Some advice on dealing with a evil character as a good character.


Advice

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Peet wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Undead are evil and can't be made good.

That doesn't mean raising them is evil. If they are controlled they can be prevented from doing evil. Raising uncontrolled undead and turning them loose would definitely be evil though.

And I disagree that undead can't be turned into good. Mindless undead can't be made into good beings but as mindless creatures they are not evil in the same sense that intelligent beings are. But there's no reason a vampire or lich couldn't renounce their evil ways (though it is unlikely). However, in most cases if an intelligent undead creature ceases being evil, they also cease being undead and become merely dead. It would be a really great story arc where the lich villain is defeated by ultimately 'converting' him to good; this would allow him to die and his spirit to leave this world. Kind of like Darth Vader switching sides at the end of Return of the Jedi.

Peet

I was going off what the designers have said. You could implement this as a houserule, but the game points to undead generally being unable to be neutral or good(few exceptions, like ghost). IMO, you would have as much success trying to convince a lich to be good as you would convincing Dexter to be good.


It looks to me that the NG is the odd one out I was under that under the impression that a NG character dosent really care that much eather way and would have to be convinced to eather do something truely good or truely bad but on its own just tends to do its own thing and what it thinks the right thing might be.

Where a NG may not like seeing a body treated this way they can still over look it where a LG holy person would need to speak up especialy if there deity hated undead or something I may be wrong im fairly new but the vets ive played with usualy only have there LG characters freak out if you mistreat a corps or kill a helpless opponent.

It was my understanding that a NE is that evil guy thats taging along because hes bored or just feels like it and its keeping him amused. where CE wants to bring a end to law and is all for screwing with and randomly killing his party cuz he dont like them or he got bored. LE is all good must be destroied and he would tend to look at the group as his minions or pawns.

also N evil or good could be a character following there own rules or code

someone whos a DM could probibly explain this alot better


Snowtiger wrote:
LE is all good must be destroied and he would tend to look at the group as his minions or pawns.

That's not what LE is.

NE ist just about opposing good, so if someone id dedicated to fighting good is's the NE guy.
The LE guy is just amoral but has principles he adheres to. In most cases this will include being not too dishonest and keeping ones word of honor.

But your way to see it showes why many people have a problem with evil or especially LE guys.

I'd always rather work along LE guys than CN. And the story above about the LE guy and the CN orc was how it should be. If they are on the same side the pally should get along better with the LE than with the CN guy because LG and LE are closer to one another than LG an CN.
Or to say it in another way: LE is as close to LG as CG is to LG.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
This is why I am very hesitant to allow evil characters in any of my campaigns. I do know some players that handle it very well. But most groups have at least 1 person that does not handle it well. At least half the time I've seen someone want to play an evil character, they are the one that can't handle it in a mature fashion. They just want to screw over the other players and derail any possible plot. Then tensions rise. I've seen it break up groups.

This is largely my experience as well.

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
I just don't usually do it anymore. IF in the future I find a group where ALL of them can handle it and someone really wants to play a moderately evil character I will consider it.

I just say 'no evil' when I am running a game, and take care when playing one of my fellow players.


why not have the bard and the necro role play it out, see where it goes. I don't see why raises dead in battle from fallen foes to kill the enemy as "being evil". I see it more as the party lives another day. Think of it as meat shield, they can tank it out and be destroyed. Simple as that.


Quote:
IMO, you would have as much success trying to convince a lich to be good as you would convincing Dexter to be GOOD.

Dexter's good, in a crazy killing way. He's a crime scene cop and kills evil people that should have been killed in his mind set. Other people would agree and disagree cause of the laws and morals.


Umbranus wrote:
Snowtiger wrote:
LE is all good must be destroied and he would tend to look at the group as his minions or pawns.

That's not what LE is.

NE ist just about opposing good, so if someone id dedicated to fighting good is's the NE guy.
The LE guy is just amoral but has principles he adheres to. In most cases this will include being not too dishonest and keeping ones word of honor.

But your way to see it showes why many people have a problem with evil or especially LE guys.

I'd always rather work along LE guys than CN. And the story above about the LE guy and the CN orc was how it should be. If they are on the same side the pally should get along better with the LE than with the CN guy because LG and LE are closer to one another than LG an CN.
Or to say it in another way: LE is as close to LG as CG is to LG.

Im not saying evil is bad ive got a CG Sorceress whos working along side a paladin and a anti paladin who have joined forces to preserve order in the universe or something im not sure they have a really long speach they do when asked... I chose CG for her because she don't like being told what to do.

She tends to do the right thing but if you try to phisicaly harm her become hurt and start begging for mercy she is going to melt your face off otherwise shes not a trouble maker. shes a bit of a b**%& and dose not like clerics at all since the evil ones try to sacrifice her (thats how she was introduced to the party since her bloodline is abyssal and the DM thought it was funny) and the good ones think shes evil. (also a half-elf so shes the unwanted stepchild of both races) she was my first PC and i was told to go CG but after just reading the alignments again i think she fits more of a CN character.

I take back what I said about LE I really like the dexter example.


what would your bard do if he animated the skelitons and had them dig graves for them and all there dead friends i wonder.....


Psion-Psycho wrote:
I agree with Darkwolf117 in that u should 'Watch and wait... and bide your time.' The creation of undead is an evil act but that does not mean that good can not come from it or that all undead are evil. Take Frankenstein for exaple. Frankenstein committed the evil of undead resurrection with semi good tendencies and the Frankenstein monster was not evil though it clearly be a sentient undead.

I thought that he made a golem more than bringing a single person back from the dead.

Dark Archive

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
This is why I am very hesitant to allow evil characters in any of my campaigns.

You realize the OPs problem was that the evil character was using one of his class abilities and the *good* character threatened to attack him if he did so?

The evil character wasn't the one not 'handling it in a mature fashion' or 'attempting to screw over the other players' or 'derail any possible plot.'

The entirety of the conflict was a result of the good characters actions. The *evil* character was the one who backed down and said, 'whatever, live and let live, it's not worth a fight, or causing inter-party tension.'

In my gaming experience, good PCs, particularly Lawful Good PCs, are *far* more likely to attack other party members for doing stuff that they object to (You interfered with my honorable single combat! You stole my kill! You killed my prisoner! You 'disrespected me.'), than evil characters, who, as a general rule, have a far lower standard of 'stuff they object to.'

Which is kind of why they call them 'evil' in the first place, because they aren't generally morally offended by much of anything... :)

In earlier editions, when a paladin was strictly forbidden from adventuring with certain alignments, just *choosing* to play a paladin was a game-disruptive choice, since it automatically restricted every other players choices, and imposed certain limitations on their RP, combat tactics, etc. (It certainly wasn't the only such choice. The Unearthed Arcana cavalier with it's social status nonsense and barbarian with it's 'destroy all magic items' ethic similarly imposed certain obstacles on every other player at the table, making them equally poor design, IMO, as they attempted to 'balance' a class by punishing everyone else at the table.) Pathfinder, thankfully, has moved away from this 'balance a strong class by imposing behavior and action restrictions to make everybody else even weaker!' philosophy.

There are certainly terribly disruptive players who are drawn like moths to evil (or, at least as commonly, chaotic) options, but, again, in my experience, such matters are self-correcting, as someone playing stupid evil generally gets their character killed, if not by their own choices, then by their party's reactions. Someone who is disruptively playing a lawful or good character, on the other hand, is often *rewarded* for being a jerk and making the game less fun for everyone else, as if it's somehow 'gooder' to be selfish, judgemental and intolerant.


Set wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
This is why I am very hesitant to allow evil characters in any of my campaigns.

You realize the OPs problem was that the evil character was using one of his class abilities and the *good* character threatened to attack him if he did so?

The evil character wasn't the one not 'handling it in a mature fashion' or 'attempting to screw over the other players' or 'derail any possible plot.'

The entirety of the conflict was a result of the good characters actions. The *evil* character was the one who backed down and said, 'whatever, live and let live, it's not worth a fight, or causing inter-party tension.'

In my gaming experience, good PCs, particularly Lawful Good PCs, are *far* more likely to attack other party members for doing stuff that they object to (You interfered with my honorable single combat! You stole my kill! You killed my prisoner! You 'disrespected me.'), than evil characters, who, as a general rule, have a far lower standard of 'stuff they object to.'

Which is kind of why they call them 'evil' in the first place, because they aren't generally morally offended by much of anything... :)

In earlier editions, when a paladin was strictly forbidden from adventuring with certain alignments, just *choosing* to play a paladin was a game-disruptive choice, since it automatically restricted every other players choices, and imposed certain limitations on their RP, combat tactics, etc. (It certainly wasn't the only such choice. The Unearthed Arcana cavalier with it's social status nonsense and barbarian with it's 'destroy all magic items' ethic similarly imposed certain obstacles on every other player at the table, making them equally poor design, IMO, as they attempted to 'balance' a class by punishing everyone else at the table.) Pathfinder, thankfully, has moved away from this 'balance a strong class by imposing behavior and action restrictions to make everybody else even weaker!' philosophy.

There are certainly terribly disruptive...

I think I fell in love with a lawful evil PC. And I love it.


Runaway Panda wrote:

So I'm currently in a campaign where someone is playing a lawful evil necromancer. My character is a neutral good bard and earlier tonight we got into a bit of a scuffle when he decided to raise two bodies as his zombie minions, just after we killed a Mohrg who had risen from a nearby pile of corpses. As he was performing his ritual I tried interrupting it, eventually drawing my sword and attempted to talk him down. We came to a temporary agreement but I worry that If this campaign continues we may end up at each others throats again, our characters anyway.

As a good character, how do you handle an evil aligned character?

As to why our characters were even traveling together in the first place, an unknown force brought us all together and we are now in a temporary alliance until we figure out a way out of our current predicament.
The rest of the party consists of a Chaotic Neutral Ranger, a Lawful Evil Cavalier and a Chaotic Neutral Fighter. With me being the only good aligned character in the bunch.

I don't know why your party didn't attack the bard for attempting to harm the necromancer in all honesty. Do you even know what the alignment system is? I suggest reading the alignment system before you get your GOOD character killed because in all honsety, you have few friends in that party it looks like.

Lantern Lodge

Peet wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Undead are evil and can't be made good.

That doesn't mean raising them is evil. If they are controlled they can be prevented from doing evil. Raising uncontrolled undead and turning them loose would definitely be evil though.

And I disagree that undead can't be turned into good. Mindless undead can't be made into good beings but as mindless creatures they are not evil in the same sense that intelligent beings are. But there's no reason a vampire or lich couldn't renounce their evil ways (though it is unlikely). However, in most cases if an intelligent undead creature ceases being evil, they also cease being undead and become merely dead. It would be a really great story arc where the lich villain is defeated by ultimately 'converting' him to good; this would allow him to die and his spirit to leave this world. Kind of like Darth Vader switching sides at the end of Return of the Jedi.

Peet

I actually did play for a while a LG Kobalt Lich Wizard in a friend's game before. The character's reason to become a Lich was to gain the power to set his brothers and sisters free from being slaves and meals for dwarfs. It was a very interesting game and I managed to pull it of because the character's goals were to save his kin, unify them, and give them a place to live with out fear of death. He knew that his life is not a long 1 and to accomplish his goals for his kind he would need to be strong and brave enough to do it. So as a lich he did not fear his own death and has the power to do what needs to be done. Party Members btw consisted of 2 Kobalt rogues and a Goblin Paladin. Weird group i know but it worked oddly enough lol.

Sovereign Court

@ Psion Spycho. By pathfinder, all undead are evil. Period. Just ask James Jacobs.

Lantern Lodge

I know all undead are evil by Pathfinder but if ur playing a homebrew game that is Pathfinder 3.5+ were u use Pathfinder as a Supplement book like it is supposedly advertise so they dont get sued by WoTC then u use rules from all books with newer rules overriding old rules that clash with new rules unless there cannon. Also if u want to argue Pathfinder as its own game then i will be more than happy to send WoTC a detailed list of feats, monsters, and mechanics that they clearly copy and pasted with the 3.0 and 3.5 material from were it came. Ive played this game for roughly 35 years in the day of AD&D and know a lot of the rules inside and out and same goes for the 1000+ feats.


The feats they copied are OGL. Which is why you don't see things like mindfalyers and githyaki, because they are NOT OGL.

So first you have to understand the nature of OGL.

Pathfinder is it's own game. It has officially passed DnD now.

On the issue of undead, zombies and such.

In 2E you had priest kits. Specifically a priest of Tempest could be chaotic neutral, and cast both cure and cause wound spells. He could also raise undead and not become evil because his god Tempest saw it as a legitimate battle tactic.

So I suppose based on that precedent, it's all in the eyes of the diety in question.

I did think there was once a neutral undead... a revenant? I can't recall.

That being said, if you have good clerics or paladins in a party that specifically turn/destroy undead (or a ranger or certain kind of inquisitor for that matter) then you have all sorts of issues.

However, in general, if you are getting mobbed by hoardes of goblins, and are likely going to die, but the evil wizard whips up a phalanx of undead from the bodies of fallen goblins.... are you going to complain?

does the end justify the means? Maybe.... but you are likely going to have that conversation when you get out of this.

I have a few evil characters I enjoy playing. The lawful evil monk is a no mercy kind of guy, more interested in personal power/perfection than anything else. He adventures to gain more power. One of the least likely characters I play to risk his own life to save yours.
My Lawful Evil Magus is a build based on Elric. He's sour and sullen, follows a code of ethics (keeps his promises, doesn't betray friends) sees nothing wrong with pressing unfair advantages. Doesn't break local laws because it brings unwanted attention and retribution. But will probably kill women and children, because after all...they are still orcs and goblins and will just breed another generation.. blah blah blah.
As such he's very unlikely to leave a breeding population of enemy alive. He kills what he doesn't feel the need to question.
He's effective and lethal.
Spells and items are for use and power, those who fear things like necromancy are weak and foolish.
He adventures because he wants to be seen like a hero, fame, and all that goes along with it. Killing evil monsters and raiders is easy, everyone agrees with you and pats you on the back for doing it and the rewards are abundant.

Neither one of those guys are particularly disruptive to a group. although their actions could be the cause of some RP discussions.

If a good party member told me, don't kill the women and children, Id say no problem. then we can't leave them here to starve, leaving them with money and food then are you? That's coming out of your cut... joy boy.

If a good party member didn't want me killing prisoners? Then I would make it a point to tie them all up and loop them to the party members wrist, remind him that feeding them comes out of his rations, because there is no way Im leaving unattended enemy to my rear.

If a good party member objects to the nature of my spell choice? I cast different spells and make sure my spell casting doesn't directly benefit him, ever.
sorry mate, not enough buffs to go around, some of my slots are taken up with spells you dont like..... what a shame.

Liberty's Edge

Hama wrote:
@ Psion Spycho. By pathfinder, all undead are evil. Period. Just ask James Jacobs.

You might want to check the Blood of the Night Player Companion. Especially page 14 on Vampire's alignment :

"Most vampires are evil, but like any race that doesn’t have the evil subtype, there is always a slim chance for redemption."
"Neutral vampires are rare, but not unheard of."
"A good vampire is so rare as to be almost nonexistent."

Also the Juju mystery springs to mind.

Note however that casting a spell that creates undead is always Evil (as does casting any spell with the Evil descriptor according to Devs), except with the appropriate Revelation of the Juju mystery.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, I think there is a general misunderstanding of what Evil actually is, and what an evil character actually thinks.

Some fallacies...

1) Evil wants to destroy good.
Evil does not necessarily have an axe to grind with Good. Evil sees Good as an obstacle, as an inconvenience, or as an idealised outcome of their own actions. Many evil people see themselves as the good guys. Others see themselves as above good and evil.

2) Evil is aware they are evil.
Many evil characters will see their actions as practical, justified, and for the greater good. Raising undead as evil? Get real, it's just recycling. Torture is wrong? Well how the hell else do you get information on the enemy? It's not nice, but someone has to do it. Even the most self-centred chaotic evil characters can simply be self-absorbed and lacking in empathy, and see all their actions as justified because they are the most important thing in the universe.

3) Evil is clever.
Evil characters are often anything but clever. That's just something they use to justify their actions: "I'm doing what everyone else would be doing, I'm just smarter than all of them and thought of it first" is what they tell themselves. It often takes more brains to be good than to be evil, as good has more constraints on it but has the same requirements to get things done. Evil characters often do not understand that other people do not have the same moral conscience as themselves, and view those that have a conscience merely as 'stupid'.

This does not mean that there are not malicious, sadistic, evil monsters that are extremely clever - it's just that this kind of evil is actually very rare in real people. For most, evil is simply a matter of convenience.

Some fallacies about good:

1) lawful good = lawful stupid
Good people have a conscience and act on it. They act on principal and they act regardless of whether others around them affected by their actions are friends or strangers. This does not make them stupid, and it does not limit them to being 'noble' and 'honourable' - their overriding compulsion is to do the right thing by others.

2) Good must attack evil
Attacking is violence, and that seldom gets people anywhere. Often good seeks to educate, not confront. Kill an evil person and their soul gets recycled in the lower planes as more evil. Convert an evil person to good, and you have changed the amount of good in the world.

3) Good is self-righteous
By definition people who take action based on conscience are self-righteous, but that does not mean they have to act like jerks about it. Being convinced you are right is not an excuse for not listening to the other guy, or giving them a chance to defend themselves. Just because somebody does something you think of as wrong does not mean they are a demon in human form, everybody makes mistakes.

Of course there ARE stupid, self-righteous good characters that attack on sight. However, these are rare, and are often on the cusp of becoming evil without actually realising it.

Lantern Lodge

@Dabbler
"Of course there ARE stupid, self-righteous good characters that attack on sight. However, these are rare, and are often on the cusp of becoming evil without actually realizing it."
Is not as rare as u proclaim. Every paladin i have ever encountered but 2 are that exact description. 1 of the better paladins was the 1 that adventured with my necromancer. The other was a paladin monk with vow of poverty that seriously went above and beyond to help those in need and even consoled those he attacked and always did non lethal damage. The only time he attacked with lethal was against demons and devils and even then he apologized up front and promised a swift death with as little pain as possible and backed up those words. Undead of course he smited but once done buried the bodies and said a prayer for them.


Runaway Panda wrote:

So I'm currently in a campaign where someone is playing a lawful evil necromancer. My character is a neutral good bard and earlier tonight we got into a bit of a scuffle when he decided to raise two bodies as his zombie minions, just after we killed a Mohrg who had risen from a nearby pile of corpses. As he was performing his ritual I tried interrupting it, eventually drawing my sword and attempted to talk him down. We came to a temporary agreement but I worry that If this campaign continues we may end up at each others throats again, our characters anyway.

As a good character, how do you handle an evil aligned character?

As to why our characters were even traveling together in the first place, an unknown force brought us all together and we are now in a temporary alliance until we figure out a way out of our current predicament.
The rest of the party consists of a Chaotic Neutral Ranger, a Lawful Evil Cavalier and a Chaotic Neutral Fighter. With me being the only good aligned character in the bunch.

Personally, I'd bow out on the good character, and go something a little more shady neutral. Otherwise I just see things ending up bad for you. You're outnumbered pretty well, and there may come a point when that Necromancer decides to stop you from rescuing an innocent from a burning building.


One of the best definitions of good and evil (especially as it relates to the alignment system) came from this strip.

Shadow Lodge

Psion-Psycho wrote:

@Dabbler

"Of course there ARE stupid, self-righteous good characters that attack on sight. However, these are rare, and are often on the cusp of becoming evil without actually realizing it."
Is not as rare as u proclaim. Every paladin i have ever encountered but 2 are that exact description. 1 of the better paladins was the 1 that adventured with my necromancer. The other was a paladin monk with vow of poverty that seriously went above and beyond to help those in need and even consoled those he attacked and always did non lethal damage. The only time he attacked with lethal was against demons and devils and even then he apologized up front and promised a swift death with as little pain as possible and backed up those words. Undead of course he smited but once done buried the bodies and said a prayer for them.

I think Dabbler would categorize those self-righteous paladins that attack on sight as characters in danger of a fall from grace due to overeager smiting and their players believing that fallacy about what good means.

Runaway Panda wrote:
Not only that but necromancers tend to always be evil. I honestly couldn't see any good aligned character easily trust a necromancer.

My NG druid had quite an amiable relationship with a LN Undead Bloodline Sorcerer and even helped him landscape the school of necromancy that he established in town. The sorcererous necromancer in question was a mortician who sought to bring rest to cursed spirits and opposed those who sullied necromancy's reputation with thoughtless and destructive creation of undead.

Also notable: in a different campaign my LG Inquisitor had a great relationship with a CN sorcerer. They happened to work together well tactically and have common goals, the Inquisitor was inclined to be loyal towards teammates and was patient enough to tolerate the sorcerer's antics, and the sorcerer liked having a reliable bodyguard-type around.

The trick to dealing with characters of different backgrounds, viewpoints, or alignments, is to find the common ground or at least common goals. Your character has a very good reason to think the worst of people who use necromancy and particularly those who create undead. If you want to dial down the confrontation, you're going to want to scale up the "common goals" to "common ground" as soon as possible.

In this case your character was acting in an aggressive manner which was understandable given her background, but was excessive and probably not making her any friends. Consider playing off her initial reaction as surprise and instinctive dislike. Having had some time to "cool off," probe the necromancer and your other parties for their opinions about this situation - your character may legitimately be trying to figure out what sort of justification the necromancer has for his actions, since she feels that necromancy is only used to victimize. Your LE necromancer likely feels he is being pragmatic. They're not using their bodies, why not make use of them? Your character could easily tolerate the use of undead as long as they're not used in a directly evil way, even if she's likely to continue being suspicious.

You might be able to build off the truce you've already got, and you are in a better position than I am to figure out how to get your characters to work together. But it's not a situation in which you have to be in conflict - you can keep it to exactly the level of bickering that's fun for both of you.


Weirdo wrote:
In this case your character was acting in an aggressive manner which was understandable given her background, but was excessive and probably not making her any friends. Consider playing off her initial reaction as surprise and instinctive dislike. Having had some time to "cool off," probe the necromancer and your other parties for their opinions about this situation - your character may legitimately be trying to figure out what sort of justification the necromancer has for his actions, since she feels that necromancy is only used to victimize. Your LE necromancer likely feels he is being pragmatic. They're not using their bodies, why not make use of them? Your character could easily tolerate the use of undead as long as they're not used in a directly evil way, even if she's likely to continue being suspicious.

This is what I will likely go for when our next session rolls around.

I don't feel like my character necessarily hates the necromancer. They had some time to get to know each other a little before the incident occurred and despite drawing her weapon, my character had no intention of attacking him. She was merely showing how serious of an issue it was to her.
Doggan wrote:
Personally, I'd bow out on the good character, and go something a little more shady neutral. Otherwise I just see things ending up bad for you. You're outnumbered pretty well, and there may come a point when that Necromancer decides to stop you from rescuing an innocent from a burning building.

I really hope it doesn't come to this because I really like my bard! :( However, I did start brainstorming some possible replacements that wouldn't feel too forced and would actually fit into the current campaign... as a just in case, hah.


Runaway Panda wrote:

So I'm currently in a campaign where someone is playing a lawful evil necromancer. My character is a neutral good bard and earlier tonight we got into a bit of a scuffle when he decided to raise two bodies as his zombie minions, just after we killed a Mohrg who had risen from a nearby pile of corpses. As he was performing his ritual I tried interrupting it, eventually drawing my sword and attempted to talk him down. We came to a temporary agreement but I worry that If this campaign continues we may end up at each others throats again, our characters anyway.

As a good character, how do you handle an evil aligned character?

As to why our characters were even traveling together in the first place, an unknown force brought us all together and we are now in a temporary alliance until we figure out a way out of our current predicament.
The rest of the party consists of a Chaotic Neutral Ranger, a Lawful Evil Cavalier and a Chaotic Neutral Fighter. With me being the only good aligned character in the bunch.

1.) You have no business as a CG provoking combat against allies, period. You don't like it thats to iron out before game play. Your oppressive values and taboos are not his issue. You're in a party that screams random violence and suffering, deal with it. You're the oddball, not him. If you were in a largely NG/LG then thats a another story.

2.) Animating the corpses of evil beings is not in of itself evil. These are individuals who would be suffering and/or becoming even worse where theyre going. if he uses them in the service of good (or at least non-evil) aiding you so be it.

3.) You'd have to be a pretty min/max bard to have a chance vs a necromancer. Depending on level and build begin up against an overland flight/enervation combo is not going to work out too well for you let alone summon/undead/planar allies. While i don't like pc on pc hostility if I was playing evil i would kill you next chance I had and (for irony) animate your corpse as the party mule.

Sorry if you don't like it but you put your goodie goodie face where is didnt belong. Once you're a team you stick it out, this is why you communicate with your other players BEFORE starting play, not just after. As a general rule people being intolerant of others for the greater "good" is where you get holy wars and genocide.


@Runaway Panda: How would you feel if the necromancer raising the zombies was neutral? LN, N, or CN? He is in no danger of becoming EVIL by casting the spell . . . in fact, it is the bread and butter of what he does. Using corpses that would otherwise be useless in fighting for what he considers right.

If your reaction would be any different if the character doing it did have that LE next to alignment . . . what does that say?

MA


magikot wrote:
One of the best definitions of good and evil (especially as it relates to the alignment system) came from this strip.

"Digger" is to comic strip as "Moby Dick" is to sailing story...

That strip is sheer brilliance. It should be part of a literature class curriculum.

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Some advice on dealing with a evil character as a good character. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.