Pathfinder has a variety of alignments some more restrictive than others, I was wondering how many ways have people come up of playing alignments differently from the norm.
Just noting that you guys will want to get Champions of Purity when it comes out. It really deals with a lot of what's discussed here.
Take two excellent examples of "good intentioned" evil guys:
1) Darth Vader. Pretty heroic evil guy, part of his evil was a bit of temper, but most of it was misguided. "Some one should force everyone to agree with each other and make them all get along" Force and control is what makes him evil.
2) Satan: "We will all go down to earth, be happy, follow the rules (because you will have no choice) and then return to heaven, and the glory will be mine!" It doesn't sound that bad of a deal, until you realize his method is to remove everyone's choice.
Hmmm details, details.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being kind and benevolent (helping other people out without any reward for yourself) doesn't preclude necromancy. Actually being chaotic evil doesn't preclude being kind and benevolent as long as your doing something evil in your spare time to add to your evil tally (murdering undesirables, being a slave master etc). Just as good doesn't have to be nice evil doesn't have to be nasty.
I suppose it would take some backstory for it to make sense.
An Evil person is a one who pursues evil. He does not value life and pursues his own interests with a disregard for others. That doesn't mean that he is a wild serial killer or will just kill anything in his path. But why does the evil necromancer help out kids?
Does he like the fact that they look at him as a good guy? Does he eliminate anyone who tries to interfere with what, he views as, the best interest of those children? Does he slay adventurers and steal their stuff so that he can fund the orphanages picnic parties? To me, that would be an interesting C/E necromancer.
But being a super sweet natured fella who happens to raise the dead, but does nothing else evil other than casting spells... that doesn't seem like it makes sense. It sounds like you want to ignore alignment and just make a guy who does stuff.
I understand people not liking the alignment system, but I really enjoy it. It puts some thought into how your character reasons morality.
Lawful Evil is my 'favorite alignment' followed by neutral.
Why?
Because as I see it lawful evil is the perfect example of someone who 'thinks' they are doing good, and/or in the right, but they lose focus of the big picture and become to narrow minded and thus slip into dangerous waters.
I like/prefer 'flawed' and conflicted characters. I prefer batman and wolverine to superman, they just somehow seem more interesting.
Most evil people, who aren't insane don't see themselves as evil. hitler didn't wake up in the morning thinking to himself time to spread more chaos and ruin lives!
His grand plan wasn't "how do i destroy the world as fast as possible"
I played a live rpg once, and my character 'Dharksinger' was a 'nightblade' this systems version of an assassin. But in role playing you really couldnt tell outright what character class people were. In fact I took several templates, and even cast a few spells to 'throw people off the track'.
I was the towns master assassin (the only PC that could teach new assassin skills) but I also regularly travelled with the primer heroic team in the game system as a stand in when they were down a member to go on a module. and during open play weekends, I always swung into save them from goblin attacks (always with attacks from behind)
Most people thought I was a "weapons master" and hardly anyone EVER saw me cast a spell (usually did things like heals and personal augments to add body points, or strength)
But the character had several necromancy spells and squired to a death knight.
His real interest was power, but he wanted the power to be seen as a hero.
He was constantly cheating, doing dirty deals, and using black magic to meet his goals, But even in his dealings with the death knight, he actually saved the life of one of the towns knights of good and purity from the very death knight he was treating with. (if dharksinger hadnt knocked him out with an attack from behind, the death knight would have killed him.... but the player of the death knight was so stunned by what I had done .... ie even the NPCs didnt know how evil I was... the guy stalled, allowing me to talk through the whole situation and drag off the knight to safety...
Really conflicted guy, but definately evil. or maybe not?
Neutral is my other favorite alignment because the character sees both LAW and CHAOS and GOOD and EVIL as unnecessary extremes but necessary to exist. a curious outlook on life.
IVe never been in a position as player to stop too much good however, I wonder how that would play out?
Think of it like this. An evil spell is powered from an evil source. That's what the RAW says. People like Rynjin can try to creatively parse the rules to avoid this however they like, the rule is clear. Evil spells work because they "draw upon evil powers." That means the spell itself is powered by evil.
But you still haven't shown me where it's an EVIL ACT by RAW. I'm not creatively parsing the rules, I'm finding what you can find with about 5 minutes of searching.
Evil in Pathfinder is an attribute. It's real. It's not some arguable amorphous nebulous concept that looks evil from one direction but can look good from another.
Yes. Evil is evil in this universe, but:
Evil EXISTS in Pathfinder. And evil spells draw upon evil powers. So if you use an evil spell, you are drawing on evil powers. That means you are committing an evil act.
This is not true at all. No matter which way you look at it there is nothing that says using evil spells is an evil act any more than using chaotic spells is a chaotic act or good spells is a good act. It's not in there because the writers of this game aren't that f##~ing stupid.
You can use evil as a battery in this game. Maybe the evil powers are tempting because "evil is the easy path". But using the spells is not an evil act in and of itself.
Sure, you can choose to interpret the rules creatively so you can argue that using evil spells or items is meaningless. But that makes evil itself meaningless.
That does not make evil itself meaningless. There are still people and creatures that are, in and of themselves, evil. There are still spells and abilities that are, in and of themselves, evil.
They don't use exclusively evil powers either.
If you want to play it that way, fine. I do my best to interpret the RAW as directly as I can. And my interpretation is that if you are using an evil spell, you are channeling evil powers and that is an evil act.Just. My. Opinion.
No. You can't spend this whole time stating your opinion as fact and then spin around and say it's just your opinion. You've stated multiple times that, by RAW, evil spells are evil acts. Find me where it says that and I'll agree with you.
Until then, three little words are not going to stave off any other arguments.
I do remember that spells with the evil descriptor were evil acts and either weren't even possible to cast or would have an adverse effect on your alignment...
But that was in 3.5.
I still see spells with the evil descriptor in pathfinder but I'm not sure i've seen if Pathfinder RAW holds the same opinion of the effects of the evil descriptor on spells or not.
I am, however, definitely too lazy to research it!
Dot
I had a NE red wizard in a 3.0 game. She battled evils, and even fought to free slaves. She treated her associates with care, and became the party leader. Externally nobody would guess that she was the epitome of selfishness. She battled other evils because they were copetition. She freed slaves because they weren't her slaves. Her companions? They were simply useful tools, and tools remain useful longer when cared for properly. Of course she was the party leader, who would trust one of those fools to do it?
How a character looks from observed behaviour is often not the best guide to their beliefs. I can fully believe that the "kindly old man" who gives candy to children could be a harsh necromancer.
|
My feeling is that evil is the expression of extreme selfishness, in whatever form that takes. It doesn't sound like your character is chaotic evil, but I would surmise that use of dark power, when role played right, and depending on how the GM defines what dark powers are (ie, what are the properties of dark magic? Does its use have an effect on the caster? What is the source of dark magic? Does the source have an agenda? Does that magic itself have an agenda) I would say that using dark magic has a cost. Either using it will have ill effect on the world, or you. Most likely its use either twists you to be actually evil because it corrupted you, or it takes a heavy toll on your soul / body, slowly killing you.
Alright, I hope my ramblings made sense.
A note: serial killers? At LEAST half of them are way over-the-top LAFWFUL. An "organised" serial killer makes OCD look whimsical.
Serial killer=/=chaotic.
A note: serial killers? At LEAST half of them are way over-the-top LAFWFUL. An "organised" serial killer makes OCD look whimsical.
Serial killer=/=chaotic.
I think most serials killers would have a hard time being lawful, given they kill freely without consideration for the law.
Chaotic doesn't mean disorganized, it is more in reference to the deference to the laws of the government.
Do I sense darkside points trying to rise it's ugly head?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't answer my question though. Yes or no, could you play a nice alstruistic character who obeys a strict code but is Evil(or Chaotic Evil if you cast Protection from Law on yourself too much)?
No, an evil person would not be altruistic.
An evil person would need a reason to do what they are doing.
Unless there is a good role playing reason (he was an orphan so he makes sure he takes care of orphans selflessly). But you are not going to find a character who is helps his fellow men, smites evil where he finds it, protects the innocent and routes out the guilty who is evil.
If I had a pc who was turning evil based off of spells I would let him know, and then ask him to roleplay the change.
to further an arguement like this, we first need to clarify what is the 'purpose' behind labeling a spell "good" or "evil".
Usually, it's purpose (as far as I can tell) is too limit what spells maybe available to divine casters (lawful characters can't cast chaos spells for example)
But when it comes to Arcane casters, they aren't technically under any restriction like that, unless it's some how an opposed school for a wizard.
What keeps a good character from say, raising zombies?
I kinda hate the disparity between good and evil for the d20 system. For you to be good, your acts have to be a nice guy, be kind, and all your acts have to help people RIGHT NOW. Evil? As long as your acts benefit YOU in the end it's evil. Great example? Xanatos. He was a calculating, megalomaniac, and he was EVIL. Sure he helped here now and then, he played the good guy now and then too, but the END goal was always to his benefit.
In Pathfinder by RAW, good guys can't do anything that would be "evil" for a greater good payoff. Cause if they do, they're no longer good. An evil guy can give to charities, and help others as long as the end goal benefits him somehow. Giving to charity gets the heat of the holy order off your back, and helping others usually nets you a helping hand in return.
Also, why is it that the Neutral axis of good/evil are the strongest? Chaotic and lawful of the two you either follow some codes of conduct or do whatever it takes to achieve your goal of light or dark. But neutral? You are THE most good/evil person there is and it is your LIFE.
This is not true at all. No matter which way you look at it there is nothing that says using evil spells is an evil act any more than using chaotic spells is a chaotic act or good spells is a good act. It's not in there because the writers of this game aren't that f&$*ing stupid.You can use evil as a battery in this game. Maybe the evil powers are tempting because "evil is the easy path". But using the spells is not an evil act in and of itself.
I would disagree with your statements here. This is my own opinion, not RAW, as I'm too new to the Pathfinder setting to make statements like that. In my opinion, you shouldn't be able to just use evil like a battery, and not be tainted by it. Even if I accept your description that evil spells merely draw energy from evil planes, by casting that spell you are literally pulling more evil into the world. That, in my opinion, is in and of itself an evil action. In fairness, using a [Good] spell, pulling goodness into the world, would also be an inherently good act. Not necessarily a kind act, but good.
The only source that dealt directly with this topic that I can recall off the top of my head was the 3.0 supplement Book of Vile Darkness. On the first page of the spells chapter, it describes why some spells had the [Evil] descriptor and some did not. Either the spell's effect was so heinous that it could only be used for evil deeds, such as a spell that's only effect was to make a wagon carrying good aligned orphans explode. Sure, Fireball could do the same thing, but fireball could do other things too, so did not carry the descriptor. Alternatively, the spell could draw on such fell energies or components that the spell was corrupted inherently. As an example, Deathwatch allowed you temporarily become in one small way undead, which is why such an otherwise benign (or even possibly altruistic) spell carried [Evil] on it.
But as I said, that was a long time and two systems ago, so take it with a grain of salt. It's just the only for sure statement I can think of on either side from a sourcebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most serials killers would have a hard time being lawful, given they kill freely without consideration for the law.Chaotic doesn't mean disorganized, it is more in reference to the deference to the laws of the government.
I disagree fully!
For me, Lawful/Chaos isn't about how well a character can follow the rules:
"I'm Lawful Good! How can I be expected to follow the rules of this kingdom if they insist on human sacrifice?!"
"I'm Lawful Evil! I'm a slimy, moustache-twirling lawyer type who uses loopholes in contracts.. just like every other LE person"
"I'm Lawful Neutral! I follow 'my own code' which means I can do whatever I want, whenever I want and it's totally allowed by my alignment!"
.. these are hyperbole of course.. but they illustrate what I don't like about it.
For me, the Law/Chaos axis is about consistency. A Lawful person will, given the same set of circumstances, act the same way every time. A very lawful person will attempt to act the same way.. no matter the circumstances. Their chaotic counterpart will change what they do depending on each situation.. or maybe just on a whim.
Lawful people can be: dependable, trustworthy, resolute. However they can also be predictable, stubborn, or static.
Chaotic people can be: adaptable, dynamic, or free-spirited. They can also be unreliable, flighty, or indecisive.
I always use the same example when I bring this up:
Is it ok to kill one person to save another?
Whether you (or your character) think the answer is yes or no is part of being Good or Evil. What makes you (or them) Lawful or Chaotic is how often the answer changes when you do this:
Is it ok to kill one person to save ten? a hundred? a million?
What if the one was a child? What if the one was your child?
A Lawful character tries to stick to the same answer as much as possible.
..so I guess this is all to explain why I think a serial killer is a Lawful Evil person. They are, in fact they MUST BE, consistent every time they kill. They follow a pattern - same method, same victim type, same ritual.
just some thoughts.
Pathfinder has a variety of alignments some more restrictive than others, I was wondering how many ways have people come up of playing alignments differently from the norm.
One way unusual way I have played Chaotic Evil was as the benevolent necromancer one who is generally a nice guy, wants to protect people and save small children but is unwilling to see the dark powers as anything but a tool to be used and so because he routinely uses dark magic his alignment is classed as evil. He is the sort of guy who heals party members with infernal healing and raises zombie armies to fight other evil wizards.
I've run a chaotic evil character as not only some sort of insane barbarian or berserker, but someone who truly believes in survival of the fittest, and has zero mercy; but also tries to keep people on his good side, makes alliances, puts on a good face. He has no honour, doesn't respect law and will kill the innocent, but he isn't cavalier about revealing this.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying that someone who is C/E would not be a "pretty nice guy"?
I think he could pretend to be a nice guy- but in reality he does not value other peoples lives and would have no problem killing one of those kids he's nice to if would benefit him.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Evil implies a willingness to harm others for your own benefit. If you are willing to harm others for your own benefit, you are not actually a nice person and vice-versa. An evil person can outwardly appear to be nice, but if they also genuinely want to help people rather than just wanting good publicity, then they aren't evil.
If evil powers corrupt, then they do so by making a person willing to harm others in pursuit of power and the evil alignment and the loss of legitimate "nice guy" status should co-occur.
Evil EXISTS in Pathfinder. And evil spells draw upon evil powers. So if you use an evil spell, you are drawing on evil powers. That means you are committing an evil act.
Sure, you can choose to interpret the rules creatively so you can argue that using evil spells or items is meaningless. But that makes evil itself meaningless.
Fire spells draw on the power of fire. When you cast a fire spell, does it raise your body temperature? Magic using a particular type of energy doesn't necessarily charge the caster with that type of energy. It still makes sense that good divine casters can't use that evil power because they're attuned to its opposite, but it's not going to have more moral impact for other casters than a system where specialists in fire magic can't cast cold spells.
If evil magic did leave some sort of evil residue and had the potential to physically or morally harm the user or those nearby, it would be a little like handling carcinogens. It can be dangerous and you want to carefully wash your metaphysical hands afterwards, but the benefits can be worth it as long as you follow basic safety procedures and ethical policies. For example, informed consent. Donating your body to a friendly necromancer could be similar to donating your body to medicine, and when such a necromancer reaches his HD cap of undead and a new body becomes available he could always destroy and properly inter the released older undead. You also take efforts not to lose sight of why you're doing what you're doing - a principled necromancer who makes a point of spending a lot of time with good people serving good causes is unlikely to have their empathy significantly eroded by their work. The corrupting influence of evil magic would be a real hazard, but it's a hazard suffered by those who are insufficiently diligent.
And that can be interesting indeed, but I think it would be a lot less simple than just casting too many evil spells. It would be a long process involving constant temptation, erosion of conscience, and a large number of increasingly evil acts. The evil spells might be a key component in this process, but they wouldn't be sufficient.
I also think it would be interesting for evil spells to leave a residue that would mess with detection spells, though that's only RAW for Infernal Healing.
I had a NE barbarian who I played pretty much as a sadist. He enjoyed violence of any kind but didn't want to go to jail (or be executed) so he hooked up with a band of adventurers. Nobody cares how much joy you take in killing when you focus it on what society considers "bad guys" (monsters). Once he gained "hero" status it was even more fun as he could prod others into fighting him (no one would believe some rapscallion who started a fight with the defender of the city).
Alignment is never a straightjacket. It's a general indication of a character's outlook on life.
Only paladins and (some) clerics have to deal with a divine power looking over their shoulders and taking away their toys if they don't behave a certain way.
Everyone else, well, alighnment is what they are most of the time. Sometimes good people do bad things. Sometimes bad people do good things.
In Pathfinder, most people in the world don't even show up under Detect Alignment (doesn't happen until 5th level, unless you're an agent of a divine power). There's a good reason for that.
So play your character how you want. The most interesting part of the game is seeing what kinds of situations get them to break their own rules or change their minds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wind Chime, I'm with Doomed Hero on this one. Alignment isn't a straightjacket and people are complex. Perfect saints and complete monsters are rare to nonexistent. Part of what makes characters of the same alignment different and interesting is the situations in which they are likely to act outside of alignment. That doesn't mean that alignment doesn't give you a pretty good idea of how a person will usually act - how they behave most of the time.
For example, I played one CN sorceress who was noble-born and was a stickler for protocol and decorum (a typically lawful trait) and a CN bard who reveled in impropriety but was unusually loyal for CN because people are more likely to have your back if they know you're watching theirs. Both, however, were generally dishonest and generally disliked rules. I've had one NG druid who was extremely merciful but didn't like to take personal risks even for a good cause, and another NG druid who was extremely self-sacrificing but could be brutal and unforgiving. Both however generally helped those in need without expecting rewards.
In the same way, evil people will probably have one or two soft spots or redeeming qualities. They might have loved ones or a community they champion, they might protect children, or they might find torture unnecessarily cruel. These are a particular villain's out of alignment behaviors. But if they also regularly kill and destroy for selfish purposes they are still on the whole evil people. Performing some good acts in a particular context doesn't mean that they're not evil. And loving their family doesn't mean that they're a "nice guy," even if their family or small group of protected people does see them that way.
On the other hand you get a character like your necromancer, who might consistently perform a mildly evil (by my definition) act like necromancy but otherwise be a kind, considerate person who happily contributes to his community. This sort of character is, on average, neutral or good aligned - though that doesn't mean he can't play the villain role in a strongly anti-undead game, or if his necromancy is having dire consequences of which they are unaware.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit i'm intrigued by the idea of a bad guy being benevolent. If your results as interpreted by detect alignment dont match your actions and the public perception of your actions...
I see myself as straddling the border between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil. Most of my friends consider me a pretty straight-up guy and tell me that I'm way too hard on myself-- because they're my friends and most of the horrible things I do are to other people, quite frequently for the purpose of protecting my friends. The law typically looks fondly on me as well, because I respect lawful authority and do my part to contribute to society.
In a Pathfinder game, as a classed PC, the "potentially Lawful Neutral" goes away real fast because of the radically increased capacity for more interesting and compelling horrible things to do to other people. I wouldn't hesitate to use magic for evil purposes, or to cast [Evil] spells-- when I reached the appropriate levels, steal life and mind rape would practically become my calling cards.
That doesn't mean I'm going to stop loving and protecting my friends. And since certain kinds of evil-- evil Outsiders, Aberrations, and the Undead-- are always going to be threats to my friends and my family, threats to my agenda and threats to my way of life, that means I'm never going to stop hating and destroying them. I might create an undead or two for spite, or summon demons for information, but I'm never going to work with these things and I will stand right by the real heroes' side when it's time to put the abominations down-- but I'm going to stand well downwind of the Paladins before they go all "Good for the Good God!" on me when they run out of demons to smite.
Sure, I'm going to spend a lot of my adventure time protecting and rescuing people. And I'm going to spend a lot of my down time healing people, especially children. But what I do to help people is never going to make up for the things I'm willing to do, the lengths I'm willing to go to, to further my own agenda-- which includes healing people, as long as they're not in my way.
As long as they're not in my way.
I tend think of "evil" or "good" or "lawful" or "chaotic" spells leaving an intangable mark on someone. It does not make them evil in their own outlook but it does have a consquence that have to pay, and prolonged or repeated use leaves enough of a mark that you start tripping Paladins Evil Radar. Invoking dark forces and getting them to aid you typically in most stories has a cost that will be paid at some point. Sure a necromancer can summon an army of undead to save the orphanage and rescue little Timmy from the well, but he knows in some sense he has to pay the piper someday. It could be small it could be his eternal soul in the Abyss.
|
A lot of alignments are up for gm discression..
My catfolk ranger, Kiosk, is somewhat erratic and impulsive, but has a fairly strict "code of ethics" (though he doesn't call it that).
Code:
1. Manufactured weapons are a sign of weakness. Animals and natural weapons have the mark of perfection.
2. Laws exist as an excuse for humanoids to get what they want. (ie, I want to build a town here, destroy the trees. I want a farm here, the goblins won't bother me. The goblins ate my cow? Murder all their men women and children. Oh, you worship a different god than me? DIE!!!
3. Arcane magic is a taint on the world. (Yet he used potions because he calls them something else and doesn't understand)
4. Survival of the fittest: Kiosk will always defend himself, never resorting to diplomacy. (Intimidate is ok) against a natural being, kiosk will fight to the death. vs zombies, werewolves, abberations, he has no qualms with running, but its a fear of the unknown, not a fear of the creature.He also acts erratically both in and out of combat, chases anything bird-like, rodent-like or curious (like a small dust elemental) compulsively (I roll a will save for myself).
If the rodent/dustthingy runs under a door, sometimes my dm makes me roll a save to avoid hitting the door.)My alignment according to my dm? A gray area between lawful and true neutral.
Really? I pegged that as Chaotic Neutral by the second line of his 'code'. Survival of the fittest, laws are BS, do what you want is pretty much the CN creed.
Hmmm curious I see myself as lawful neutral/evil as well. I like everything in it's place, I have elaborate systems and routines, that work like machines. For a VERY good reason, mess with my system, get me out of routine and I QUICKLY lose my temper, screaming, yelling, frothing at the mouth, until everything is resettled.
Funny thing is, I'm more productive, innovative (for making new systems) and have greater drive when I'm all angry and aggressive.
So I'm like a sleeping dragon, leave it alone, everything will be ok. Wait, who moved my keys? I ALWAYS PUT MY KEYS RIGHT THERE!! and now they are not there! blah blah blah.
Additionally people who break small laws (like jay walking and california stops at stop signs) REALLY bug me and I think there should be severe punishment for those things (seriously) because if smaller things were punished more strictly (or at all) then people wouldnt blow them off and commit larger crimes because "they get away with other stuff all the time" (I have literally heard people say that)
Lawful Evil, or Lawful neutral.
Quite odd however, I've very protective of people I see as being "part of the crew" or "productive citizens" and I'm very generous with my own things, often loaning or gifting money because people need it, and I like helping people.
JUST DONT JAY WALK or Im coming to GET you!
|
|
A note: serial killers? At LEAST half of them are way over-the-top LAFWFUL. An "organised" serial killer makes OCD look whimsical.
Serial killer=/=chaotic.
I would have to disagree because a lot of what determines lawful/chaotic are motivations. Especially in the D&D/PF alignment system, motivations matter.
A lawful evil person wants order and rule, preferably so they can rule.
A neutral evil person wants enough rules to protect them, but wants to flout them when it is convenient.
A chaotic evil person wants to destroy, maim, ruin, and kill PERIOD.
Even a chaotic evil person will have to be capable of SOME organization and planning, or else they won't be an effective anything. Disorganized chaotic evil are spree killers and school shooters; one big BANG and then they're captured or killed.
A serial killer can be organized, but his goals are always going to be murder and death, maybe a sprinkling of necrophilia or cannibalism. His desires and his actions are destructive to the social order, hence chaotic.
You see it always annoys me when people claim that evil characters in role playing can't be anything other than unambiguous monsters that the only evil that exists is fundamental evil because when it comes down to most people are more complex than that. It is perfectly possible for a person to be perfectly evil in a given situation but also perfectly kind and normal in every other. The obvious example is the Soprano style mob family man he really cares about his family and his community and will act selflessly within it, but will also commit evil acts on a regular basis.
I don't think anyone in the thread has claimed that you have to be an unambiguous monster if you are evil.
However, you do have to be pretty bad. I mean, we are talking about someone being EVIL, not a mean fellah or kind of a jerk.
But I do believe that for a truly evil character to do something nice for someone else there ought to be an underlying reason, some justification, for it to make sense.
If you look at the Sopranos you can see that Tony doesn't go out of his way to do nice things for other people EVER... unless he gets something out of it. He is a straight up sociopath. There is always a reason for his actions, and it is almost always selfish. He wants to get something out of the relationship. Sometimes he does something because he knows it is expected of him and he recognizes that he must do something so he can maintain the relationship.
I think you can have very interesting evil characters, they are in depth and they have reasons for what they do. Most of the interest in the evil character is from the justifications they bring forth to justify their actions.
What I don't think you can have is a good character who is truly altruistic and goes out of his way to be nice but has an evil alignment only based off the spells he casts in his free time. To me that is not only not that interesting of a character, but it doesn't allow for consequences for a characters actions. If a character uses evil magic regularly he will be affected by it. In much the same way that there is a physical response to the regular use of steroids. If you use steroids too often you WILL have a biological response to it, emotionally and physically. You cannot stop that reaction. In the same way you cannot stop the way that spells will impact your character, if you are a good person who casts evil spells regularly.
Maybe I should separate that last part into its own post, but thats my view on it.
Make interesting evil characters. Give them strong motivations for what they are doing. But don't trivialize their alignment so you can get around what the alignment really means. It is not a straight jacket, but it is a nice guideline.
A note: serial killers? At LEAST half of them are way over-the-top LAFWFUL. An "organised" serial killer makes OCD look whimsical.
Serial killer=/=chaotic.
I would have to disagree because a lot of what determines lawful/chaotic are motivations. Especially in the D&D/PF alignment system, motivations matter.
A lawful evil person wants order and rule, preferably so they can rule.
IT was stated in another addition of this game, once, that LE personalities don't have to rule, as long as the rules are sufficient to protect them, can be used to their advantage, and are loose enough for them to manipulate, then they are happy enough to be IN the chain of command, without being in COMMAND.
However, if the rules don't suit the above conditions, they seek to usurp and control.
Well, I was going to elaborate on serial killer lawfulness, but reading through the accumulation of posts shows I'd be ninja-ed on all the points I would have raised.
Good work, folks. You can collect your Minion Badges on the way out...
:)
That's MISTER Minion, thank you!
What? You didn't go to Minion Medical School? Shame on you!
No but the rank of Warrant Officer demands respect, there for it's MISTER, Mr.!
At ease, there troop! I didn't see your feet on the desk or a cup of coffee in your hand, how was I supposed to know you were a warrant officer?
hah! I thought that was Staff Sergeant? no?
>cocks ear at office door, grins<
Ah, the sweet sounds of rivalry...
I find characters that are tremendously tainted and marked by what they have done, but slowly turning to good, to be quite fascinating.
Ex war criminals, the game.