Evil character with good group

[Maxximilius]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What you're doing makes the paladin completely, totally, and utterly unplayable in the game. Its bad dming.

...

Your assertion that said evil has to actually be witnessed

1) is not raw
2) is not rai
3) has absolutely zero support
4) Doesn't even prevent the problem. For all you know that person dual wielding vorpal swords in the orphanage is under the effect of a magic jar.

I'm playing a paladin. Not having any problem with it. Didn't have any when I was DMing either, so please don't make assumptions.

Also, could you be so kind as to quote where I said "evil has to actually be witnessed" ?
By RAW, an evil character radiates evil. Does the evil character actually DO evil things, or are people talking s%%~ about said character, in which case you are executing a dick, yes, but an innocent one ?
Paladinhood isn't all about SMITY things. Also, "Lawful", not "blind evil grinder".

[BigNorseWolf]

Maxximilius wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What you're doing makes the paladin completely, totally, and utterly unplayable in the game. Its bad dming.

...

Your assertion that said evil has to actually be witnessed

1) is not raw
2) is not rai
3) has absolutely zero support
4) Doesn't even prevent the problem. For all you know that person dual wielding vorpal swords in the orphanage is under the effect of a magic jar.

Quote:

I'm playing a paladin. Not having any problem with it. Didn't have any when I was DMing either, so please don't make assumptions.

I highly doubt this. I don't think we're talking about the same thing here at all.

Quote:

Also, could you be so kind as to quote where I said "evil has to actually be witnessed" ?

That's what you objected to.

Quote:

By RAW, an evil character radiates evil. Does the evil character actually DO evil things, or are people talking s#*% about said character, in which case you are executing a dick, yes, but an innocent one ?

As stated above, there are brain eating zombies running around the town. So someone did something evil, and chances are pretty good the guy at the crime scene with the shovel holding the sign that says "necromancer" with the name "evil" sewn into his underwear is the one you want to deal with.

Quote:

Paladinhood isn't all about SMITY things. Also, "Lawful", not "blind evil grinder".

And its not all flowers, sunshine, and never ever hurting anyone. no matter what. Somewhere between the two extremes you need to give the paladin, and indeed, any good character, the ability to act on a reasonable amount of available evidence. The person looking to play an evil person in the group needs to to keep that in mind and get at least plausible deniability, not "ha ha you didn't see me you can't do anything"

[Trainwreck]

I think one of the most believable ways to play an evil character is as someone who goes through life trying to lead a good life, but who will resort to evil acts if he or she believes such acts to be the only way out of a dangerous situation.

In other words, John the adventurer is a pretty decent guy. He's kind to his friends and family, thinks of himself as a basically good person, and certainly wants others to think of him in this way.

Most days, he just tries not to think about the winter when he and a companion got trapped by a heavy snowstorm in a cabin with limited food. It ended up being close to a month before the snow let up enough to allow for an escape, and if the two of them had tried to share the small supply of trail rations they had with them, both would have starved. Sure, John regrets what he did, but it's not that he's an evil person-- he was just put in a situation that forced him to do what he did. He had to think of his family-- who was going to take care of them if he didn't survive? And besides, the other guy was planning to do the same thing to John...

Played like this, a character is only going to reveal his evil nature when his back is truly up against the wall.

When the paladin detects the presence of evil in him, it going to play more like this: "I sense the stain of past evil deeds in John's heart, and I fear he has the potential to commit such acts again."

At this point, it would be perfectly reasonable for the paladin to wish to keep John at his side in order to "save him from himself"-- recognizing that John is too weak on his own to resist falling into sin.

[BigNorseWolf]

Trainwreck wrote:

Played like this, a character is only going to reveal his evil nature when his back is truly up against the wall.

That sounds more like a neutral person who did an evil thing.

[Axebeard]

It sounds to me like you're using the dice as an excuse to play an evil character, which will eventually turn into an excuse to attack the party or play in a disruptive manner, and that you started this thread to get someone else to justify it.

The decision you make going forward will let the group know which is more important to you: Their fun or yours.

If you REALLY didn't care about what alignment your character is and it was a random die roll that determined your alignment, then you'd change. You'd cut off the evil alignment and roll a d6 for the remaining 6 alignments. Because, honestly, the player playing the Paladin probably didn't make that choice entirely by chance, and actually WANTS to play a paladin. That desire is inherently more valuable than your random die roll. This is the decision of a person who puts others first, and the decision that will make you welcome at any table you'll ever find. Is some random die roll really worth more than all of that potential divisive, unfun atmosphere?

If you actually want to play an evil character and you know, in advance, that it will cause problems (and you do, because you're making this thread), then you won't change. This is the decision that will see you not invited back, because it says that your objective is not for the group to have fun, it's for YOU to have fun.

So first, figure out what's actually important to you.

Oh, and Fishy, stop trying to sell Detect Evil as assault. It's an ability that targets the paladin and lets him detect stuff, it's not cast on anyone or anything else. My eyes can detect light, which reflects or radiates from objects and people in my environment, but I'm not assaulting them by being able to receive that data.

[Trainwreck]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

That sounds more like a neutral person who did an evil thing.

I was thinking more along the lines of a character who would commit evil acts out of self-interest whenever he felt he had no other choice.

In other words, when faced with a given situation, John from my example above is always willing to consider theft, treason, murder, etc. as possible options. Now, he almost always considers other more acceptable options first, but he never rules out the possibility of evil acts.

Afterwards, he rationalizes it to himself that he "had" to do what he did, and probably even feels regret about it, but that's not going to change his behavior in the future.

[Gwenn Reece]

Okay, as for randomly killing any evil person they come across... Evil isn't necessarily their actions. It can also be their intentions. A Lawful Evil character could be buying favors or maintaining his cover by donating money to local charities. It's not an evil act, but he is an evil person and he has evil reasons for his actions. His evil actions could be the subtle play of politics. He's also doing nothing illegal for that act and based on outside observances, he could actually doing good.

If a Paladin walked up to this individual and chopped his head off, because he showed up as 'EVIL!' during a random Detect Evil, then the Paladin would be hunted down by the local authorities. He'd have a fair trial followed by a first-class hanging. The validity of, "He looked evil to me!" doesn't really work out.

Lawful Evil is a great example for this, because any moderately corrupt official is likely this alignment. This LE alignment could be represented by taking the occasional bribe and looking the other way. It doesn't mean that character is without redemption and eats babies. It just means he's not an up and up character.

Evil just means that person is out for themselves and their own purposes in a cutthroat manner.

[Khrysaor]

Trainwreck wrote:

I think one of the most believable ways to play an evil character is as someone who goes through life trying to lead a good life, but who will resort to evil acts if he or she believes such acts to be the only way out of a dangerous situation.

In other words, John the adventurer is a pretty decent guy. He's kind to his friends and family, thinks of himself as a basically good person, and certainly wants others to think of him in this way.

Most days, he just tries not to think about the winter when he and a companion got trapped by a heavy snowstorm in a cabin with limited food. It ended up being close to a month before the snow let up enough to allow for an escape, and if the two of them had tried to share the small supply of trail rations they had with them, both would have starved. Sure, John regrets what he did, but it's not that he's an evil person-- he was just put in a situation that forced him to do what he did. He had to think of his family-- who was going to take care of them if he didn't survive? And besides, the other guy was planning to do the same thing to John...

Played like this, a character is only going to reveal his evil nature when his back is truly up against the wall.

When the paladin detects the presence of evil in him, it going to play more like this: "I sense the stain of past evil deeds in John's heart, and I fear he has the potential to commit such acts again."

At this point, it would be perfectly reasonable for the paladin to wish to keep John at his side in order to "save him from himself"-- recognizing that John is too weak on his own to resist falling into sin.

This would be a neutral character not evil. Evil people are more prone to evil. Good people are more prone to good. Neutral people swing both ways depending on a situation. Survival is a base human necessity. If something threatens that we will fight, like animals, to get what we need. This gave him his justification to do what he had to do. Yes it was evil in the sense of being a carnal sin but it was done because he saw that he is his family's only chance of survival.

Evil people that are continually doing good will have an alignment shift towards good. Same for any alignment that continually does something that is out of their alignment. Alignment is there so we can design a characcter concept. A code of ethics for how we're supposed to treat our characters. Since humanity is inherently good, we don't all grasp the nature of evil until atrocities are around us.

Most people on our planet would be between lawful neutral and neutral good. We do good, we help each other, we obey laws, we believe in structures like society and religion, we have traditions. Yes, there are people that are more out for themselves. This doesn't make them 'evil'. Evil is when you cross the boundaries outside of what a good person would do. It states clearly in neutral evil that you will kill, without shedding tears. This is a detachment from reality. Good people will feel remorse for killing something and in the example above about killing while trapped in an avalanche, the person was still remorseful about their past and was doing good to find repentance. If he was evil, it wouldn't have mattered to him and he would have continued with killing and not caring.

An evil person can do good deeds to hide their evil ways. An evil person who continually does good deeds isn't evil.

Back to the paladin and evil guy. Everyone seems to be forgetting what it means to be lawful good.

PRD wrote:

Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good combines honor with compassion.

Since the evil guy will detect as evil, the paladin isn't going to sit back and wait for the evil guy to do something evil. He will call him out. Detecting alignment isn't detecting the deeds you've done. It's detecting your soul. Detecting the way you rationalize situations. Regardless of how you try to hide things you will register as evil. In the paladins eyes he has to oppose what you are and stand for. It's his alignment and code of ethics. Unless he has a reason to tolerate your presense, such as his god telling him to do so, or his patron liege telling him this person is the only one with the ability to get into the BBEG's lair, there is no reason he has to tolerate you. This doesn't mean he has to kill you. He can just tell you to atone for your sins and be done with it. He can drag you to the town jail and imprison you. He can drag you to the stocks and put you there for people to barrage you with rotten tomatoes. He can also address a challenge to arms. He cannot strike you down without your knowing as this is not honorable. It is his duty to do these things. It is what binds him. It is what defines him.

[Trainwreck]

Khrysaor wrote:

This would be a neutral character not evil. Evil people are more prone to evil. Good people are more prone to good. Neutral people swing both ways depending on a situation. Survival is a base human necessity. If something threatens that we will fight, like animals, to get what we need. This gave him his justification to do what he had to do. Yes it was evil in...

I would disagree with the characterization that neutral people are willing to commit both good and evil acts.

To claim a character is neutral because he commits both evil and good acts reminds me a little too much of Herman Cain's inane defense when he said something along the lines of "for every woman who claims I've sexually harassed her, there are thousands who haven't accused me."

[Khrysaor]

Trainwreck wrote:

Khrysaor wrote:

This would be a neutral character not evil. Evil people are more prone to evil. Good people are more prone to good. Neutral people swing both ways depending on a situation. Survival is a base human necessity. If something threatens that we will fight, like animals, to get what we need. This gave him his justification to do what he had to do. Yes it was evil in...

I would disagree with the characterization that neutral people are willing to commit both good and evil acts.

To claim a character is neutral because he commits both evil and good acts reminds me a little too much of Herman Cain's inane defense when he said something along the lines of "for every woman who claims I've sexually harassed her, there are thousands who haven't accused me."

He hasn't done good deeds in your example and is evil for being a rapist. How is this relevant of a neutral person?

And its not the characterization that they are willing to do good and evil. Neutral people don't differentiate between good and evil. They see the uses of both but don't hold to the ideals they hold for good or evil people.

[BigNorseWolf]

trainwreck wrote:

I would disagree with the characterization that neutral people are willing to commit both good and evil acts.

Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
_____

Naturally when you are hungry and going to starve to death you kill something and eat it.

Sorry bob....

A larger portion of humanity than we'd probably like to admit would react to a situation like that this way, but they're still neutral. Neutral remember can be a VERY nasty and self serving alignment before it tips into evil, especially when desperate.

[Trainwreck]

Big Wolf & Khrysaor--

I see where you are coming from, and maybe we're mostly disagreeing about terminology.

To me, the evil alignments mean that the character is willing to commit truly evil acts. Pre-meditated murder, torture, rape, etc. These are the kinds of acts that a character can't do even once without ending up with an "E" in their alignment. Now, can that character work their way back up into a neutral or good alignment? Sure, but there's going to be a lot of work over a long period of time in order to make the change.

A neutral character might do a lot of bad things-- stealing, beating someone up in a bar fight, maybe even killing someone in the heat of the moment-- but there's still a line that a neutral character isn't going to cross. You can't descend into evil, then balance it out the next day by founding an orphanage and expect your character to still be neutral.

Good characters end up doing bad things, too-- just not nearly as often as a neutral character. And a good character simply isn't going to touch any of the kinds of truly evil acts I described above.

Anyway, that's the way I play it.