I have always been a fan of people pushed to far and willing to do what ever it takes to win at any cost. I was recently thinking about a character that wants to take down evil but instead of being good I would have him be CE. the Example I use is in falling skies, where they torture and kill the aliens and are willing to do anything to push them off the planet.
I am not sure if that anti paladin would be a good fit. but the basics character would be willing to do what ever it took to destroy evil, kill, torture burn down a orphanage full of nazi youths, all to make sure the evil they are fighting is destroyed.
like saying there is an evil religion and they meet once a year and gather in a temple you would be willing to lock the doors and burn down the whole thing women and children inside to make sure they never come back. what alignment is that?
you can also think the movie Taken he is willing to do what ever to get his daughter back.
The only problem is that such a character is also usually protrayed as being a lone wolf. They usually do not operate well with a group, as said group may very well question the character's methods all too often.
|
Neutral Evil. Or Lawful Evil, if your whole purpose is devoted to defeating one particular evil organization.
Potentially Neutral rather than Evil, depending on whether you're deliberately targeting innocent bystanders and using them as pawns in your plans, or whether you're just accepting a certain level of collateral damage.
I have always been a fan of people pushed to far and willing to do what ever it takes to win at any cost. I was recently thinking about a character that wants to take down evil but instead of being good I would have him be CE. the Example I use is in falling skies, where they torture and kill the aliens and are willing to do anything to push them off the planet.
I haven't seen the show, but I wouldn't consider an insurgency against an invading force inherently evil.
I am not sure if that anti paladin would be a good fit. but the basics character would be willing to do what ever it took to destroy evil, kill, torture burn down a orphanage full of nazi youths, all to make sure the evil they are fighting is destroyed.
Doing whatever it takes to fulfill your goal is either lawful or neutral. Chaotic would be doing stuff for no particular goal, or just sort of acting in the moment.
like saying there is an evil religion and they meet once a year and gather in a temple you would be willing to lock the doors and burn down the whole thing women and children inside to make sure they never come back. what alignment is that?
Lawful Neutral.
you can also think the movie Taken he is willing to do what ever to get his daughter back.
If you're actively defending someone innocent: Neutral Good.
I'd say he's LE, too.
And I don't see him as a lone wolf. There could well be a cult or something behind the idea to root out defined forms of evil at all costs.
Why should it be chaotic to burn down a room full of nazis?
If you just run around burning anyone ok, thats chaotic. But if you adhere to strict rules as to whom you burn, thats as lawful as it's evil.
interesting thanks for the responses something to chew on.
wouldn't being lawful not work, because you have to have some code of conduct? and follow the law you just are a jerk. like the landlord who puts a a crazy contract together and if you fail to pay rent you are his slave.
Basically what you are asking which alignment follows the code: "The end justifies the means" and have no consequences for it. Its questions like this where the system breaks down because while it acts as effective sign post for character behavior, people and characters tend to be much too complex to measure truly under the system. In Taken for example I would argue that while Neeson's character was a good dad(or at least attempting to be a good dad from an absentee perspective), he was not necessarily a good man. Its actually one of the things that makes the movie so enjoyable.
To put it into game terms, in my mind a paladin should be a unbending foe of evil in all its forms, but to truly war with with evil you should have a greater understanding of it than most paladin's codes will allow. I think for what your asking the idea of a LN Inquisitor might be as close as you can come. CE would lack focus and drive to do anything that wasn't on some level self serving. NG would have qualms against torture (not threatening torture, but the torture itself). True neutral might be a good alternative, but in all cases I come come back to the idea that when you cross a line there is a consequence for it even if it simply Role playing the loss of innocence or being wracked with guilt. Playing out those consequences can be a lot of fun though.
I have always been a fan of people pushed to far and willing to do what ever it takes to win at any cost.
The alignement would be some sort of evil, either Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic Evil.
While a neutral alignment could be done on a LIMITED basis, if I read you right your saying that the character is commited to this tactic 24/7. As such, any neutral would eventually become evil since they are willing to do evil ALL the time, even if it IS only against other evil.
The important question is not what they would do to evil but what they would do to those they know are NOT evil. Doing 'whatever it takes no matter what' is purely in the camp of evil. But how they approach and deal with good could decide what kind of evil they are.
In general if they will not harm the innocent or good (as in they are willing to do WHATEVER to evil but won't do that to non evils) they will closely fit the books definition of Lawful Evil, since many of that alignment have a code against harming innocents or children for example.
If they will do anything, including killing evil AND good to stop evil, but but they would prefer not to harm good if they can avoid it, then they are closer to Neutral Evil.
If they will kill anyone and anything, no matter, and they enjoy doing it, then they are closer to chaotic evil.
Probably the best one to play/play with in a party or group is the Lawful Evil. They have rules they will work by and are generaly more reliable than the others. They may even have a code of honor they live by that the non evil characters can relate to in some fashion.
Although I have to say I think your falling skies analogy is a little flawed. Replace the invading aliens with invading orc hordr and you have your standard D&D trope...
I'd say Lawful Evil if your goals are at least somewhat clearly defined or neutral evil if you are basically a jerk that wants to 'win' without much of a greater cause. Chaotic evil is more impulsive and cruel for the heck of it which I feel doesn't describe the character very well.
A neutral character is doable but unlike evil characters would feel he is doing wrong and have some qualms about it, though is willing to do it for the greater good. In this case a neutral or lawful neutral alignment would fit, though neutral characters would still go out off their way to do the right thing if they feel they can afford to do so but would drop such a burden of morality when the going gets tough.
I have always been a fan of people pushed to far and willing to do what ever it takes to win at any cost.The alignement would be some sort of evil, either Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic Evil.
While a neutral alignment could be done on a LIMITED basis, if I read you right your saying that the character is commited to this tactic 24/7. As such, any neutral would eventually become evil since they are willing to do evil ALL the time, even if it IS only against other evil.
The important question is not what they would do to evil but what they would do to those they know are NOT evil. Doing 'whatever it takes no matter what' is purely in the camp of evil. But how they approach and deal with good could decide what kind of evil they are.
In general if they will not harm the innocent or good (as in they are willing to do WHATEVER to evil but won't do that to non evils) they will closely fit the books definition of Lawful Evil, since many of that alignment have a code against harming innocents or children for example.
If they will do anything, including killing evil AND good to stop evil, but but they would prefer not to harm good if they can avoid it, then they are closer to Neutral Evil.
If they will kill anyone and anything, no matter, and they enjoy doing it, then they are closer to chaotic evil.
Probably the best one to play/play with in a party or group is the Lawful Evil. They have rules they will work by and are generaly more reliable than the others. They may even have a code of honor they live by that the non evil characters can relate to in some fashion.
Although I have to say I think your falling skies analogy is a little flawed. Replace the invading aliens with invading orc hordr and you have your standard D&D trope...
I would have to respectfully disagree with you on the falling skies, the invading aliens massacred billions of people, and are destroying any hope for the survival of the species by stealing the children. by fighting the aliens they are literally fighting for the survival of the species. and must win at all cost. I understand your analogy though in a fantasy world a bunch of races live on the same planet. and occasionally go to war. this is different. the humans must do what ever is needed to survive. there was one episode where a group of people were giving children to the skitters. they should of been shot every single one of them they literally betrayed humanity.and chose a side the wrong one. that kind of attitude is what I am trying to define in an alignment.
also think stone cold killer the CIA hires to kill a warlord and they don't ask questions.
or maybe Deadpool he is a prime example he will kill a orphange full of nuns and children for fun and then give an amazing toast at your wedding praising you amazing loving husband heart and saying what a god man you are.
this came about due to the joker being CE on the internets i thought to my self what would happen if the joker decided to fight crime.....
|
I would have to respectfully disagree with you on the falling skies, the invading aliens massacred billions of people, and are destroying any hope for the survival of the species by stealing the children. by fighting the aliens they are literally fighting for the survival of the species. and must win at all cost. I understand your analogy though in a fantasy world a bunch of races live on the same planet. and occasionally go to war. this is different. the humans must do what ever is needed to survive. there was one episode where a group of people were giving children to the skitters. they should of been shot every single one of them they literally betrayed humanity.and chose a side the wrong one. that kind of attitude is what I am trying to define in an alignment.
also think stone cold killer the CIA hires to kill a warlord and they don't ask questions.
or maybe Deadpool he is a prime example he will kill a orphange full of nuns and children for fun and then give an amazing toast at your wedding praising you amazing loving husband heart and saying what a god man you are.
this came about due to the joker being CE on the internets i thought to my self what would happen if the joker decided to fight crime.....
The question I have for you is what are your character's goals? An evil person is one who usually has malevolent or completely self-interested goals (such as national or world conquest, establishing a cut-throat trade empire, vengeance at all costs, etc.) and/or is willing to do anything to achieve those goals. An evil person may also be one who has only the most noble of intentions, but takes it on him/herself to achieve his noble ends through the most terrible of means, because he or she believes that is the only choice they have.
I realize you are pointing to the Falling Skies series, but what exactly is going on in your character's universe that would force him to be driven off the edge, and what are his goals now?
Because I do not think it would be unreasonable for a Chaotic Evil character to take it upon him/herself to fight against evil. In fact, evil outsiders fight against one another all the time over ideological differences, i.e., Devils vs. Demons, Demons vs. Daemons, Demons vs. Qlippoth, etc.
A good example of this concept is the main antagonist in Firefly.
"I'm a monster, Mal, I have no place in the paradise I seek to create." <-- or words to that effect.
A good example of this concept is the main antagonist in Firefly.
"I'm a monster, Mal, I have no place in the paradise I seek to create." <-- or words to that effect.
like that a very apt example.
@louis I am just exploring the idea of this character but his back story would be that the evil BBEG at the end of the AP we are currently running killed his family and now he is out for revenge.
|
|
A good example of this concept is the main antagonist in Firefly.
"I'm a monster, Mal, I have no place in the paradise I seek to create." <-- or words to that effect.
These are often the best, and most frightening, of the "fallen angel" type character- When the character is completely self-aware of the fact that he has crossed the moral event horizon into the realm of pure irredeemable evil.
But this firefly guy was clearly lawful.
Once it was proven to him that the reason he was doing what he was doing was wrong he stopped and left the protagonists alone.
|
|
@louis I am just exploring the idea of this character but his back story would be that the evil BBEG at the end of the AP we are currently running killed his family and now he is out for revenge.
Well that is fine. But what exactly would make the man/woman Chaotic Evil? Because I can imagine that, say, torturing minions of the baddy that murdered your character's family in order to obtain information or the simple joy of causing such men pain would firmly put your character into the "evil" category. However, that would make you more Lawful Evil, or perhaps Neutral Evil.
I mean, is your character just going out and killing anyone who is remotely related to the big bad? Perhaps in revenge, your character is going around trying to find, torture and murder people who were the bad guy's childhood friends and their families. That would put your character beyond the pale of even justifiable vengeance.
@louis I am just exploring the idea of this character but his back story would be that the evil BBEG at the end of the AP we are currently running killed his family and now he is out for revenge.Well that is fine. But what exactly would make the man/woman Chaotic Evil? Because I can imagine that, say, torturing minions of the baddy that murdered your character's family in order to obtain information or the simple joy of causing such men pain would firmly put your character into the "evil" category. However, that would make you more Lawful Evil, or perhaps Neutral Evil.
I mean, is your character just going out and killing anyone who is remotely related to the big bad? Perhaps in revenge, your character is going around trying to find, torture and murder people who were the bad guy's childhood friends and their families. That would put your character beyond the pale of even justifiable vengeance.
that right there. he finds the BBEgs family and kills them in front of his face so he feels the pain he has cause dmy character. he kills every one the bBEG has ever loved or cared for because the BBEG attacked him.
the example I would use is the AP is serpents skull and I assume there is lizard man god at the end. lizard men killed his family so he kills there god. because he can and he hates them