Ok, so original character pitch was for a chaotic neutral aasimar of tengu descent, but since they"re illegal now he will just be a tengu in this rendition, he was an oracle of Urgothoa (can't spell) the goddess of death. Oracles do not need to match their deity's alignment so this totally works. But along with his curse that all oracle's have he was cursed with a twisted urge to kill. So basically he joined the pathfinder's just to morally justify killing people, and if a little good comes of it well yippie.
He's not running around like a crazed lunatic or anything, he's friendly and generally a good guy, and is not devoid of being reasoned with. For instance I ran this character on an adventure once and I think I openly mentioned my deity telling someone i killed in combat "Urgothoa take you," and I coup de graced the main boss who was an obviously evil gnoll slave trader we were told to deal with and that's the most drastic I got, but people are calling me evil? Plz we all killed that gnoll slave trader, I just finished him off with no objections from the group.
Am I in the wrong here that this can be done in a non-evil way? I think I did it pretty tastefully honestly.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well in Society games you need to be 1 step away from your deity's alignment regardless of class. As for the good and evil part it seems that people aren't looking at the ends justifying the means, but rather the intent. Wanting to kill for the fun of it is considered evil in Pathfinder, so your character would be evil. By joining the Society to do that it seems that your character would be closer to Lawful Evil, as you are going through appropriate channels to kill.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Aasimar aren't illegal you just need a boon - the soul of your first borne child should be sufficient.
Nothing wrong with an Oracle of Bones, and you can follow any god you want as long as you stay neutral.
That character sound like Dexter from the series that bears his name, he is evil no two ways about it.
Look there is nothing wrong with killing people in combat, you have a problem if you capture them and then kill them in a ritualistic fashion ... that is a problem.
You can charge and shout "Urgathoa take you!!!" no one should have a problem with that. And usually GMs don't have a problem with your characters motivation, they tend to judge the actions.
I didn't disrupt anything, and I said I wasn't beyond reason, I killed the boss sure but if someone said we need him alive, which we didn't, I would have agreed, he would've been annoyed but he would have kept him alive. Also think of it this way, He was chosen by the goddess of death to kill and that's that, he's not a bad guy, so he has found a means of satisfying his bloodlust he was cursed with, in a way that is beneficial so society rather than disruptive to it.
Note:Whether or not it's "evil" the issue is that your character is disruptive.
You are basically taking away the option of ever resolving an encounter through diplomatic means (or even non-lethal means that results in captives). Your character is getting his fun at the expense of other players' fun.
...and is not devoid of being reasoned with.
I find it hard to define his morality, the fact that he chooses to try and kill people through the right channels shows good intent. Your character isn't good, he probably is evil, but he sounds to be a very tolerable form of evil. The way how you act though seems more likely to correspond with law rather than chaos. Since you don't seem to care very much about the undeath part of Urgathoa, perhaps being neutral evil (maybe even up to LN if you push it) of Pharasma or something similar, particularly if you could equally enjoy killing those already dead.
|
As it was said earlier you can't be chaotic neutral (or LN Minion GM) and follow Urgathoa. You can check the FAQ as it says "Your character’s alignment must be within one step of that of the deity he or she worships."
Now I was having a conversation with some friends yesterday about raising dead and Urgathoa. I learned two important things from our discussion.
If you have a battlecry that invokes Urgathoa you might make good characters (or the player) uncomfortable as everything she stands for is not good. It might be hard for characters to fully trust someone who is favored by a death goddess. This is the basic argument against followers of such gods.
The other argument has more to do with lore. You may call it a curse from Urgathoa but she is bestowing you with powers. Would such an evil goddess, one who is a staunch enemy of Sarenrae, choose a mortal who wouldn't become evil? If the goddess of redemption finds Urgathoa irredeemable then Urgathoa wouldn't bestow powers on someone who isn't evil.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I have an Inquisitor of Norgorber who has the same sort of motivations, but I made sure to invest in social skills so he can try to talk his way out of problems first. As an Oracle, you should have the Charisma and skill points to get a good Diplomacy.
As it was said earlier you can't be chaotic neutral (or LN Minion GM) and follow Urgathoa. You can check the FAQ as it says "Your character’s alignment must be within one step of that of the deity he or she worships."
I was aware of the alignment constraints, the potential other alignment was linked to the idea that Jack of Nothing might be better suited to life as a somewhat twisted Pharismin. He doesn't go around on random murder sprees and he doesn't seem to have a particular interest in the undeath part of the portfolio, if he could enjoy killing the undead as much as the living, he would make a halfway decent Pharasmin, who (unless I'm wrong) it True Neutral, thus allowing NE, LN, and others, even CN (though that doesn't sound right for his character).
|
So I realize that there is a wide varience in peoples perception of what is evil and what is good in pathfinder. The alignment system isn't really very nuanced and works best when applied to more iconic and less three dimensional characters. I'm not a big fan of the alignment system in general, and have seen some wonderful characters who are very difficult to assign an alignment to.
That said, usually, when everyone who sees a character played says they think the character is evil... That character is probably evil.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could be argued that Murder-Hoboing in general is evil. Killing something simply because they are evil could be evil itself.
There's a lot of grey area here. I tend to agree that the character you described is evil, because coup de grace is a deliberate, difficult and unnecessary maneuver to pull off in the middle of combat. To even get it done, the opponent has to be helpless, so, to do it at all, you're just stabbing a helpless opponent. Not exactly the good thing to do in really, any situation.
I've seen a lot of threads recently regarding evil, and how it applies in PFS. Each time, someone asks for an opinion, then argues with the people who respond if they give an opinion contrary to their own. Please, if you ask an opinion, don't tell the guy who responded that you were right all along and they are wrong. Doing this isn't asking for advice, it's picking a fight.
Ultimately, I'm not a fan of the alignment system, and I have probably abused leeway with it more than I should have in a couple of my characters. Anymore, I consider it a Roleplaying challenge, regardless of my personal feelings for it. I have one character who is high seeker levels who absolutely despises the Decemvirate and the Society's leadership, and I'm creating a core Monk who is utterly loyal to it.
Bottom line? Play the game with what you have, don't try to change the game to fit what you want.
Home games though. The chains are off. Go crazy. Eat opponent's brains. Stab puppies, kick old ladies. Whatever floats your boat and makes your game better. Organized play just has more stringent requirements.
He was coup de graced after the combat was over, and these are all very good points. Also as far as being associated with the undead part I was an oracle of bones. Since I am seeing mostly in agreement that this character would be evil, how could this idea be salvaged and still be somewhat interesting? I like troubled heroes, paragons are boring, and honestly despite how dark death is, society is very desensitized to it, I feel that having my dark point being centered around death was the least offensive and most practical way to have a disturbed hero. Before I just made tieflings and oddly enough this aasimar when I wanted my characters to be tied to something a little darker, but since you cannot be either of those without a boon I need more creative ways to make these type of characters. help I need some inspiration.
I'm telling you he wasn't disruptive and no players called me out, the GM is the only person who's mentioned anything about being evil. None of the players, and there was quite a few at this table, were bothered or disrupted by my character. I'm not asking if I would be disruptive as I have proven to myself I can play this tastefully, What I'm worried about is one of the GMs telling me my character is evil and I can't play him.
That starts to sound more like a GM preference thing. Everyone has their house rules and what they're comfortable with. I've never been a part of Pathfinder Society organized play, but in a casual game, at least, this kind of thing will happen. It does seem like a very playable type of evil, but everyone has their limits. If the GM just isn't comfortable with evil characters, I don't know what I can say to help. It's too bad, as much as it isn't the kind of concept I would play, it was a neat idea and it's too bad if it wasn't working out.
Good luck and my condolences.
|
I think a background as described in the OP is provisionally fine. Great, even.
Let's not pretend that characters with that sort of background are the only ones with proclivities for murder and mayhem. Hell, Andoran Liberty's Edge actively recruit those types of anarchists.
So long as the background is used to provide flavor for a creepy dude who makes you wonder if he's a little TOO eager to kill the bad guys.. and not being used as some lame exuse to murderstab NPCs the face characters are trying to diplomacize with, what's the difference from the typical BARBARANSMASH mentality?
The "within one alignment step of your deity" is tricky for oracles. There's a post around the forums somewhere that distinguishes, for the purposes of PFS, the difference between worship and reverence.
Worship= you gain powers from that deity. Character must be within one step.
Revere= you philosophically worship that deity. Alignments don't have to match, but if they are more than one step away you can't gain ANY mechanical benefits from worship. No religion traits, no class abilities, no nuthin'.
So, for oracles the tricky part is they worship (as defined for PFS) multiple deities Some combinations are bound to be mechanically impossible. I guess in cases like that you technically "worship" one deity and "only revere" the rest.
|
|
First, in my opinion, your character is evil just from the starts:
...he was cursed with a twisted urge to kill. So basically he joined the pathfinder's just to morally justify killing people..
He kills because he likes it, so its hard to define it as not evil.
And it has nothing to do with the actions you do in play. if you like a twisted character, you can say he debates between his urges to kill and his acknowledgement of it´s a bad thing, . But if he kills just because he likes it, he will be ever evil (in my opinion).
Regarding your gameplay, you should ask the rest of the table because of;
-Coup the grace; Some people consider it evil not matter the reasons, and some people allows it in some circunstances. So table variation, and you should ask first.
-Follower of evil god; to some people if you follow an evil god you are evil, period. I, myself, thinks it´s a little of prejudice, because if you can follow a good god without being good, the same cauld be done if you change good for evil. Check with the GM, if he agrees to judge you based on your acts, and not on your god, you´ll be ok not matter what the table said (or better, because you want some evil in your character and they are calling you evil).
So, in my opinion, you could play a cleric of Urgathoa with some minor changes in your characters fluff. Just search an answer for Why he´s not evil?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, does the character have an Oracle curse that urges him to kill people? That sounds like a cool curse in a home campaign, with GM approval. But not in Pathfinder Society. There is no such Oracle curse.
So, the character has "a twisted urge to kill". Does that make him evil?
Yes.
|
|
So, the character has "a twisted urge to kill". Does that make him evil?
Yes.
If he recognizes that acting on those urges is wrong (or at least harmful to his future) and takes steps to channel the impulses in "helpful" ways, is it still evil?
I'd agree its too much of a stretch to say the character is any flavor of Good. But depending on motivations behind joining the Pathfinders, a Neutral alignment anywhere along the Law/Chaos axis is perfectly plausible for a Dexter.
EDIT: But, yeah. This is becoming just another alignment definition thread.
For the OP, if you make a Dexter, expect to have table variation on what GMs will allow. You CAN be hit with alignment infractions, and the GM's opinion on what is an alignment infraction is always right. The good news for you is PFS rules state he has to warn you you're about to earn the infraction before he issues it, so you have the chance to realize you're stepping over this particular GM's line before you receive it, and can re-think your actions accordingly.
|
|
I'm in the "not evil" camp here. If we didn't know about the character's back-story here, I don't think anyone would be making the question that he's evil.
He's an oracle of bones who:
1. Will kill the bad guys.
2. Will refrain from killing the bad guys when asked, or if they surrender.
3. Tries to be a decent person.
That sounds like the vast majority of non-evil PCs I've ever ran games for. Heck, this guy sounds nicer than a lot of the other CN-users I've seen.
Here's a question for anyone that thinks this is evil. Would you think he was evil if he left out that "twisted urge to kill" or "Urgathoa" bit? If not, why does knowing that make him evil?
Too often I think PCs are a bit kill-happy, it's actually refreshing to see someone take a bit better perspective on it. I would be totally happy with saying this guy was CN, especially since it seems like he's not disrupting any tables and he's not letting his backstory get in the way of party decisions.
|
|
For what it is worth, I have a neutral alchemist whose worship of Urgathoa is apotropaic -- he tries to avert her attention to elsewhere, and not afflict the human cities where he travels.
Indulging that "twisted urge to kill" sounds evil to me, though routinely resisting it would not be in my book (usually; exceptions happen).
|
|
Is "evil" judged by a character's intent/thoughts or by the character's actions?
By the former, the OP's character is evil. By the latter the OP's character is not evil.
Who would your character rather adventure with - a character with vicious thoughts that you never recognize to be there because they are never expressed in action - or a character whose only desire is to protect the weak and innocent but would murder you in your sleep because he thought you were going to harm an innocent?
That's a very good question. Were I blessed with the same god-like abilities that the deities of Golarion are, or inter-personal knowledge about the inner thoughts and feelings of each PC, I'd say that alignment was more focused on the thoughts and intent.
As a GM, I'd say that's a pipe dream and that we can really only judge alignment on actions. After all, there's a reason a paladin only falls after he murders someone unjustly, not just because he's thought about doing it (and really, haven't we all thought about "bad things" like that before)?
In the end, I'd say that it's safer and easier to go with alignment by actions. Everyone has dark thoughts from time to time. It's whether or not we act on them that defines us as an individual. In the end, worship or thoughts aside, this character doesn't seem to act any differently from other Good/Neutral adventurers. Heck, if he's regularly sparing people on request and being a decent party member, that's almost closer to Good then anything.
On a related subject, there are some very interesting articles about people with homicidal thoughts (often having to do with a form of schizophrenia) that live with it and are, by all counts, good people. Just because you have a voice in your head whispering to burn the world doesn't mean you can't ignore it and persevere. :)
|
|
Everyone has evil urges and I would hazard to guess most people have had an urge to kill someone at some point in their life. In fact, I am pretty sure more than a few people have had an urge to kill me after they have read some of my posts. Does that make them evil? Only if you want to go with the philosophy that man is basically evil. Personally, I find Good and Evil are much more dependent on how we deal with our urges rather than what those urges are.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
trollbill, this particular character has "twisted urges to kill" that are severe enough that they could be described as an Oracle curse, if Oracle courses went in that direction. To my understanding, that's categorically different than "man, I'd like to kill that guy who cut me off in traffic."
|
|
Is "evil" judged by a character's intent/thoughts or by the character's actions?
By the former, the OP's character is evil. By the latter the OP's character is not evil.
Who would your character rather adventure with - a character with vicious thoughts that you never recognize to be there because they are never expressed in action - or a character whose only desire is to protect the weak and innocent but would murder you in your sleep because he thought you were going to harm an innocent?
But in this case we are having urges to kill in thoughts, and in actions. The character wants to join the Society to find a social acceptable way to continue killing.
I´ll don´t adveture with someone who is searching an excuse to kill people because, well, sooner or later he´ll find an excuse to kill me
Something about having "bad thinks" sometimes
I have to agree with Chris. We are not talking about having an urge once, or from time to time. He has this urge allways on, knowing about this urge and searching a way so he can indulge to it.
On a related subject, there are some very interesting articles about people with homicidal thoughts (often having to do with a form of schizophrenia) that live with it and are, by all counts, good people. Just because you have a voice in your head whispering to burn the world doesn't mean you can't ignore it and persevere. :)
Have any of them joined military so he/she could have the opportunity to shoot people?
I think having "bad thoughts" bad do good is better than the opposite. But when I read
morally justify killing people
my brain screams EVIL and it´s thinking about a dictator who found a "moral justification" to exterminate people.
Disclaimer, I really don´t want to derail this thread to discuss RL morality, so take it easy if you don´t agree with the last part.
|
|
But in this case we are having urges to kill in thoughts, and in actions. The character wants to join the Society to find a social acceptable way to continue killing.
There is a fair bit of fiction revolving around characters (often vampires or other supernatural types) who HAVE to kill but choose to target socially acceptable victims, confine themselves to animals, etc.
I even played what was basically a vampire in a D&D like game. That game didn't have alignments but the character certainly saw herself as a mostly good person and I think her companions would have agreed
So I don't think this character type is necessarily evil.
That said, PFS is a poor venue for exploring such a character. It can be done but only by really toning down the blood lust and probably by keeping the back story quite secret.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
It can be done but only by really toning down the blood lust and probably by keeping the back story quite secret.
Yeah, even in-character, declaring that you're dedicating your kill to Urgathoa is probably a bad idea in respectable company. Or around Pathfinders.
There is an issue of presentation, too. If you're roleplaying (intentionally or not) as super morbid, anti-social, and creepy, then declare your allegience to an evil god, that might not go over well. But if you've been having fun and friendly banter up until then, the players probably won't be as put off. That's one of the reasons I use a squawky bird voice whenever I play my Tengu inquisitor of Norgorber; shouting praise to Father Skinsaw sounds a lot less threatening when you sound like Gilbert Gottfried.
|
|
trollbill, this particular character has "twisted urges to kill" that are severe enough that they could be described as an Oracle curse, if Oracle courses went in that direction. To my understanding, that's categorically different than "man, I'd like to kill that guy who cut me off in traffic."
To quote the great Paladin, Gump, "Evil is as evil does."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is it with people wanting to excuse morally bankrupt behavior in game while claiming that it's not morally bankrupt? You're setting your character up with a murder compulsion. How Dexterish, but let's be honest here. Still evil. In fact, just by being Dexterish, yes it's evil.
Evil characters don't have to be crazed berserk fiends destroying everything in their path. They can be very polite and civil people. But if you kill, and dedicate your kill to an evil god, you're evil. Sure, you think of yourself as a swell person because you limit your activity to people you think deserve to die; but you're still seeking the opportunity to kill and dedicating those kills to the greater glory of an evil great power.
This debate was solved inadvertently in another topic I made btw. The character would work much better and be less evil If I was an oracle of whoever was the god who judged people after they die. This issue was mainly made by me not understanding what Urgothoa actually stood for as I was unaware of the undeath parts of her. The way my character decided to act was deemed reasonable, but the evil deity part made it seem worse than my actions really were.
|
|
What is it with people wanting to excuse morally bankrupt behavior in game while claiming that it's not morally bankrupt? You're setting your character up with a murder compulsion. How Dexterish, but let's be honest here. Still evil. In fact, just by being Dexterish, yes it's evil.
Evil characters don't have to be crazed berserk fiends destroying everything in their path. They can be very polite and civil people. But if you kill, and dedicate your kill to an evil god, you're evil. Sure, you think of yourself as a swell person because you limit your activity to people you think deserve to die; but you're still seeking the opportunity to kill and dedicating those kills to the greater glory of an evil great power.
SO THIS! I wish they had like buttons cause this is the most awesome post I've seen in a long while.
|
|
What if I dedicate the killing of my animal companion in the name of Urgaothoa, prepare a meal out of the remains, then animate the skeleton? Is that too evil to get away with neutral alignment? Just because I'm a Seperatist Cleric with the animal domain doesn't mean that Urgathoa doesn't keep sending me new animals.
*Tap tap taps flaming pointy stick*
As it was said earlier you can't be chaotic neutral (or LN Minion GM) and follow Urgathoa. You can check the FAQ as it says "Your character’s alignment must be within one step of that of the deity he or she worships."
He can still "venerate" Urgathoa as long as he doesn't "worship" her. It sounds like a somantic difference, but the two terms are not synonymous in the mechanics of Society play. When you "venerate" a deity, you are ineligible for any benefit of being a follower but you can still be a follower to some extent.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
What if I dedicate the killing of my animal companion in the name of Urgaothoa, prepare a meal out of the remains, then animate the skeleton? Is that too evil to get away with neutral alignment? Just because I'm a Seperatist Cleric with the animal domain doesn't mean that Urgathoa doesn't keep sending me new animals.
Killing your animal companion in a ritualistic fashion is a bad thing to do, and I really would not do it in the presence of any of my hunters. I would call it evil, especially since animal companions mention the phrase " form a close bond with", this is very much a table variation matter.
I still can't forget the time a pig sacrificed itself an an old super nintendo game.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Mechanics aside , your character would be helping spread the power and authority of a great evil, that is pretty evil in and of itself.
The rules (both PFS and Pathfinder in general) explicitly allow a neutral character to worship an evil god. So clearly, merely worshipping an evil god isn't enough to make a character evil.
|
|
I was gonna play that character too. But can't because he is totally evil.
PFS doesn't distinguish between disruptive characters and evil characters. Since disruptive people tend to be drawn to evil characters (broad generalisation) PFS bans evil, and so CN has become the alignment of choice for disruptive players. In this way, the GM can tell disruptive players to stop killing good guys as it is an evil act.
So, alas, the character that does everything they can to fit in with and help the Pathfinder society and other characters, just so they can kill and loot, is evil and banned while the crazy guy that can't work with one character, let alone an entire party, without starting a fight and ruining any plan that comes up is CN and so totally legal.
A variation on this character I wanted to play was the 'moral compass'. The character would always suggest the most evil course of action as reasonably as possible. They would encourage gently any course of action containing even the slightest questionable behaviour.
"Torture the prisoner- think of all the lives we could save."
"Take it. They probably don't have friends or family that need it more than us."
"Of course you can do that to the body. It's dead now."
"It'll be okay. Just one lie can't be that bad."
The idea would be to metagame turn the entire party to Lawful Good. :-)