Okay, so I have a new character ready for the Carrion Crown campaign I will most likely run (or be a player in), but I have one problem.
After a little chat with James Jacobs, my character's alignment sort of became an issue. What kind of alignment fits a person who generally does her best to help those in need, protect people from harm and avoid unnecessary fights aside from those made to banish undead? Said character is a Tiefling Cleric of Pharasma, but the problem comes from a certain aspect of her personality.
She secretly takes immense pleasure in the suffering of others, especially when death is involved. When everyone else cries at a funeral, she's trying her best not to start laughing there. However, she herself is aware of how wrong it is, but her troubles stem from that fact that while she enjoys being a nice person, the sheer pleasure of watching others get hurt just feels better for her.
So, what is her actual alignment? I argued Neutral Good, James said Lawful Neutral.
I do not. To me, "taking immense joy in the suffering of others" is pretty much the definition of evil.Do you think a person can be good despite taking immense joy in the suffering of others?
Last time I had to read the last rites to a dead child at a funeral, I felt like laughing out loud.
Not because the situation was absurd, but because the sight of the people mourning amused me.
So, I'm cursed into a damned existence in spite of my insistence of protecting others from harm and helping those in need?
In Golarion, yes, you'd probably end up being damned in the afterlife unless you managed to outweigh the evil of taking joy in another's suffering with good acts. Keeping that joy hidden and not acting on it certainly helps.
But a character who enjoys the suffering of others but who protects others from harm and helps those in need isn't neutral good, unless the character's insane. If the character is not insane, that alignment feels more lawful neutral to me; someone who enjoys suffering but has a regimented focus on helping others despite the fact that they're secretly a sadist.
It's not so much insanity as it is the natural drive of a Tiefling to be Evil, which is canon in Golarion too.
However, just because she enjoys sadism doesn't mean she lacks a conscience, on the contrary actually in her case.
She dislikes the fact, and she does enjoy helping others too. The problem is that the sadism kind of is more enjoyable for her at times.
I would go with neutral or lawful neutral. The character wants to be good but struggles with their natural tenancies. In the end, they may over come these tendencies to become good. Or they may fail and turn to evil. The lawful/neutral part of the allignment depends more on other factors in the characters personality. Either way, it leads to fun role playing as the character struggles to do the right thing.
She hasn't had troubles actually DOING the right thing.
Her thoughts haunt her, but she barely acts upon them if ever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd make her alignment reflect her actions, not her thoughts. That would be in line with the majority of moral systems, both secular and religious.
|
It's true that the character can't be considered one of the good alignments generally, but they don't seem to be acting out in an evil way. Neutral seems to me to be a likelihood, but one can at the core be evil and do some pretty nice stuff. (Just ask Laori Vaus!)
I think it was 2nd edition where I encountered "(specific alignment) with (something else) tendencies" like "neutral good with chaotic tendencies". Not 100% sure if it's Pathfinder canon, but I suppose one could use this sort of thing in their home game. Of course, this might not work if you're playing PFS...
Alignment is not a straightjacket restricting your character from acting in any specific way...except maybe if you're a paladin. :) But almost no one ever acts totally consistently.
So I was technically safe in assuming she's Neutral Good?
I object to the idea that actions alone define a persons alignment. A lawful evil char may act outwardly good because it helps the rise to power in an otherwise good city. That doesn't change that their motivations are inherently selfish and evil. A person who takes pleasure in watching other people suffer especially in the death of others strikes me as hovering between neutral and evil(closer to evil). Part of the problem IMHO is that the character you are describing is not consistent. If she really was a good person she would not be drawn to enjoy suffering. It seems like your describing a deluded person who thinks they are good but that the rest of us knowing their heart would mark as evil. I also find it telling that they does good because it makes here feel good a selfish motivation. Helping people because you feel better at the end of it is less good then helping people because its the right thing to do.
@Chaos
You are misunderstanding. It's sort of like a guilty pleasure. She knows it's right to help others. She also knows she'll have something else to think about when she helps others. She actively helps others for these two reasons. However, she still enjoys seeing others hurt just as much if not more than doing so. She's aware of it, and she doesn't like it. Hence why I use the word "guilty" in this context.
If that seed of evil deep inside makes a tiefling evil, no matter what they do with it, then it is time to slap the alignment restriction of "any evil" onto the race - or remove the canon flavor bit that they all have that inner evil so that it is then possible to role-play them as their flavor is written without being chained to an evil character.
It's canon that Tieflings can defy this seed of evil they have. Hell, some have such a small one they barely notice it anyway.
@Chaos
You are misunderstanding. It's sort of like a guilty pleasure. She knows it's right to help others. She also knows she'll have something else to think about when she helps others. She actively helps others for these two reasons. However, she still enjoys seeing others hurt just as much if not more than doing so. She's aware of it, and she doesn't like it. Hence why I use the word "guilty" in this context.
Its not that I misunderstand I just don't agree. I don't think a person teifling or not with that dark a heart should ever be considered good. I can't conceive of a good character that would consider that a minor guilty pleasure. She may hover closer towards neutral because of a conflicted heart but enjoying others suffering to that degree IMHO is incompatible with calling here NG. Like I said before this char strikes me as unrealistic, unless their insane. If they enjoys the suffering of others more then helping them than why would they help them. Is she building them back up to watch them fall again. I like dark and conflicted characters but that's enough to create some multiple personalities.
As long as it makes sense to you play the char and have a blast I just have a hard time seeing it.
And teifling are the most fun when played non-evil. Redemption and dark and tortured hero's are a blast if done well.
Wind Chime
1. sadism is evil. They derive pleasure from the causing suffering and harm to other people or animals. While enjoying watching people fail may not be evil unto itself it is negative and rather disgusting tendency IMHO. While not all people who partake in it are evil it is appealing to the darker parts of their nature. In the OP the char goes well above watching others fail in enjoying suffering and death.
All our minds conflict over things constantly, we just tend to create quick rules of thumb to allow dominant parts that have won out to operate more freely without having to go through the constant struggle of "other minds" for everything we do. There have been several studies with spit brain patients (severing the corpus collosum) that show some very interesting discrepancies in what people think. One of the most interesting, in my opinion, was a man who half of his brain was an atheist and half of his brain was a christian. Without severing the corpus collosum, no one would have ever known this, possibly even the man himself.
Clearly I don't think thoughts alone can dictate alignment, otherwise simply questioning ones self could defeat the entire alignment system. But it is not fair to say thoughts play no role in determining alignment; thoughts are both the forerunners and fuel to actions.
So my take on this is that causal actions and their intentions (to satisfy chaos scion's objection) are what determines alignment. Sadistic voyeurism has no alignment effect because the action being corrupted is a rather impotent one not really affecting others. Glad hands with hidden agendas actual have an impact on those around them, therefore the corrupt intentions corrupt the alignment.
|
I also agree that the morality of an action depends partly on the act itself and partly on the intent. A good action for good motives is clearly good - for example, a doctor healing those who can't pay because of compassion. Evil actions for evil reasons, like killing or torture for the fun of it, is clearly evil. A good action for selfish reasons (such as volunteering to impress others) or an evil action for good reasons (such as a "mercy kill") is much more neutral, depending on the exact act and motivations.
In this particular case, it sounds like the character is primarily performing good acts for good reasons. Namely, because philosophically she believes that it is important to help others. "Feeling good about doing good" isn't really selfish, since some people believe that's the key motivation for altruistic acts.
I don't consider sadistic thoughts, unacted on, to be a serious impediment to a Good alignment. They're a little evil, but not enough to outweigh actual good actions motivated by a desire to help others. I think the morality system in Vampire: The Masquerade is applicable here. They have a "humanity" rating from 0-10 where 0 is "Monstrous", 7 is "Normal," and 10 is "Saintly." Having selfish thoughts is enough to knock you down from "Saintly" to "Compassionate." Particularly sadistic thoughts might bring you down to "Caring," especially if accompanied by petty selfish acts, but you're still more good than the average person.
Depending on how well she controls herself, could be played NG.
Sorry if it came off that way, since that was not the intent.
Hiya.
I'm going with the "Actions, not words" side.
If you do nothing but good stuff, even if you secretly *want* to do the bad, nasty stuff, and enjoy the hell out of it when someone else does it for you...you're still not evil.
Thinking, saying and wanting to "kill that guy" doesn't make you a murderer. Pulling out a sword and chopping his head off does.
Thinking, saying and wanting to "see that guy suffer" doesn't make you evil. Tossing a jar of acidic rot-grubs on him does.
So, your character...I'd probably be ok with NG...but, as DM, I'd *very* carefully watch your characters actions. The old saying "it's a fine line between heaven and hell" is prominent with your type of character. She is oh so very close to stepping over that line...she has no "moral conscious" to keep her on the Good side if she starts to stray (re; taking an extra round or two before giving a potion of healing to the peasant suffering from fresh fireball wounds).
In short, "NG with E tendencies".
^_^
Paul L. Ming
It was neutral good until the bit about enjoys seeing suffering in others. Personally I'd place that in neutral territory. You're not outright evil but you're not an entirely good person either. They'd probably register a bit closer toward good overall but I'd still place them firmly in true neutral simply because they don't fit entirely into the other two.
That said, I can actually still see Lawful Neutral since she is following a set of codes and beliefs, just not necessarily societies (more of the Church's).
Regardless, alignments are incredibly vague and everyone has their own opinion on them. You're not going to get everyone to ever agree so take the above how you will. I tend toward a bit more flexible alignments in my games.
Does that mean if you're overly a Good person in all ways but are really into S&M or other stuff like that, you're suddenly Evil?
The notion that some of you have here just confuses me a bit. Of course it's an opinion, but I disagree with it due to the implications.
I lean towards LN myself here.
To say that only actions count... means that you can 'trick' the gods. I don't WANT to do good things... I WANT to do BAD things... but I'm hoping for a better heaven...
Inherently your character is Evil. Even by your own definiton of However, she herself is aware of how wrong it is, but her troubles stem from that fact that while she enjoys being a nice person, the sheer pleasure of watching others get hurt just feels better for her.
She strikes me as a recovering alcholic who KNOWS she has a problem and wants to make it RIGHT...
Sooooo She's on her WAY to a 'good person' and she's FIGHTING her 'evil core.'
Hence... Neutral.
It strikes me that you want her to still be on the journey, but to reap the rewards of already having COMPLETED the journey. She hasn't BEATEN the Evil habit yet... She's still fighting.
Torture = Evil. Hence... ENJOYING torture = Evil... Anything else is looking for loopholes.
My two bits.
First. No one will know a character better than the person who created it and plays it. That said Icyshadow, whatever alignment you feel she should have is most likely the alignment she should have. You don't necessarily have to dismiss all the above advice, but you still know best. Trust your gut. This especially applies for characters, like yours, with a complex psychology the alignment mechanic wasn't really made to deal with.
Second. Make sure your GM agrees with your reasoning. While you feel that she's NG, your GM may see your character's reveling in the suffering of others as a ZIP code square in the middle of Evilsburg. But if he or she agrees with your line of thinking, go for it.
I would probably say True Neutral with a strong Good actions but the occasional Evil urges (ones that are near never acted on), just to be on the safe side.
But in all honesty, as a GM, I'd be fine with you labeling the character as NG. pming pretty much has the right of it on how I see things. Your urges don't define who you are, as no one is immune to temptation; it's what you do with those temptations that define who you are.
As a very wise and powerful dragon once asked: "What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"
Does that mean if you're overly a Good person in all ways but are really into S&M or other stuff like that, you're suddenly Evil?
The notion that some of you have here just confuses me a bit. Of course it's an opinion, but I disagree with it due to the implications.
Having some s/m tendencies does not make you evil. Fine line between pleasure and pain and all that. Dominance and control that come are the focus of most s/m is a far cry from hurting people for your gratification. My point is that a true sadist is evil. Some one who gains pleasure from torture and suffering whether passively watching and or actively causing it. People who fall somewhat short of that level of sadism may not be evil but that is something I would consider a dark part of their personality. The rest of your personality may outweigh that for alignment term but its one thing pulling her the other way. It was the fact that the OP say that she likes that more then helping that leads me down the path of calling her a true sadist and thus evil.