I have noticed in several games that players geneally start out good, or at the least neutural but many players end up becoming evil at higher levels... or at least much less good.
has any one else noticed this?
how does t show up in your game?
There's a LOT of sweet stuff that's Evil only.
Heck, just look at Diabolist, Souldrinker, Agent of the Grave and some other Prestige Classes as well as the boons granted by Evil Deities, certain class abilities that are Evil only or even items often considered only be the less friendly sort of people.
general rule of fantasy is that evil in the end MUST lose, but until that end comes evil has a pretty good run of the place.
Be the good guy; win in the end
Be the bad guy; own vegas till the end
Power changes people. When the PCs have little or no power, they rely on their story to define them. Once PCs gain powerful magic items and access to powerful class features and spells, the power goes to their head. Then their power defines them and often leads acts of evil.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This concept is old.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all about the laugh.
Have you ever heard of a good maligned laugh? I haven't!
It's kind of like what Yoda said in The Empire Strikes Back: evil isn't stronger than good, but it's quicker and easier to use. Especially as your personal power increases.
Remaining good means self-control, self-denial, and deliberately taking a harder path. A good wizard has to woo the pretty maiden using his natural personality; an evil wizard has no qualms using charm person to get the ball rolling (or dominate person to go directly to bed.) A good advisor to power provides honest counsel to benefit the kingdom; an evil advisor suggests policy that would enrich himself. A good warrior only fights for just causes; an evil warrior fights for the highest bidder or simply takes what he wants.
It's kind of like what Yoda said in The Empire Strikes Back: evil isn't stronger than good, but it's quicker and easier to use. Especially as your personal power increases.
Remaining good means self-control, self-denial, and deliberately taking a harder path. A good wizard has to woo the pretty maiden using his natural personality; an evil wizard has no qualms using charm person to get the ball rolling (or dominate person to go directly to bed.) A good advisor to power provides honest counsel to benefit the kingdom; an evil advisor suggests policy that would enrich himself. A good warrior only fights for just causes; an evil warrior fights for the highest bidder or simply takes what he wants.
Mercenaries who fight for the highest bidder aren't always Evil.
It's more of a True Neutral stance than anything, though such people can be Good or Evil too.
... A good warrior only fights for just causes; an evil warrior fights for the highest bidder or simply takes what he wants.Mercenaries who fight for the highest bidder aren't always Evil.
It's more of a True Neutral stance than anything, though such people can be Good or Evil too.
I wasn't implying that fighting for the highest bidder was an evil act... Just that evil characters are far less discerning about their employers. A good character won't lend his sword to the Evil Overlord's Legions of Terror, even if they pay exceptional rates and have a generous dental plan. A neutral or evil warrior would... And would have fewer qualms about carrying out evil orders. It's one way a neutral character can be pushed toward evil.
It's kind of like what Yoda said in The Empire Strikes Back: evil isn't stronger than good, but it's quicker and easier to use. Especially as your personal power increases.
Remaining good means self-control, self-denial, and deliberately taking a harder path. A good wizard has to woo the pretty maiden using his natural personality; an evil wizard has no qualms using charm person to get the ball rolling (or dominate person to go directly to bed.) A good advisor to power provides honest counsel to benefit the kingdom; an evil advisor suggests policy that would enrich himself. A good warrior only fights for just causes; an evil warrior fights for the highest bidder or simply takes what he wants.
What about the harsh counsel an evil counselor could say in order to save the realm/protect important people/etc.? Sometimes things need to be done quickly and convincing everybody to make something can be long… An evil counselor or sovereign would do things swiftly. Machiavelian style!
|
What about the harsh counsel an evil counselor could say in order to save the realm/protect important people/etc.? Sometimes things need to be done quickly and convincing everybody to make something can be long… An evil counselor or sovereign would do things swiftly. Machiavelian style!It's kind of like what Yoda said in The Empire Strikes Back: evil isn't stronger than good, but it's quicker and easier to use. Especially as your personal power increases.
Remaining good means self-control, self-denial, and deliberately taking a harder path. A good wizard has to woo the pretty maiden using his natural personality; an evil wizard has no qualms using charm person to get the ball rolling (or dominate person to go directly to bed.) A good advisor to power provides honest counsel to benefit the kingdom; an evil advisor suggests policy that would enrich himself. A good warrior only fights for just causes; an evil warrior fights for the highest bidder or simply takes what he wants.
That's the thing, though; Good does not equal nice. A good character can be pretty harsh in pursuit of the greater good, as long as they continue to respect the life and dignity of the people of the realm.
For instance, a Lawful Good ruler might impose an extremely heavy tax burden and a draft in order to prepare his nation to defend itself against an invading horde, and might even engage in censorship and arrest potential rebel leaders during the ensuing public backlash, though they would be treated humanely, if possible. A Lawful Evil ruler, on the other hand, might do much the same, but would probably be willing to exempt powerful political allies and the like from the aforementioned taxes and draft at the expense of commoners of no particular influence, and would have no compunctions about assassinating dissenters and using the army to preemptively quash any resistance to the new laws. He might even decide to keep the new taxes in place after the threat is passed, investing the funds in increasing his own wealth or power base.
In the end, the Lawful Evil ruler *might* be more successful, at least in the short term, because of his willingness to use more ruthless tactics and his courting of powerful allies. However, the average citizen would much better off in the kingdom run by the Lawful Good ruler (assuming they survived the invasion), and in the long term the Lawful Evil ruler's nation might crumble as popular resentment continues to grow and nepotism in the government leads to crippling corruption.
Meanwhile, a judicious Lawful Neutral ruler, avoiding both extremes, might well outlast both of his rivals. If anything, I would tend to imagine that higher-level characters would tend toward being neutral for the same reason; they're less likely to take suicidal risks or sacrifices than good characters, but also less likely to be put to the torch by a mob of peasants or a crusading army than an evil character.
P.S; Although a lot of the suggestions in Il Principe would certainly appeal to a classically Evil ruler, I definitely wouldn't classify Machiavelli himself as evil. By the time he wrote the book he was best known for he was certainly bitter, having lost his high government post when the Florentine Republic was overthrown by the Medicis (who also had him tortured for good measure), but the man was a patriot to the last. He seems to have genuinely wanted what was best for Florence and Italy at a time when the region was a battleground for foreign empires, and though he certainly appreciated the value of applied ruthlessness and brutality, I would call him Lawful Neutral, at worst.
What about the harsh counsel an evil counselor could say in order to save the realm/protect important people/etc.? Sometimes things need to be done quickly and convincing everybody to make something can be long… An evil counselor or sovereign would do things swiftly. Machiavelian style!It's kind of like what Yoda said in The Empire Strikes Back: evil isn't stronger than good, but it's quicker and easier to use. Especially as your personal power increases.
Remaining good means self-control, self-denial, and deliberately taking a harder path. A good wizard has to woo the pretty maiden using his natural personality; an evil wizard has no qualms using charm person to get the ball rolling (or dominate person to go directly to bed.) A good advisor to power provides honest counsel to benefit the kingdom; an evil advisor suggests policy that would enrich himself. A good warrior only fights for just causes; an evil warrior fights for the highest bidder or simply takes what he wants.
That's the thing, though; Good does not equal nice. A good character can be pretty harsh in pursuit of the greater good, as long as they continue to respect the life and dignity of the people of the realm.
For instance, a Lawful Good ruler might impose an extremely heavy tax burden and a draft in order to prepare his nation to defend itself against an invading horde, and might even engage in censorship and arrest potential rebel leaders during the ensuing public backlash, though they would be treated humanely, if possible. A Lawful Evil ruler, on the other hand, might do much the same, but would probably be willing to exempt powerful political allies and the like from the aforementioned taxes and draft at the expense of commoners of no particular influence, and would have no compunctions about assassinating dissenters and using the army to preemptively quash any resistance to the new laws. He might even decide to keep the new taxes in place after...
So what alignment is the ruler who has all the hobos and old people who aren't giving value to the community put to death? I mean, if you just leave them there, they strain the limited food supply like leeches and then even the hearty ones who are contributing die as well, and if you let them live outside your borders they'll continue plague you in the form of bandits attempting to take your resources to survive.
I have noticed in several games that players geneally start out good, or at the least neutural but many players end up becoming evil at higher levels... or at least much less good.
has any one else noticed this?
how does t show up in your game?
I shudder to think what kind of depressing grim-dark setting you play in that would turn a Good-Aligned character all the way to evil by the end of it...
P.S; Although a lot of the suggestions in Il Principe would certainly appeal to a classically Evil ruler, I definitely wouldn't classify Machiavelli himself as evil. By the time he wrote the book he was best known for he was certainly bitter, having lost his high government post when the Florentine Republic was overthrown by the Medicis (who also had him tortured for good measure), but the man was a patriot to the last. He seems to have genuinely wanted what was best for Florence and Italy at a time when the region was a battleground for foreign empires, and though he certainly appreciated the value of applied ruthlessness and brutality, I would call him Lawful Neutral, at worst.
I agree with you. I was just saying that the principe of state reason leads generally to Evil (in the Pathfinder sense).
Glen Cook treated the subject well in the Black Company series, there is a good dialogue between a former soldier and peasant with the rebel general, in short the soldier said that ideal like freedom means nothing to a peasant who just want to bring food to his family and the evil empire was good for protection and economy.
|
I've seen too many PCs/players start power tripping and going all "might makes right" once they move up in their levels.
Not viewing the NPCs as people rather than mere props or obstacles tends to exacerbate that condition. It doesn't seem to happen as often with players actually invested in the setting and the characters in it.
Never had a problem like this in any game I have played and many have gone to high levels. I just don't see it happening much. Not to say it doesn't happen but I've personally not expereinced this situation.
I shudder to think what kind of depressing grim-dark setting you play in that would turn a Good-Aligned character all the way to evil by the end of it...I have noticed in several games that players generally start out good, or at the least neutral but many players end up becoming evil at higher levels... or at least much less good.
has any one else noticed this?
how does t show up in your game?
mostly adventure paths.
but players tend to want to expedite everything and rather than spending 30 mins RPing their way through an interrogation (which would be good) or even finding a few charm person castings (which would be evil) they often just want to threaten and torture (evil).
also note i am not talking only about my games. I have 2 friends in different adventure paths over the last year that have let their paladines become anti-paladines over the course of the adventure, not setting out to do so but by always taking the expedited choice or simply for the sense of freedom.
I am personally a little loose with alignment its not to strict or important. but some actions are just evil and I let players know, but often they dont care they will try to justify to me why this torture is ok THIS time or why casting these evil descriptor spells are not evil for this character or why killing on sight is ok against these enemies.
after 20 or so evil actions they try to atone by giving a little gold to a passing orphanage or taking an AoO for an ally and feeling that it wipes the slate clean.
but I think the level of good has to in some way balance the level of evil. giving candy to a kid does not atone for tortureing his mother for information on the BBEG
So, OP, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
|
|
I think you could "expedite" an interrogation without resorting to torture; after all, you can improve someone's attitude with a simple Diplomacy roll even if they're hostile toward you. At low levels Intimidation DCs tend to be a lot easier than Diplomacy DCs when interacting with people who don't like you, but when the NPCs you're encountering start to have higher HD, how nice you want to be to them becomes more of a matter of taste.
Honestly, it sounds like the problem is sort of a failure of imagination on the part of your players. I'm not saying that they're bad roleplayers or that they're playing the game wrong, I'm just saying that you can often find quick solutions to problems that don't involve killing people on sight or torturing them for information.
If this kind of behavior really bothers you, you can always try to impose some negative consequences for evil actions. I know that at least some of the Adventure Paths reward players for working with members of certain typically "monstrous" races rather than just killing them, and if the PCs develop a reputation for wanton violence, it makes sense that important NPCs might be very reluctant to help them in any way.
I shudder to think what kind of depressing grim-dark setting you play in that would turn a Good-Aligned character all the way to evil by the end of it.I have noticed in several games that players geneally start out good, or at the least neutural but many players end up becoming evil at higher levels... or at least much less good.
has any one else noticed this?
how does t show up in your game?
I had this happen to me when I DM'd a 3.5 Planescape campaign, the bulk of which was filled by Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, the first "AP"-style adventure I had ever run and a hell of a fun ride for all of us. That campaign started out using much of the great stuff free for download from Planewalker.com and included a Nathri Barbarian, an Aasimar Druid, and a Tuladari Rogue among the planar humans and halflings in the group, and all alignments were allowed. The party started out mostly neutral, a few good, one LE Cleric/Necromancer of Wee Jas that ended up a theurge.
Many of these were first-time players, and I kept an internal point system for player actions that affected alignment. If a PC's actions were putting their alignment in danger of changing they were passed a card giving them the first warning as a "twinge" of guilt, later if the PC continued performing evil (or good, chaotic, w/e) acts they were passed a second card with their last warning. The third card informed them of their alignment change.
No one ended up good by the end of the campaign, the Aasimar Druid went from NG to NE in about the first 6 months, and the Halfling Fighter ended up CE. That halfling fought so much like a demon I made the guy his own Demon Knight prestige class (the PCs were on the Baatezu side in the Blood War).
|
Counterexample: my wizard has shifted from CN to CG. He still disagrees with the way the kingdom is being run (it became independent because it didn't want to pay taxes to the empire, so why does it have state property now?), but he's become focused on promoting general welfare despite the incompetence of (NPC) authorities.
A major reason is that he got a girlfriend, easing his misanthropy. He started out as an embittered orphan, but he's gotten happier and goodlier over time.