People have a real problem with good and evil balancing out. Sending money to an orphanage seems like it wouldn't make up for murdering an innocent child.
But would it make up for stealing the money that was donated to the orphanage?
For many people the "balance" issue boils down to their view that a typical evil act is more meaningful than a typical good act. A single murder is hard to quantify in terms of what can be done to atone for it. So playing a "neutral" character in a way that will satisfy people tends to require a lot more deliberate "good" behavior than the "evil" behavior that is done.
On the morality scales evil is like lead, and good is like feathers. It can be balanced, but it takes a whole lot of feathers...
Anyway, my character had no remorse about the torture, which appears to be Ciretose's main sticking point, so I don't think there's much debate here. The hobgoblin was supposed to be pretty much a typical hobgoblin: Scheming, rude and self-centered. Making him remorseful would have changed the concept.
And for the record, he has yet to resort to PvP (excepting one very special case). He does his best to support the party, often even getting stuck as the melee fighter despite being an alchemist. There is nothing disruptive about him except his excessive rudeness.
|
If you could commit regular evil acts and not be evil, there wouldn't be an evil alignment.Yes there would. Are you evil, as in your very nature creates greater evil, or do you just do evil things occasionally because it serves you personally.
A thief does evil things by stealing, but need not be evil.
Huh, so you can only be evil if you are intrinsically, inherently, naturally evil? Odd, that would mean no humans (or any other free-willed species for that matter) could ever be evil, since the very nature of a human doesn't create greater evil...
you have a very strange house rule about alignments.
I've noticed when you add words I don't use, that you then don't understand.
Maybe you should stop doing that.
Just a thought.
|
|
The reason why you did something evil doesn't change the fact that you did something evil.Yes there would. Are you evil, as in your very nature creates greater evil, or do you just do evil things occasionally because it serves you personally.
Oh look, two quotes that were not together, put together.
Do you disagree that if you did something evil that you did something evil?
Or are you saying if you ever do anything evil, you are then evil.
Or do you also have no idea what point you are trying to make?
As far as Evil being trustworthy we canlook at some historical examples.
The Vikings come to mind first. they would sweep into unarmed villages, Kill defenseless people, gang rape the woman and then sell the survivors into slavery after that. they had no problem with torturing people for fun and committed human sacrifice, and where an all around group of not very nice people.
But they where also staunchly loyal to their friends, believed in keeping ones word and valued Honor and there is not EVEN ONE CASE of Viking mercenaries betraying their employers in Battle.
So I could see one of my good character going on an adventure with an Evil that acted Like a real life Viking. I would just make him swear an Oath to leave the captive Orc girls alone when I was not looking.
4) I was playing in one game in which the rogue PC stole my pouch. Unfortunately, for him, it was my spell component pouch. I role played it; since, I failed my perception check. That game ended too soon to see what the eventual consequences would be.
PCs stealing from other PCs is something that should be handled seperate from the alignment discussion.
While I am totally OK with evil PCs I am totally not OK with PVP (Player vs Player) and stealing is PVP. As is taking more loot than you are due.
As far as Evil being trustworthy we canlook at some historical examples.
The Vikings come to mind first. they would sweep into unarmed villages, Kill defenseless people, gang rape the woman and then sell the survivors into slavery after that. they had no problem with torturing people for fun and committed human sacrifice, and where an all around group of not very nice people.
But they where also staunchly loyal to their friends, believed in keeping ones word and valued Honor and there is not EVEN ONE CASE of Viking mercenaries betraying their employers in Battle.
So I could see one of my good character going on an adventure with an Evil that acted Like a real life Viking. I would just make him swear an Oath to leave the captive Orc girls alone when I was not looking.
Possibly not the best example. During the Viking occupation of Britain the Viking lords quite often swore oaths to the Saxons to keep the peace, only to break them. Oaths sworn to enemies were just not considered very important. However, I do take the point that the honour bound up in the 'warrior code' seemed to be important, and oaths sworn to friends and shield buddies were considered sacrosanct. Does that make the Vikings Lawful or Chaotic?
Talking of Vikings and Saxons;
A single murder is hard to quantify in terms of what can be done to atone for it.
The paying of Weregild was one historical way to compensate for a murder. You paid the family what the victim's 'worth' was calculated as being and all was legally settled.
An interesting diversion in this discussion of whether doing Good atones for doing Evil.
|
|
The reason why you did something evil doesn't change the fact that you did something evil.Yes there would. Are you evil, as in your very nature creates greater evil, or do you just do evil things occasionally because it serves you personally.Oh look, two quotes that were not together, put together.
Do you disagree that if you did something evil that you did something evil?
Or are you saying if you ever do anything evil, you are then evil.
Or do you also have no idea what point you are trying to make?
All people do evil things. Ergo, all people are evil.
Or is it all people do evil things because they are inherently evil?
All people eat plants. Ergo, all people are vegetarians.
Oh wait, that logic doesn't work at all.
Doing something evil is not being evil. It is doing something that is evil.
Committing an evil act is committing an evil act. Tending toward evil acts when all things are equal, is tending toward evil.
Sadurian, the entire system of "indulgences" in the middle ages was another example of quantifying evil acts in terms of gold donated to the Church.
Were-gild or similar systems to compensate families of murder victims was fairly common in a lot of societies, and is still practiced in other forms today, including in most Western nations in civil court where a person convicted of killing a person can be held liable for monetary damages.
But those are all real world examples. That doesn't necessarily map into game terms except in concept. Sure you can adopt were-guild as a mechanic in the game, but it's not quantified in the rules. Not as far as I know. In PF rules terms, what is the balance between good and evil? I don't think there is any guidance from the rules, each GM has to work it out on their own.
Back to evil people being trustworthy, I again find myself perplexed by the continued insistence that evil people can't be trusted, have to betray their friends or any of a number of comments about how evil characters are supposed to act.
Evil characters can be completely trustworthy, if they WANT to be. The only alignment issue is whether the action can be explained as still being in the best interest of the evil character. It is FREQUENTLY in the best interest of evil characters to be trustworthy and loyal. In fact it's usually in their best interest. The power of evil is not in the continuous execution of evil acts, it's in the potential for evil acts to occur when they provide the highest possible benefit for the evil character.
When I play evil characters I play them primarily as characters seeking their own self-interest above all else, and that almost always means they keep their word, because nobody will trust a compulsive liar and if nobody will trust you, how in the heck are you going to betray them?
I know a guy we call "Evil Dave" (though I recently found out he doesn't like that nickname, so most of us have stopped using it) because many GMs he plays with let him play evil. Nobody else. Because they know that he knows how to play an evil character.
Best story I heard was he was a Lawful Evil wizard in a party with a Paladin. He never did anything evil around the paladin, so the paladin had no reason to suspect him. It wasn't until the end of the campaign when he and the player of the paladin agreed that he finally backstabbed (literally wizard coup de grace with a dagger) the paladin and killed him.
I equate the phrase "I want to play an evil character" to "I want to play a disruptive character that will allow me to justify having fun at the expense of other people, including my fellow players and player characters."
I equate the phrase "I want to play an evil character" to "I want to play a disruptive character that will allow me to justify having fun at the expense of other people, including my fellow players and player characters."
Pretty much.
I don't normally condone PvP, but this is one of those situations where I let the chips fall where they may. It's essentially guaranteed that Mr. Evil will forget that he's badly outnumbered, will cross the line, and get clobbered. When he complains "But I was just playing my character!" the correct response is "So were we."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil can play at the same table as good with zero problems. As long as the evil character is into teamwork with all the rest of the players and doesn't break the fun by ruining somebody else's fun, there's nothing wrong when a character's motivation is "rule personal empire with a tyrannical fist" rather than "feed and clothe poor orphans."
When you start sticking your Pathfinder knife into somebody else's PC's back, it stops being fun. Don't do it. That's the GM's prerogative, and you're crossing the line with your gaming group. Instead, stick your character's knife into an NPC gnome. I hear that they make great steaks.
In general, the best response to "I want to play an evil character" is "no".
However, if you (the GM) decide to relent, you probably need to put one simple rule in place. (Simple for you, not the player.)
"To be given permission to play an evil character, you must come up with a reason that the character is guaranteed to never, ever attack, harm, or steal from the rest of the party."
Exceptions may be made by mutual consent of individual players, but it is NOT the GM's job to work whatever reason exists into the character's backstory.
I equate the phrase "I want to play an evil character" to "I want to play a disruptive character that will allow me to justify having fun at the expense of other people, including my fellow players and player characters."
That's what I understand if someone tells me he wants to play a CN pc. If one of the players I know wants to play an evil guy it is most likely really an evil guy but a teamplaying one.
|
|
A lot of good advice here in the thread, and generally I agree with the basic "Just say NO!" philosophy. Not just to being evil, but to any situation/concept/build that I think is going to unbalance or disrupt the game for everyone else. Sadly, most people play the extreme alignments with blinders on or as an excuse to be schmucks. If you think they are going to play evil to disrupt the game, then say no... if the player in question has earned sufficient cache with the DM and group for their roleplay ability and such, then that is a different story.
As for an example of a LE character from modern(ish) cinema, I would put forth the Operative from "Serenity". He had a strict code and sense of obligation/duty, followed his orders/ideals to the extreme... and was utterly without remorse for the loss of human life. While far from a raving, frothing psychopath, he could be quite civil and cordial... and then coldly massacre as many people as needed to achieve his objective. Though he is one of those characters I could see possibly working in a non evil party for a few reasons: he obviously had to know how to conduct himself in society, he could control himself to accomplish his tasks, and most importantly he KNEW he was evil and outside of society;
The Operative: "I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done."
In fact, I think that ideology would make for a fantastic LE Inquisitor type character in a PF campaign.
In fact, I think that ideology would make for a fantastic LE Inquisitor type character in a PF campaign.
I could see that if he was devoted to a LN deity. If the deity was LE, too he would not fare well with the "I know it's evil but it has to be done" approach in my opinion.
Archer Paladins.
Yeah, I agree evil can be played (and be interesting) but like so many other things, it requires a level of maturity some players are unable to display. I'm strongly opposed to all forms of PVP in a gaming group (it's just too disruptive). As that player clearly telegraphed their intent (BETRAYAL!) I would not want to play with them. I'd probably just roll up a paladin or an inquisitor just to mess with them (which just goes to show how mature I am...), or simply leave. With roll20, I can always find another game somewhere.
Alhtough personally, I have issues with alignement: I think everyone should start as neutral, and, depending on player actions, drift to one alignement or another (which the GM changes). I guess in that respect I was influenced by planescape torment. That game had a bunch of interesting evil characters.
Alhtough personally, I have issues with alignement: I think everyone should start as neutral, and, depending on player actions, drift to one alignement or another (which the GM changes). I guess in that respect I was influenced by planescape torment. That game had a bunch of interesting evil characters.
Which is a problem for some classes or, for some divine classes, their gods.
|
|
I could see that if he was devoted to a LN deity. If the deity was LE, too he would not fare well with the "I know it's evil but it has to be done" approach in my opinion.
In fact, I think that ideology would make for a fantastic LE Inquisitor type character in a PF campaign.
Oh of course this would be for use with a Neutral deity or a society/ideology if your game allows for inquisitors to follow a philosophy over a specific deity.
I view Evil in most games about as disruptive as low Cha, Int or Wis or some races (namely dwarves and Elves). Some people tend to see those as an excuse to be a dick.
"I have low Cha so I AM a surly bastard no one wants to hang around with", "I am a dwarf, so of course I must do this, because my ancestors did", "As an elf, I am vastly superior to all of you short lived manfolk.", "I am too dumb to know I shouldn't set fire to the tavern.", "I am evil, so it is my alignment to kick you down that flight of stairs just for s&+$s and giggles."
Of course, all of those can be played "right", but if you use it to explain why you behave like a dick, it stops being a game mechanic. You are just a dick.
Playing an evil character does not need to equate to being disruptive or screwing up the party. It just requires a bit of experience and maturity to pull off.
|
Hi all,
I ever say the same: "It is more difficult play an evila character than a good character".
You can try play all evil characters, but when evils fail his missions their bosses kill them, not as the good bosses o the bosses of good, if you say to me any that don's like me, i kill you when you sleeps or for your back. I never help other characters i only think in me...
If they want play an evil character in a group with good characters...why he works with the goods if he hasn't any objective with them? Is he a traitor? I will demmand a good background to accept this character in my table and group. If he plays PFS, sorry, he can't play.
Don't worry and say to him that he take a holidays and teh group plays without him, maybe the group works better without him and the holidays became timeless...
Hey Grond, just thought I'd provide as much insight to this as possible.
I've been running an evil campaign module from Fire Mountain Games and my group has loved it. Alignments are restricted to LN, N, LE, NE. The PCs had to sign a contract in demon blood stating they would remain loyal to each other. It's been very successful so far. Here is what I've learned about PC's and evil.
1. Never allow CE. I keep track of my PCs actions, and if they swing to CE, I take their character sheets. CE is so erratically thoughtlessly evil that it shouldn't be an option for PCs.
2. Evil characters can add amazing flavor to a game. Sometimes something needs to get done 'the hard way' and if a single PC in the party has E in their alignment, they can do it without qualms :)
3. It's less about alignment, and more about your players. Which brings me to this point.
"The player that wants an evil character responded that we wouldn't know they were evil until said character had used us for their own good and decided to part ways or betray us or simply steal the goods"
If this is how your player feels, you need to find a replacement. Modern lingo would best describe this person as a troll. She's willing to sacrifice everyone else's fun for her own enjoyment and seems to thrive on inner party conflict. Doesn't seem like someone I'd want to play with.