignment in any rpg I've ever run or played, and I've never felt like I missed out on anything.
All Inquisitors are Neutral Evil.
All Inquisitors are Neutral Evil.
Surely you jest!
All Inquisitors are Neutral Evil.Surely you jest!
I have GMed one and played in a party with one, and they both were a Good alignment on the sheet. The way they played in game was Evil in both cases. The alignment shift thing was abused in both cases, and I can't see myself taking the class seriously until I either play one myself or play with one who doesn't abuse the shift ability.
Had the game I was GMing not went off the rails, the Inquisitor in the game I ran would have come to a very gruesome end. Good characters do not repeatedly torture and/or kill people they know are only guilty of x by association or ignorance, that is the M.O. of Evil characters.
Hmm. Sounds like those people were working on their own understanding of the alignment system. Perhaps they should actually read the alignments. You can be a good aligned inquisitor who hunts down evil characters relentlessly. You could even go so far to technically torturing good people to do it but there are limits and should only be done in extreme cases. Namely, you can't murder them or permanently harm/disfigure/etc. Secondly, you could only do it after you've taken steps you feel are reasonable to show them that they are somehow protecting/serving evil. I actually enjoy playing the alignments as listed in the book. Perhaps your players should give it a try. :)
If alignment isn't a mystical force in your games-- and thus cannot be detected by spells-- then why do you allow spells that have alignment-based effects? It seems like you're trying to have it both ways here, and it doesn't make sense.
Honestly, if you want moral ambiguity I think pathfinder requires a certain amount of house-ruling too truly be a viable system for that. I mean, we have Angels, living gods, demon lords, magic that operates on the concept of "good/bad" etc.
But yeah, unless he repents in some way he's lawful evil. Think of it this way, if you replaced "arcane spellcaster" for "scientist" all through your back story and you had a inquisitor that murdered scientist just for studying science, would he be a good person, even though in his day all science did was propagate lies, and develop destructive weapons?
For the Inquisitor to be good, he would have to give the witch an opportunity to repent (see: prosecutor in the "Crucible"). You must admit that you made a pact with the devil, or some other evil source for your power (since all such power must be "evil") renounce all arcane magic and name names of your co-conspirators (there are always co-conspirators).
Conversely, to be evil he must not only hunt down all witches, but he must also pursue all suspected witches as well. He will kill any one suspected of being a witch, denying them even the chance to prove that they are not a witch. Under the Lawful Evil entry it states that "He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion."
For LN, he would be very precise and objective. He would require hard proof that you are a witch. But if proven, you must die, because being a witch is illegal. It doesn't matter if you're a "good" witch, he would execute a witch just as fast as he would execute Robin Hood, because they have broken the law and that's what you do with law breakers. BUT, and this is big, he must execute them in a humane manor. No running them through or slitting their throats and watching them bleed out. Only beheadings and hangings, those are considered humane in a medieval setting. If they are tortured then you become evil.
just my 2 cents
Ignoring the arguments about alignment systems and what not and to help you out Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert I suggest this.
You may want to push your Inquisitor to have already started down the path of being unhinged. Even with Detect Evil the Inquisitor could truly believe that Arcane spellcasters can hide their "true nature" (alignment) and given that several can that's not to much out of context. I lead it to be LN with this bent.
Now if you wanted you can easily play the character off as doing nothing but standing up for the greater good. In which case this NPC may whole heartedly believe that "Yes, there are good witches in the world, but with such power they will succumb to evil. It's my duty to prevent that, even if that means killing them for the greater good."
In the end I would probably say that your NPC will be LE due to actions but they could easily believe that they are a great force for good. Given that the NPC kills Arcane Users indiscriminately he probably has done both great good and evil, you can still push towards evil because it chances are the NPC has killed innocents in their crusade.
Sorry if I assume to much for your game. Good luck with it and hope this little bit helps.
It depends on how you want the party to interact with him.
In other words, do you want the player to be able to use their alignment spells on this guy or not?
Would adventures in which he's being dealt with deal with him heading an organization of likeminded people? Or a singular man-hunt?
His opinion is just as valid as yours and Kelsey's
While his point was expressed in a very aggressive and off-putting manner, it does still stand that the inquisitor would find ways of figuring out if a particular arcane caster was evil or not. (and arcane casters do need to spend more resources and prepare/learn spells that mask alignment) And in such a world, the Inquisitor would have a much harder time being non-evil if he went around killing good people.
I would also like to mention that it's up to the GM to arbit what is ultimately good/evil in their book. I'm fairly lax with alignment, I still keep the system, and use its toys, because it has some fun mechanical implications. However, if you're being GM'd by James Jacobs, know that he has a very strict understanding of what is and isn't considered good or evil in the Golarion Setting, and when Kelsey asked him on how she handled her paladin, he concluded that it was a very solidly chaotic act, but not one that would shift her alignment depending on how the character played out.
|
I like to assess matters of Alignment based on what is in the RAW (pages 166-168 of the CRB).
The Good-Evil axis is heavily based on how you treat "innocent life".
Since your Inquisitor apparently does not "debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit", I would not peg him Evil.
Concerning his treatment of Good witches, he may believe that they are not innocent anymore, and likely bound to become greatly Evil when they gain in power. Thus he does not see killing them as an Evil act per se. He may even believe with the utmost sincerity that he is saving their Good, though misguided, souls before they are damned. That is, if he does not merely judge that a witch who appears as "Good" (even on Detect alignment) has merely found a way to deceive even the holy servants of the gods.
Note also that Good does not equate to "innocent". I know a LOT of Good PCs who are very far from innocent. Killing Good people is not always an Evil act.
|
|
You can't have moral ambiguity in a world of absolute morality. It's not possible. A lack of ambiguity is the entire point of alignments.
Wow, you just put a definite end to all those Paladin and Alignment threads out there (and those who were bound to happen in the future). Who knew it would be so easy ?
You can't have moral ambiguity in a world of absolute morality. It's not possible. A lack of ambiguity is the entire point of alignments.Wow, you just put a definite end to all those Paladin and Alignment threads out there (and those who were bound to happen in the future). Who knew it would be so easy ?
No, there can still be lots of threads about "what alignment should X be." Alignment is tricky for the GM/Players to adjucate. However, what's decided upon, it becomes fact.
Detect Evil, Protection from Evil, Holy Word, etc., all function absolutely. If something is factually evil, it works. When someone can Detect Evil, they know, absolutely, if something is evil or not.
When someone can use Protection from Evil, they know, as well, but they have to wait for the thing in question to attack them to test the AC bonus.
There is quite a bit of moral ambiguity in the Alignment rules, but there can be none in the world, if Alignment is actually used.
And for the record, I was suggesting the Inquisitor would have to be insane to hold his stance despite having access to factual proof that Witches are not all evil. I was never intending to imply any GM/player would be insane.
The simplest thing to do is, if you want him to have this outlook, make him CN or CE or LN or LE. Then simply call him insane.
Seriously, insanity can manifest as either utter chaos (Joker) or an irrational adherence to rules (Two-Face). Then he won't even bother to cast detect alignment spells, he'll just hunt down every witch and kill them, their families, their close friends, and for good measure the guy who groomed their horse last week, just in case.
You can justify a non-evil alignment for the same reason a Paladin doesn't become evil if he's mind controlled into killing an orphanage. He is not in control of his own actions, the insanity has taken over. So while he's doing evil, he's not actually evil, just sick. Doesn't mean he doesn't need to be put down like a rabid dog.
For that matter, you could make it a tumor on the brain or a curse or a supernatural version of rabies. All of them work and cover someone who's of any alignment acting evil.
Seems to me this is the type of Inquisitor that doesn't care about alignment. They are focused on hunting arcane casters in particular witches. It's not that the witch is evil or good that matter it's that they are accessing powers from sources unknown and powers corrupt. So as good as witch is today doesn't mean they won't be corrupted years from now and cause unknown harm to innocents. It's a belief system he is lawfully adhering to so definitely a Lawful Alignment here. The Inquisitor has the well being of others in mind in his Inquisition against witches so I wouldn't think he is evil but killing good witches means he definitely is not good either. So Lawful Neutral it is in my opinion.
When someone can Detect Evil, they know, absolutely, if something is evil or not.
I beg to differ. Detect (Alignment) registers on various things, actually adhering to the alignment in question being only one of them.
Someone casting Detect Chaos on my Cleric of Desna would perceive a strong chaotic aura. Does this mean she is chaotic? (Note: was NG last time I checked)
Back to the original topic: Id's say things depend on what is said inquisitor willing to do to get towards is goal. If he is willing to sacrifice the very ones he claims to protect, only to get his hands on the witches he hunts, he's straying from LN into LE. In my opinion, at least.
All Inquisitors are Neutral Evil.Surely you jest!I have GMed one and played in a party with one, and they both were a Good alignment on the sheet. The way they played in game was Evil in both cases. The alignment shift thing was abused in both cases, and I can't see myself taking the class seriously until I either play one myself or play with one who doesn't abuse the shift ability.
Had the game I was GMing not went off the rails, the Inquisitor in the game I ran would have come to a very gruesome end. Good characters do not repeatedly torture and/or kill people they know are only guilty of x by association or ignorance, that is the M.O. of Evil characters.
I have to disagree, but it might only be because the person playing the inquisitor in our game is perhaps the best player I've ever gamed with. He is incredibly adept at interrogation and gets by on the threat of torture, like laying out his tools before asking questions. He recently coerced an Ulfen into talking by threatening to 'cut off his hands and feet, put him in a pink dress and parade him through town in a giant baby carriage.' When the Ulfen laughed he had him put to sleep and then brought in his sorcerer. After tying off his hands and feet so they'd go numb, he put him in a giant pink dress and had the sorcerer Major Image the table he was on into a giant baby carriage while making his hands invisible. Once the Ulfen failed his Will save the GM just laughed and had him spill the beans (once he stopped freaking out and was told that MAYBE we had a healer good enough to restore him).
Long story long, our inquisitor is easily LN and probably shades toward LG. It's possible.
When someone can Detect Evil, they know, absolutely, if something is evil or not.I beg to differ. Detect (Alignment) registers on various things, actually adhering to the alignment in question being only one of them.
Someone casting Detect Chaos on my Cleric of Desna would perceive a strong chaotic aura. Does this mean she is chaotic? (Note: was NG last time I checked)
Yeah, the cleric serving a differently aligned god thing. Ok, but we're talking about Arcane casters here. They do not project a confusing aura. If they are evil and over 5HD, they have an evil aura. Otherwise, they don't. Simple as that.
Plus, you have to be within one step of the deity. So, even using the one exception, if someone detects as Good, then they cannot be Evil, they can be, at worst, neutral. At some point if there really were any Good witches, either the Inquisitor would realize that not all witches are evil, or he'd go insane and stop trusting Detect spells, at which point, his alignment is some sort of neutral, probably CN.
|
Just because this particular inquisitor could detect evil does not mean he will. He is described as a fanatic who sees non-divine spell use as evil.
Inquisitor: Hey. She's a witch. Well that's the stake for you miss.
Witch: But I was healing this little child. I help everyone in the neighborhood.
Inquisitor: Now where did I put my witch burning kit.
Just because this particular inquisitor could detect evil does not mean he will. He is described as a fanatic who sees non-divine spell use as evil.
I think you're approaching this from a real world perspective, which makes sense, but doesn't really work in the context of a game with rigidly defined morality like Pathfinder.
You can't "see non-divine spell use as evil." Evil is defined, it means something, and it is objective.
You might want to kill arcane spellcasters, and you might think that killing them is the best thing to do. I get that. But if you feel that way, and not all witches are evil, then you can't think you're good without being insane.
People that are Evil, and who are aware of Alignment the way a divine caster would be, would never be confused about what constitutes Evil and Good.
The Inquisitor described here could be Evil. He could, I never denied that. I only stated the Inquisitor could not be both sane and confused about what is and isn't Evil.
Inquisitor: Hey. She's a witch. Well that's the stake for you miss.
Witch: But I was healing this little child. I help everyone in the neighborhood.
Inquisitor: Now where did I put my witch burning kit.
Witch: I'm not evil. Look, I'll prove it. Here is a Protection from Evil spell, which does not work on me. Here, I can step in and out of a Circle of Protection from Evil. Here are a dozen other things I can do to prove I am not Evil.
Non-Insane, Non-Evil Inquisitor: Oh, let me Detect Good to double check. Hmm, you're right. I've been wrong all along.
Insane Inquisitor (who thus basically defies alignment but is probably Chaotic Neutral): LIES! DIE AT THE STAKE WITCH PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER!
Lawful Evil Inquisitor: Yes, that's nice. I know you're not evil, because I am, but I still hate spellcasters and will still kill you, you know, because.
|
|
You are missing the point. He views arcane magic use as inherently evil. I am not talking detect evil or alignments here. The witch in your examples is obviously using her evil arcane magic tricks to try and fool him ( by his viewpoint). You can detect good and still be worthy of burning at the stake for breaking the divine law he enforces.
Does that make him evil...almost certainly. Does that make him crazy? No. I see him as lawful evil. Lawful in that he is enforcing the law. Not current law but the law.
He might start LN but will veer quickly to evil after a few good witches are burned.
You are missing the point. He views arcane magic use as inherently evil. I am not talking detect evil or alignments here. The witch in your examples is obviously using her evil arcane magic tricks to try and fool him ( by his viewpoint). You can detect good and still be worthy of burning at the stake for breaking the divine law he enforces.
I think we're talking past each other here. You're using "evil" to mean, "contrary to what the character favors." I am using it to mean "objectively Evil based on the rules."
Since Evil is objective in Pathfinder, I do not find it helpful to use the term for subjective things.
I think you (and the original poster) are ascribing to the "Evil people don't think they are evil" belief, and that works well in the real world, but it doesn't so much in Pathfinder where Evil is objective.
He can totally think that Good witches are worthy of being burned at the stake for breaking laws. But he can't think they are Evil without being insane--because they are objectively not, and he (and his Church) have easy access to proof of that fact. So, he would know he was Evil, himself, but could still consider being Evil the correct thing to be.
And there would be no mistaking this religion for a Good one. Killing Good witches for witchcraft is objectively Evil, so the deity this religion worshipped would be Evil. Well, it would be either Evil or clerics and Paladins would routinely be losing access to their powers. So, the Chuch that takes objectively Evil actions would be an objectively Evil organization following an objectively Evil deity. It would be obvious as soon as their clerics lacked the ability to Channel positive energy.
Does that make him evil...almost certainly. Does that make him crazy? No. I see him as lawful evil. Lawful in that he is enforcing the law. Not current law but the law.
I would accept LE, or Crazy. But he could not be LE without knowing for a fact that he was LE and that what he did was Evil and that witches were not universally Evil. I said, and stand by the fact that, in order for this Inquisitor to be confused about what is Good and what is Evil, he would need to be insane. If he's not confused, then he's Evil.
Lawful Neutral at the very worst, if not even Lawful Good. He kills witches. Paladins kill orcs and demons. Since witches WERE evil in his time, he was acting as Lawful Good, protecting the innocent. His core character, his personality, is a protector. If he is confused in the present and attacks a witch because he doesn't know that times change, he is still good in his core. Or neutral, if it was just his job to hunt witches and he didn't care about the people he protected. He may be wrong, he may be flawed, he may make a mistake and cause a misunderstanding, but his alignment does not simply switch.
He does not enjoy causing as much pain, sorrow and suffering as possible for the witches for personal gratification, correct? Then he is not evil.
Likewise, one who takes pleasure in torturing demons is also evil for the fact that they enjoy causing suffering and death. Hell, demons attack each other in the Abyss more often than they attack mortals.
|
Lawful Neutral(willfully following orders and dogma despite compassion) inquisitor, but hell-bent to the edge of obsession over making sure witches won't stay alive to practice their foul craft. I'd actually give him an insanity, perhaps one of the GMG ones that best reflects the kind of psychotic episodes he must have in order to see witchcraft as evil nevermind how just and orderly the rest of the world seems despite arcane magic running wild. He has yet to grasp the reality of the times and will face charges and perhaps excommunication if he keeps at it. Maybe losing his powers will shock him to action eventually.
I don't like the thought of alignments being absolute. Even a Neutral Evil father can still love his children and feel compassion. It's a different thing whether he will let it stop himself from poisoning the neighbour's dog for messing the flower garden every week. Chaotic Evil preacher of Gorum leading an orphanage? Sure. The children will probably grow up all twisted, but he'll likely still defend them to death. Lawful Evil wizard terminating a deal because it would endanger his longtime mates? Unlikely, but possible. There are other ways to power(or lichdom) and betraying everyone would be terribly bothersome.
Yeah, my idea of alignment doesn't really mesh with the system. Korgan was so awesome in BG 2 that my perspective forever shifted. Not to mention, I'd probably detect as Neutral Evil given enough levels. :P