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


Advice

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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.


Did you all know what the other players would be bringing to the table ahead of time?


First question. Why does your bard object to raising the dead? I totally understand if it's simply an "it's evil" thing, but that's probably a good start.

Depending on the ferocity of your character's attitude towards undead, I think my advice might be variable.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It depends on how that character plays "evil." I was recently in a campaign with two evil characters, one of whom was passively evil, and the other, me, who was actively evil.

In my party was a LE monk who was inspired by premium-cable serial killer Dexter. As a monk, he had a specific code which included loyalty to party, and absolutely no mercy. He actually ended up as a fantastic team player. He really played up the lawful aspects of his character, and treated his evilness as "a complete lack of desire to do good."

I, on the other-hand, was a NE Undead Lord Cleric of Urgathoa who posed as Neutral. I made the character fully intending to betray the party. I was somewhat of a team player, in that I didn't want anyone in the party to die unless I could get them all to die at once. I eventually turned on the party when we were down two members. (I lost hard, btw)

_

So in answer to your question, if your necro is passively evil, it should be easy to get along if you want to. He's not murdering innocents and raising their corpses, he's just raising disused, naturally occuring corpses. Distasteful, but not necessarily irreconcilable.

However, if your necro is actively evil, if he has some evil plan or intent, you should be wary of his motivations and call him on anything he does that seems outwardly evil.


You kill them. Stab, stab, stabbity stab.

Oh for the days when evil was not an option for PCs.

Edit: If you lose, roll up an evil character so that you fit better with the party. If you win, tell the party you insist on detecting evil on new party members (assuming you are all high enough level to register).

Lantern Lodge

Well the act of bringing creating undead is evil since the 1 raising the corpse is defiling it in a sense. As a LG i would have his head in seconds. NG on the other hand is not as extreme. As a neutral good character i would come to a compromise of fine necro do ur undead thing but do it on animals and monsters that are evil to begin with but after accomplishing the reason of there creation have them destroyed asap.


Psion-Psycho wrote:
Well the act of bringing creating undead is evil since the 1 raising the corpse is defiling it in a sense. As a LG i would have his head in seconds. NG on the other hand is not as extreme. As a neutral good character i would come to a compromise of fine necro do ur undead thing but do it on animals and monsters that are evil to begin with but after accomplishing the reason of there creation have them destroyed asap.

LG is as far removed from evil as NG is. The last time I had this issue I was playing a CG Bard dedicated to Cayden Cailen. I knew out of character the arcane trickster was evil, but not in character. That being said, the character was creepy so it wouldn't have been a surprise if he pinged as evil. I would have had his head in seconds, very few questions asked.


@ Psion-Psycho: So... then when the necro says "Nah, I'd rather not," what's the plan, in that case? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

pillow case full of feather token anchor. No one expects a 10 ton pillow fight.


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.

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.


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.

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.

This is my experience as well (though I haven't allowed evil characters [with a class of exceptions] in almost a decade).

I have allowed evil PCs when they are basically player controlled NPCs (they are in on part of the plot).


I am a bit bothered by the "Handle it well" comment. If your good PC's are not doing something about the evil one they are not handling it well they are letting it slide for the metagame. If the evil guy is not doing evil as to not be killed by his party then why did he pick evil alignment?

I would like to say leave the evil out except for in an evil campaign but sadly that tends to go just as bad. While good tends to be loyal to good evil tends to treat other evil just as badly as anyone else. Rarely loyalty of any sort.

Lantern Lodge

Ya in the games i playing raising undead is a big no no. The thing is though is that good and evil can get along as long as evil is not a diptard. Ive done in games were my LE necromancer got along swimmingly with the LG paladin since i was not a diptard in front of him. Example all y undead were well disguised, not rotting, and clean so it looked basically like a goth. All the evil acts i committed were never direct actions and i always told the truth ind u it was not the whole truth. Heck i even 1ce saved a child that fell of a cliff side instead of saving the sack of gold in front of towns folk in order to seem like the hero type then gave the child to the paladin to take to its parents while i stayed behind to gather info and the gold at the bottom of the cliff lol.
The thing is depending if he serves a god or not and how he is playing the neutral part of his alignment there should be room for compromise since neutral imo should be played as 1 that tries to keep the balance and/or one that does not care for an abundance of order and freedom. O and i to recall the old days of AD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5 were the DM basically gave u the back hand for even considering an evil character.


Psion-Psycho wrote:

Ya in the games i playing raising undead is a big no no. The thing is though is that good and evil can get along as long as evil is not a diptard. Ive done in games were my LE necromancer got along swimmingly with the LG paladin since i was not a diptard in front of him. Example all y undead were well disguised, not rotting, and clean so it looked basically like a goth. All the evil acts i committed were never direct actions and i always told the truth ind u it was not the whole truth. Heck i even 1ce saved a child that fell of a cliff side instead of saving the sack of gold in front of towns folk in order to seem like the hero type then gave the child to the paladin to take to its parents while i stayed behind to gather info and the gold at the bottom of the cliff lol.

The thing is depending if he serves a god or not and how he is playing the neutral part of his alignment there should be room for compromise since neutral imo should be played as 1 that tries to keep the balance and/or one that does not care for an abundance of order and freedom. O and i to recall the old days of AD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5 were the DM basically gave u the back hand for even considering an evil character.

Paladin should be getting perception vs disguise to notice undead. Paladin should then be getting knowledge (religion) to identify undead. Paladin should be falling like a motha' if doesn't do anything about the LE guy he is hanging out with.


Zog of Deadwood wrote:
Did you all know what the other players would be bringing to the table ahead of time?

We all told each other about our characters before the campaign started and felt that a lawful evil character could work so long as it was done in a subtle way. The other lawful evil character, the cavalier, has this nailed down perfectly. His actions only hint at his darker intentions and has yet to do something that would identify him as evil.

While the necromancer has also done a good job staying under the radar, I feel his actions went too far so I decided to call him on it and asked him to stop. He did not and that's where the problem arose.
Darkwolf117 wrote:

First question. Why does your bard object to raising the dead? I totally understand if it's simply an "it's evil" thing, but that's probably a good start.

Depending on the ferocity of your character's attitude towards undead, I think my advice might be variable.

My bard is a half elf. He was raised by his Varisian mother who hails from the gloomy nation of Ustalav. The people of Ustalav have had a fair share of undead troubles and seeing as he was raised by his Varisian parent and lived in Ustalav for a time he would learn to fear and hate undead himself. Or at the very least have a great distrust of them.

Not only that but necromancers tend to always be evil. I honestly couldn't see any good aligned character easily trust a necromancer.
Stome wrote:
I am a bit bothered by the "Handle it well" comment. If your good PC's are not doing something about the evil one they are not handling it well they are letting it slide for the metagame. If the evil guy is not doing evil as to not be killed by his party then why did he pick evil alignment?

Well the thing is our party is actually has more evil than it does good. There are two lawful evil characters, two chaotic neutral characters and myself who is neutral good.

As to why be evil if you can't actually be evil I think that part of the fun is how far can you go before your allies figure out you're evil. Assuming there isn't a paladin in the group anyway.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

They just want to screw over the other players and derail any possible plot. Then tensions rise. I've seen it break up groups.

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 think the better solution is to just go full out evil on it. I've played in an evil campaign once for a little while, until the GM was unable to run it any longer due to outside issues. It was a good game though...no pun intended. It was somewhat heavy handed in all of us partying up ("You work with the group or you die and we get replacements" kinda deal), but everyone was basically on the same page, and it ran pretty smoothly.

Mixing good and evil alignments can be much more tricky though. It can make for some awesome roleplaying scenarios, but it definitely can also make a lot of tension over time.

...I'm not really sure where I was going with this post originally. Something along the lines of you might want to try out a full evil campaign and see how that goes sometime, rather than keeping evil characters on a short leash in an otherwise good party. It could be interesting and help for an idea on how evil characters can play without being total party-backstabbers.

Lantern Lodge

@ Whale_Cancer
u have a very cut and dry out look on good and evil i bet. Also he did every day and the dm was having him role but my checks were better since the character i was playing was built primarily around it. Also in the game i was playing the dm did not allow detect spells and swapped out detect evil for a perma zone of truth no save. He thought that being able to detect alignment was not in good role play which all of us agreed and furthered his argument with if he was to smite all those he detected evil then he would be killing towns folk since all mortals have some degree of evil in there nature. After all there are those that wish to revolt or kill but do not act. They have evil thoughts but they do not commit evil but still would be labeled so. To smite for the fact of them being evil but having no evidence of evil action is more on the lines of chaos the it is on the lines of order and i as a DM would have that paladin fall for violating the order part of his alignment.


Psion-Psycho wrote:
The thing is depending if he serves a god or not and how he is playing the neutral part of his alignment there should be room for compromise since neutral imo should be played as 1 that tries to keep the balance and/or one that does not care for an abundance of order and freedom.

He is a worshiper of Urgathoa and even had his own cult dedicated to her prior to the campaigns chain of events that lead to us coming together.

As for the neutral statement. While normally I would agree with a neutral character wanting to keep a balanced outlook I am also a good character, which would mean I'm not a fan of evil acts regardless of the one doing the evil act and would strive to work against it. Maybe not as zealous as a chaotic good or lawful good character might go about it but I would still try to stop it in whatever way I could.

Lantern Lodge

@Runaway Panda
that is an agreeable way to play the character. I just try to stay neutral on the subject for party cohesion and trying to state that evil is not black and white and as cut and dry as most would think. I have slightly over 35 years of gaming experience and even RPed when there was no advantage or disadvantage mechanically to. It though comes a lot to do with the player and how well (s)he can use only the knowledge the character knows and how the player's characters can behave them selves around others which is a lot easier said then done.


Runaway Panda wrote:
...very good character justification for not liking undead...

Alright then. Well, for the immediate moment, you can probably refrain from trying to slit his throat or anything. As much as an evil character can lurk and plan for a fatal backstab, good can do that too. You can keep an eye on him, see how he uses these undead (i.e. how much it presses your morals), and take notes on how to kill him should the need arise.

I know PvP's not all that cool in a lot of cases, but sometimes it is the best way to hash something out. In the meantime, you can play nice, like I said, and see what happens. Might make for some really sweet roleplaying moments to let the current situation persist a little while, and gives you time, in game and out of game, to mull over your options.

Obviously, if you think that the necromancer, the GM, or any of your fellow players will be, out of game, upset by such a situation, then this probably isn't good advice, but in a party of mixed alignments, I'd hope everyone is prepared for a possibility such as that.

So, I guess my advice for the moment boils down to 'Watch and wait... and bide your time.'

It's a thought at least.


Darkwolf117 wrote:
... I think the better solution is to just go full out evil on it. I've played in an evil campaign once for a little while, until the GM was unable to run it any longer due to outside issues. It was a good game though...no pun intended. It was somewhat heavy handed in all of us partying up ("You work with the group or you die and we get replacements" kinda deal), but everyone was basically on the same page, and it ran pretty smoothly...

I've seen this done as well. But it seemed boring after a while. But that may have just been that group.

Darkwolf117 wrote:
... Mixing good and evil alignments can be much more tricky though. It can make for some awesome roleplaying scenarios, but it definitely can also make a lot of tension over time...

Long time ago I was in a very mature group of players that could handle things like this. (( Odd that we were in our late teens and early twenties but were more emotionally mature than many of the people I know now. But I digress. ))

For a large portion of the campaign I played a LE fighter. He simply loved killing people. However, he was intelligent enough to not want to get caught and hung. So he became the problem fixer for the government. He only took most jobs when he had authorization and a pre-emptive clemency for his actions. If he was a bit more 'aggressive' in carrying out his orders than some... Well them's the breaks. He was eventually betrayed by the government (he had become an embarrasment) and hung.

But the entire group RP'd and handled it well. Very few of the groups that have I've met since then could handle it. I haven't even brought it up to a GM in probably 10 years. So I think it would end badly. The recent groups can't hardly handle having chaotic and lawful people or good and neutral people in it.

Lantern Lodge

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.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
I've seen this done as well. But it seemed boring after a while. But that may have just been that group.

Well, this was a full scale campaign setting. Good versus Evil in all out war, with gods on both sides in direct confrontation... except Evil had basically had its ass kicked to the curb, so we were working on fixing that. It was pretty cool :P

As to the second point, I have had a few mixed alignments in groups, and they can make for some interesting cases. I've actually seen two characters duke it out in straight up combat to the death. I don't think it was even a clear alignment issue, so much as it was the characters simply ended up having problems with one another. So, it turned into a duel to the death, with the loser rolling up a new PC.

It's nice when players can handle that without hurt feelings, but with group variability being what it is, it's obviously quite possible for that to happen, which is never very good. I guess it really falls to the players in that regard.

Lantern Lodge

@Kydeem de'Morcaine
agreed most if not all the gamers ive come across hardly ever rp and those that do have a very black and white out look on the alignments and classes. Like many think that the paladin needs to be Mr goody two shoes and smite all evil no mater what it is. Well what happens if u come across a child that is labeled evil and only crime was stealing food to feed her self for the day. Is that punishable by death? How evil can 1s actions be to deserve death and does the act of just being an evil entity deserve death for its right to exists?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Casting a spell with an [evil] descriptor is not an evil act in Pathfinder. Therefore, the simple act of casting Create Undead is not evil.


Psion-Psycho wrote:

@Runaway Panda

that is an agreeable way to play the character. I just try to stay neutral on the subject for party cohesion and trying to state that evil is not black and white and as cut and dry as most would think. I have slightly over 35 years of gaming experience and even RPed when there was no advantage or disadvantage mechanically to. It though comes a lot to do with the player and how well (s)he can use only the knowledge the character knows and how the player's characters can behave them selves around others which is a lot easier said then done.

I guess the ball is in the necromancer's court then. My character is willing to come to a compromise so long as he is willing to tone down the undead raising, but as a necromancer that is a pretty big thing to ask for. Basically saying, hey don't play your character to the fullest. As for how we feel out of game it's a whole different story. We find it to be really interesting from a role playing perspective I just worry it might derail the campaign if it eventually leads to a 1 on 1 fight to the death.

Darkwolf117 wrote:
Alright then. Well, for the immediate moment, you can probably refrain from trying to slit his throat or anything. As much as an evil character can lurk and plan for a fatal backstab, good can do that too. You can keep an eye on him, see how he uses these undead (i.e. how much it presses your morals), and take notes on how to kill him should the need arise.
While I do agree that a good character can totally plot a way to kill an evil character I feel that my character wouldn't. He has a strong belief in preserving life. Think of him like Spider-man in that sense. He's willing to beat the crap out of you, but killing you is the last thing he would want to do. To him killing someone is left as a last resort. Something he has to do. Never something he wants to do.
Darkwolf117 wrote:

I know PvP's not all that cool in a lot of cases, but sometimes it is the best way to hash something out. In the meantime, you can play nice, like I said, and see what happens. Might make for some really sweet roleplaying moments to let the current situation persist a little while, and gives you time, in game and out of game, to mull over your options.

Obviously, if you think that the necromancer, the GM, or any of your fellow players will be, out of game, upset by such a situation, then this probably isn't good advice, but in a party of mixed alignments, I'd hope everyone is prepared for a possibility such as that.

Actually these interactions were some of the most fun times I've had role playing in quite some time. The friction between our characters and our vastly different viewpoints really make for some interesting dialogue.


The Mighty Khan wrote:
Casting a spell with an [evil] descriptor is not an evil act in Pathfinder. Therefore, the simple act of casting Create Undead is not evil.

I think the reason for that is so a neutral cleric can cast it without shifting alignment if he uses it a lot.

I mean, the description of the spell calls it an "evil spell". So I'm pretty confident in saying that casting evil spells doesn't affect your alignment if you're neutral, but is still an evil act in regards to how people react to it.

Liberty's Edge

Excuse me ?

The OP states that his character is willing to agress and maybe hurt/kill another PC who did nothing wrong to the OP's character and everybody blames the second PC's player ?

Just because the OP's character is Good and the second PC is Evil ?

That is just wrong in so many ways I cannot believe it.

To the OP :

1) Good alignment is not (and should never be) a blanket statement that allows your PC to harass other PCs. Acting in self-defense OK. Forcing other PCs to be subservient to your wishes = jerk PC.

2) YOUR PC is in the minority, alignment speaking. He should mind how other party members will react to his attempts at strong-arming their friend, who might be a Necromancer but never hurt any one of them and very likely helped the party survived on previous occasions (ie, usual behaviour of a PC party member).

In other words, have your PC try to find a compromise with the Necromancer so that they can keep on trusting each other as party members. Maybe both of your PCs can ask a 3rd PC you both trust to judge fairly on this and everyone agrees to follow his ruling.

I find it ironic but also oddly appropriate that the most likely respected judge in your PC party is the other LE guy.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Whale_Cancer wrote:

You kill them. Stab, stab, stabbity stab.

Oh for the days when evil was not an option for PCs.

Nothing has really changed. Even back then in the days of "old school", there were DM's who allowed evil PC's and those who did not. The onus is completely on your DM if evil PC are in your group.


@ Runaway Panda: Well, if you're looking to reach a compromise with the necromancer, then I guess your best option for now would be to wait and see how that plays out. And while it might go without saying... keep your eyes peeled too :P

Probably not terribly useful as far as advice goes, but I'm afraid I can't really think of anything better at the moment :/

Also, descriptors are generally most important for the restrictions on what Clerics can cast. I.e., no Evil spells for a Good cleric, or Lawful ones for the Chaotic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

You kill them. Stab, stab, stabbity stab.

Oh for the days when evil was not an option for PCs.

Nothing has really changed. Even back then in the days of "old school", there were DM's who allowed evil PC's and those who did not. The onus is completely on your DM if evil PC are in your group.

I think the culture has changed. Players feel more entitled to play whatever they want, including evil alignments.


Personally, among mature groups, character conflict is what makes the game still interesting.
If your characters have to fight to the death, the bard may be wise to look to the party for help before the situation goes there.
(because bards spin people to their views)

The world you live in really determines what level of conflict is reasonable.
Some play in a law of the road kill or be killed world.
Some play in a world like ours where you can argue with out someone pulling out a spell book or sword.
Since you did draw steal on him, I take it he knows your stance is very strongly opinionated.

I really like how it turned out. Keep me posted on this relationship :D

Another option is the greater good thing.
If your character hasn't been burned in the past he may be more willing to see how this sort of cooperation plays out as a life lesson experiment.
That doesn't mean he cant cock block the necromancer at the local tavern. After-all haters gonna hate.


The black raven wrote:

Excuse me ?

The OP states that his character is willing to agress and maybe hurt/kill another PC who did nothing wrong to the OP's character and everybody blames the second PC's player ?

Just because the OP's character is Good and the second PC is Evil ?

That is just wrong in so many ways I cannot believe it.

While I do agree that he did not actively attempt to hurt me I feel that generally speaking someone will side with a good player rather than an evil player. Is this right? Probably not, but that's the way it is.

Here's an example: Would you side with the talkative nice guy who seems to care about people and their problems? Or side with the quiet recluse who hasn't really said much, and the things he did say were caked with sarcasm and spite.
The black raven wrote:

To the OP :

1) Good alignment is not (and should never be) a blanket statement that allows your PC to harass other PCs. Acting in self-defense OK. Forcing other PCs to be subservient to your wishes = jerk PC.

Again, I agree with your point. alignment shouldn't be used in that way. However, I will say that my intention was never to harm him, it was something my character believed to be wrong and merely asked him to cut it out. Never with the intention of killing him(but definitely trying to show that It was a serious issue with my character).

The black raven wrote:
2) YOUR PC is in the minority, alignment speaking. He should mind how other party members will react to his attempts at strong-arming their friend, who might be a Necromancer but never hurt any one of them and very likely helped the party survived on previous occasions (ie, usual behaviour of a PC party member).

This is only the second session. The first was spent introducing each character, ending with an event that threw us all together. The only ones with a bit of history are the fighter, the ranger and the necromancer. The fighter is searching for an artifact that belongs to him, the ranger was hired to track down the one who stole it, and the necromancer at one point held the artifact and attempted to use it to gain power(which ended in failure and the artifact slipping away from his grasp). The 3 of them are not aware of each others actions, except for the fighter suspecting the necromancer of foul play but with no evidence to support his hunch.

The black raven wrote:

In other words, have your PC try to find a compromise with the Necromancer so that they can keep on trusting each other as party members. Maybe both of your PCs can ask a 3rd PC you both trust to judge fairly on this and everyone agrees to follow his ruling.

I find it ironic but also oddly appropriate that the most likely respected judge in your PC party is the other LE guy.

I actually kinda like this idea. Though I imagine my character would still not trust the necromancer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I hinted at this a little before, but I'll focus on it now

Dexter, the forensics expert and serial killer on Showtime, is Lawful Evil by my approximation. He is the kind of kid who kills animals for no reason, and he grows up into a serial killer.

I don't know if anyone but me is a fan of the show, but if not, here's the relevant points. Dexter has a code that he adheres to. Mostly this code resembles good. But he is not good. He is lawful.

Some people just get creeped out by Dexter. They are sure that he's up to something. Because he is. He's evil, and they can smell it on him.

However, the only Evil acts that he commits are the murders of serial killers. The only evil thing he allows himself to do is kill villains. But he doesn't do it for any righteous reason. He likes it. No, He loves it. In fact, he needs it. He has an evil, insane need to kill. So, he focuses that need towards doing what his lawful code says is "good."

So he's evil. He would also be a great party member. He's talented, and he is entirely predictable. He's not gonna kill a PC in the night. He's lawful. Yeah, he kills villains because he likes it, but he still kills villains, just like everybody else.

My point is, evil PCs can be legit. I'd rather have a loyal, evil PC than a chaotic wildcard PC. I can trust the loyal, evil PC at least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Juke wrote:

Personally, among mature groups, character conflict is what makes the game still interesting.

If your characters have to fight to the death, the bard may be wise to look to the party for help before the situation goes there.
(because bards spin people to their views)
I completely agree. This situation( as stated before) has been some of the best RP we've had in awhile. I don't think that anyone at the table is taking it personally. It's meant to be a fun and interesting scenario we've sort of stumbled upon.
Juke wrote:
I really like how it turned out. Keep me posted on this relationship :D

Well I'm glad you're enjoying it! I'll do my best to keep you informed for as long as you hold interest.

Juke wrote:

Another option is the greater good thing.

If your character hasn't been burned in the past he may be more willing to see how this sort of cooperation plays out as a life lesson experiment.

That's another interesting idea. After all, my character(being a bard and all) loves to write stories and what not. Maybe he could see this as a potential story he could eventually write about.

Juke wrote:
That doesn't mean he cant cock block the necromancer at the local tavern. After-all haters gonna hate.

Damn right! Ha ha.


Conversation history:
Runaway Panda wrote:
Juke wrote:

Personally, among mature groups, character conflict is what makes the game still interesting.

If your characters have to fight to the death, the bard may be wise to look to the party for help before the situation goes there.
(because bards spin people to their views)
I completely agree. This situation( as stated before) has been some of the best RP we've had in awhile. I don't think that anyone at the table is taking it personally. It's meant to be a fun and interesting scenario we've sort of stumbled upon.
Juke wrote:
I really like how it turned out. Keep me posted on this relationship :D

Well I'm glad you're enjoying it! I'll do my best to keep you informed for as long as you hold interest.

Juke wrote:

Another option is the greater good thing.

If your character hasn't been burned in the past he may be more willing to see how this sort of cooperation plays out as a life lesson experiment.

That's another interesting idea. After all, my character(being a bard and all) loves to write stories and what not. Maybe he could see this as a potential story he could eventually write about.

Juke wrote:
That doesn't mean he cant cock block the necromancer at the local tavern. After-all haters gonna hate.
Damn right! Ha ha.

My favorite game ever I was playing a pretty actively lawful paladin(Canadian mounty style) with my counter weight being a super greasy rogue.
Many MANY threats were made, even some non lethal fist fights and hilt punches.
At the end of the day we knew where we stood with each other and the characters were amazingly real.
The best scene was in these catacombs below the noble family palace.
The rogue started to loot the sarcophagus's.
I stopped him, caught him again and picked up a rock and chucked it at him before he knew I caught him trying again, then he later succeeded and I didn't find out until after we completed the mission.
I made him buy back the ring and we broke into the nobles house to access the catacombs and return it unnoticed.

EVERYONE got involved, and characters started to take shape at the low level of 3.
We loved those characters so much we played them till level 26...
after level 18 or so, He and I were sworn enemies, but we had issues we needed to work together on so we put it aside when we had to.

One tip I just thought of, is to talk about your characters OOC to see how he feels about the relationship.
You can keep the talk from in game character knowledge based on observations if that makes it more fun.


The problem here is that no one thought about anyone else in character creation. Just look at the alignments! And you are part of. The problem. As a player, you have to let the other players play their character. Seriously, you are trying to take away a primary power and u dermine someone else's fun.

How would you feel if one of the other characters demanded that you not cast bard spells?

This is what happens when you don't think of the team in character creation.

Grand Lodge

Really, it seems to me like you have a party that is just not compatable with each other. Given that your party balanced way more towards evil the best bet is for you to either change your character or bring in a new one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Hey messageboard people, I decided to walk with open eyes into a good/evil conflicted party with a necromancer and now I'm having trouble dealing with raising undead."

Gee. Really?

Who could have seen that coming?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mixing good and evil is not more difficult than mixing lawful and chaotic if everything knows how to play his alignment.
But as many players think evil means: kill my party and good means: kill everything evil problems arise.

LE might have no moral problems with killing others but they have a moral and should stick to their given word. So they make excellent party players if handled right.
CN on the other side is much more dangerous if played right. But most players who make CN chars do it because they want to play CG PCs with the option of not doing something good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a lawful evil wizard who has adventured with good parties on more than one occasion.

So long as the party has compatible goals, there has been no issue. My wizard is smart enough to realize that keeping the party alive is in his best interest and he wouldn't be with them unless they were helping him reach his goals.

Luckily there are ways to disguise alignment.

Now, once those goals are met, things can get interesting. But for the most part if my wizard gets what he came after, he's more than happy to just teleport back home and move on with his own nefarious plans.

In fact, his best friend is a chaotic good monk.


In my experience, WHO the Necromancer is Raising as Undead can sometimes make the difference too. Raising those poor villagers who you were trying to protect is "more evil" than raising the orc (insert other "evil humanoid group here) to help fight against more of their own kind.

The last campaign I was in had a Wanna be Necromancer who sometimes threatened to Raise fellow party members. Even though he was ONLY LN, everyone viewed him as "Evil" after that.


We once had a game with mixed alignments. It was a kind of pirate game in which the goal was to later sometime become pirates, so no pallies and such. In that game we had an evil cleric who made three things clear: He uses undead, he likes to scrifice people and he will stand to his given word.
The other PCs make him promise that he will not sacrifice party members. He did that but in the course of the game (which sadly was only 2-3 sessions) always made clear whom he sees as part of the party, implicating that the others (npcs) might end up on his altar.

It was great fun. And when we found an old pirate lair that we wanted to take over and live in the when the evil cleric declared which room he wants for himself the first other two rooms someone called dips on where the both rooms beside the cleric's. "Because if something attacks being close to him is savest."

There was not hate between the chars, perhaps some weariness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading this thread what happened to thinking about their "Actions"?

A lot of you guys are like "They ping as evil? That is THOUGHTCRIME, DEATH PENALTY"

I think you should be a little less jumpy and a little more observing


This thread reminds me why I always play a character that can cast undetectable alignment.

My last campaign I was a LE battle herald in a party with a paladin, 3 other good characters, and a CN character.

Everyone viewed the CN character as the "clearly evil" one because of his menacing nature and desire to kill first and ask questions later. While my character would resort to intimidation and (if the paladin wasn't looking) torture to get information we needed. I wasn't above using the CN to assist me in my interrogations either. "Look, I want to help you, but you need to help me. I just want some answers to a few simple questions. Do that and you get to go home to your wife and child. If you don't want to answer my questions, you will need to answer the orc's questions, and the last person we let him interrogate went home missing a foot. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get blood out of these carpets? So, which is it going to be? My questions or his?"

My buffs made me more desired to the group than mr. smashy-face-orc. And the entire group saw me as more of a team player than the CN orc. The paladin constantly feared that she would fall, not because of adventuring with me, the only evil one, but because of the orc's wanton violence. Everyone in the group at one point or another butted heads with that PC.

Despite my character selling into slavery those we rescued, making deals with devils, making liberal use of the Visions of Hell spell, theft, and murders, it wasn't me that the rest of the group was plotting to get rid of, it was the orc.

The point of all this is to illustrate that just because the necromancer in your group is listed as LE, doesn't mean that you should automatically jump to pulling out your sword and threatening him. The necromancer is using the enemy's resources against them and you wanted to kill him for it? Are you going to chop off somebody's head for drinking a potion of cure light wounds that they looted off a dead foe? Remember, you are a supposed to be a good character; which, in this game, means that you invade people's homes, kill them, and take all their stuff.

You have a great in-character reason to be wary of the necromancer and his undead, but you don't need to jump straight to violence. Hell, be sneaky about your dislike and blow your AoO's on his minions whenever they leave one of your threatened squares. Have your DM make the rolls behind the screen so the necro player doesn't catch on quickly. It will force the player to spend more resources into his animations which will leave him less resources to defend himself with. It would only be a matter of time until he dies because he raised one too many undead. It is passive agressive pvp where you don't actually attack the other player (unless he becomes a lich, then all bets are off).


magikot wrote:

This thread reminds me why I always play a character that can cast undetectable alignment.

My last campaign I was a LE battle herald in a party with a paladin, 3 other good characters, and a CN character.

Everyone viewed the CN character as the "clearly evil" one because of his menacing nature and desire to kill first and ask questions later. While my character would resort to intimidation and (if the paladin wasn't looking) torture to get information we needed. I wasn't above using the CN to assist me in my interrogations either. "Look, I want to help you, but you need to help me. I just want some answers to a few simple questions. Do that and you get to go home to your wife and child. If you don't want to answer my questions, you will need to answer the orc's questions, and the last person we let him interrogate went home missing a foot. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get blood out of these carpets? So, which is it going to be? My questions or his?"

My buffs made me more desired to the group than mr. smashy-face-orc. And the entire group saw me as more of a team player than the CN orc. The paladin constantly feared that she would fall, not because of adventuring with me, the only evil one, but because of the orc's wanton violence. Everyone in the group at one point or another butted heads with that PC.

Despite my character selling into slavery those we rescued, making deals with devils, making liberal use of the Visions of Hell spell, theft, and murders, it wasn't me that the rest of the group was plotting to get rid of, it was the orc.

The point of all this is to illustrate that just because the necromancer in your group is listed as LE, doesn't mean that you should automatically jump to pulling out your sword and threatening him. The necromancer is using the enemy's resources against them and you wanted to kill him for it? Are you going to chop off somebody's head for drinking a potion of cure light wounds that they looted off a dead foe? Remember, you are a supposed to be a good...

I have to admit playing the chaotic neutral blood-knight can be quite fun especially with a paladin, I remember all those times that my int 7 barbarian orc would pester the paladin with questions of "Can we kill them? can we kill them now? He actually ended up sitting out of a lot of fights because the paladin wouldn't give him permission to kill anything. There was this one case where he sat on a ledge (his reputation and scary persona ensuring no one bothered to attack him) shouting advice to the party whilst the rest of the party was besieged by neutral humans because the paladin wouldn't give him permission to kill any of them.


Well, it does depend a lot on your GM since the ultimate arbiter of alignment in your game will be the GM, and particularly when it comes to things like necromancy there may be metaphysical truths at work.

But in my mind there are a few things that delineate good and evil.

The primary factor is your relationship with other beings.

A good character is willing to do things that benefit others even if they offer no benefit to themselves, or even if they involve an element of sacrifice. The more good you are, the broader a group of beings you are willing to do these things for. It is only a margnially good act to give aid to a friend, ally, or family member, because such people are likely to return such favours. Giving aid to strangers is a much more 'good' act, and less you have in common with the stranger the more good it is. A moderately good dragon might be positively inclined towards other dragons, for example, but be rather indifferent towards humans.

An evil character is willing to hurt others. It may be that he does it to achieve some ends, or simply because he enjoys it. An evil character does not need to hurt others but is not bothered if he does, and since the most convenient way to get something you want often involves doing something that hurts someone else, an evil person will generally find themselves performing evil acts. Generally though evil creatures will have some rationalization for why they are doing things to justify them to themselves. Evil people generally don't see themselves as evil.

The neutral character does not feel any particular goodwill towards others but on the other hand is not willing to hurt others without justification or provocation. Such justifications turn those acts from evil into neutral acts.

In this light, whether necromancy is evil or not depends on the metaphysical ramifications of necromancy. Does the act of raising the dead into undead creatures hurt anyone? Not directly, but it could be that it disturbs the rest of the spirits of those people, causing suffering for them in the afterlife. If necromancy adversely affects the spirits of the dead, it will be an evil act. If it doesn't then it is basically a neutral act. This will be a fundamental truth of your game universe and it is up to the GM which way to go on the issue.

On the other hand, there is the issue of societal taboos. For example, by these standards, cannibalism is not evil (though killing people just to eat them would be) but it is probably forbidden in most societies, which means that lawful characters will generally not be cannibals.

It may be (and likely is for most people) that necromancy is considered 'forbidden' in your society, on account of it violating natural laws and peoples' respect for the remains of their dead. If so, then necromancy is definitely a chaotic act, because it is a deliberate violation of law. In some cultures necromancy may be acceptable, and therefore a necromancer from such a place might be lawful. However, a lawful necromancer isn't going to be raising the dead in places where such practices are forbidden, although he might if he believes that he can keep it a secret or justify it to those in authority. Generally a lawful evil necromancer is going to be difficult to play for this reason.

The exception might be a lawful evil cleric who takes the words of his god as absolute and obeys those laws without question, and ignores any rules that contradict this as irrelevant. However, this is going to get the party in a lot of trouble over time since he will be clashing with everyone in societies where necromancy is considered taboo.

The Mighty Khan wrote:

Dexter, the forensics expert and serial killer on Showtime, is Lawful Evil by my approximation. He is the kind of kid who kills animals for no reason, and he grows up into a serial killer.

I don't know if anyone but me is a fan of the show, but if not, here's the relevant points. Dexter has a code that he adheres to. Mostly this code resembles good. But he is not good. He is lawful.

I don't buy the idea that Dexter is evil. He doesn't do what he does because of a problem with his morals - he does it because he is crazy. He is physically incapable of empathy because of a psychological disorder. As a result he has compulsions he feels a need to act on, but these are not things that he is able to choose. But he has developed a system to manage his affliction. I would call Dexter Lawful Neutral. People are unnerved around Dexter because they can sense that there is something wrong with him, and there is, though he hides it well.

One of the key elements of determining whether or not someone can be called evil is that they can be redeemed and can become good (and vice versa - good people can become evil also). Dexter cannot reform because he does not have the power of choice. I think that Dexter's father saw this, and understood that though there is something wrong with Dexter he is not necessarily a bad guy, so his father taught him the tools he needed to stay out of trouble and prevent his compulsion from harming innocents. If you could cast cure insanity on Dexter then this compulsion would go away and he probably would not keep going as he has gone.

In games that I run, though, Dexter might appear as evil to a detect evil spell, because in my mind the aura of evil gained by non-divine casters is a result of their deeds, not their thoughts.

Peet


Getting along with the character is much less important than getting along with the player.

Look at it this way, if he was threatening you when you wanted to perform certain good actions, how would you react? Even if he had good reasons, it would likely escalate to combat if both of you pushed it enough.

If the party is okay with that, then there is no issue. If not, discuss the issue with the player and come to an agreement out of game..


Peet wrote:

Well, it does depend a lot on your GM since the ultimate arbiter of alignment in your game will be the GM, and particularly when it comes to things like necromancy there may be metaphysical truths at work.

But in my mind there are a few things that delineate good and evil.

The primary factor is your relationship with other beings.

A good character is willing to do things that benefit others even if they offer no benefit to themselves, or even if they involve an element of sacrifice. The more good you are, the broader a group of beings you are willing to do these things for. It is only a margnially good act to give aid to a friend, ally, or family member, because such people are likely to return such favours. Giving aid to strangers is a much more 'good' act, and less you have in common with the stranger the more good it is. A moderately good dragon might be positively inclined towards other dragons, for example, but be rather indifferent towards humans.

An evil character is willing to hurt others. It may be that he does it to achieve some ends, or simply because he enjoys it. An evil character does not need to hurt others but is not bothered if he does, and since the most convenient way to get something you want often involves doing something that hurts someone else, an evil person will generally find themselves performing evil acts. Generally though evil creatures will have some rationalization for why they are doing things to justify them to themselves. Evil people generally don't see themselves as evil.

The neutral character does not feel any particular goodwill towards others but on the other hand is not willing to hurt others without justification or provocation. Such justifications turn those acts from evil into neutral acts.

In this light, whether necromancy is evil or not depends on the metaphysical ramifications of necromancy. Does the act of raising the dead into undead creatures hurt anyone? Not directly, but it could be that it disturbs the rest of the spirits of...

Undead are evil and can't be made good.


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

1 to 50 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.