So I recently had a topic, "want to remake a weird Character idea that was pretty fun but everyone called evil but I disagree"... I was stoned when I made the title don't judge lol. The general consensus of this topic was that I would be lawful evil because I went through appropriate channels to kill. I was an oracle of Urgothoa who was cursed with an insatiable bloodlust, so in order to get his fix along with doing good and making a living, he decided to join the pathfinders. Seriously, any pathfinder who says their character didn't getting into this and not expect to hurt anyone is lying. Other than his thirst for blood he is an entirely pleasant guy. No players at my table said anything about my character being disruptive at all so that isn't the problem. The GM just looked at me and warned me I was heading toward an alignment switch.
So basically, if struggling to contain an inborn penchant with violence, something our society has gotten us highly desensitized to and violence is something you came to the table expecting, what sort of darker quality would be acceptable as a glaring flaw in my character's thinking could their be that isn't game hindering, is a fun quirk, and doesn't automatically make me evil?
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
You are asking about a general society view regarding alignment.... you are officially insane. ^^
To tell the truth there isn't a general view or a consensus other than "expect table variation". My advice would be to shift your tactic, from linking it to your deity to simply enjoying the killing.
You could describe how you character is in some kind of daze, as he stands there covered in the blood of his enemies (the Dragon Age approach).
Of course once you mention your deity, things become more complicated. It is legal to play worshiper of Urgathoa, but since players usually end up fighting ghouls and similar undead, the association doesn't help.
In addition to that, PFS has a history of removing options that are associated with cannibalism and drinking blood. Frankly I think they want to avoid the public trouble, especially considering younger players. You have to accept that stance as given and work around that.
So you could more of less "bath/shower" in blood, but just don't kill people while shouting.
Why do you think I want to play an insane character? :P
The way morality is perceived is troubling to me, I think it would be a valiant thing to resist the urge of just slaughtering innocents and channeling that dark impulse into something constructive, he's helping the world and making a living doing it, plus saving the lives of the innocents he would have otherwise killed.
|
|
I like to think about it this way:
What is your intent? You can find that on the morality axis.
What are the means of going about your intent? You can find that on the ethics axis.
You enjoy killing. That is evil. Yoh are going through a code so that your intent is acceptable within the rules of society. That is lawful. Think about Dexter or any other Serial Killer killer. They generally enjoy killing but need a code to do so. That generally lands them in LE territory.
Contrast your character with a Judge Dredd paladin. The paladin does NOT enjoy killing, not even evil creatures. The paladin, however does so because her god commanded it, and she knows that someone has to take that unfortunate job. She does it to spare everyone else the need. I'm reminded of a quote from Goblins.
"Why would you want to put yourself through that?" (Referring to the pains of being a Paladin)
"So no one else has to."
That is what separates your character from a good character. It isn't even neutral as neutral people don't RELISH in killing.
|
|
The idea for the character is fine, and someone who is trying to control innate violent tendencies is far from inherently evil--you're trying to control them, after all.
Running a bloodlust character is certainly doable--this isn't much different from my barbarian struggling to control her "anger management issues" (and most barbarians don't even bother to struggle). The part you're going to run into trouble with is Urgothoa: she's more of an "undeath" goddess, but I've seen necromancers and negative channeling clerics of Urgothoa succeed, so it's not a total deal-breaker.
First, I'd focus on what it is you actually want out of the character. Do you want to talk tough but don't care if you actually do anything (something like "I really want to kill him, but I'll let him live because I like you guys")? If that's the case, you can mention it in character introductions: tell the party that you're trying to control an innate bloodlust and you need their help: if they want you to leave someone alive, they just have to say so.
If you actually do want to slaughter all the people all the time, you'll run into some issues with your party, and that's where the disruption will happen. Again, if you make it clear at the beginning of the game (out of character, maybe), that this is your roleplay style but your character will let the party talk you down, you will probably be OK.
Second, find out precisely what your GM was calling you on. What specific actions was the GM going to give you the alignment infraction on? Just worshipping Urgothoa? The coup de grace? Each thing you've mentioned seems OK by itself, so I'm guessing you might be missing a very important piece of the puzzle. (For example, after the coup de grace, did you hold a ceremony dedicating the fallen foe to Urgothoa? Or did you start eating him?) Once you figure out precisely what the problem was, don't do that again.
I will warn you that unless you can manage to play with the same characters semi-regularly, and long-term character development will be lost on most of the other players. It's not quite as emotionally satisfying to have a life-changing epiphany if no one even notices that your different...
|
I find a "general" society view of what is evil is mostly useless as you do not play under "general" society GMs. You play under specific society GMs and they are the ones who get to decide what is and isn't evil. So if you want to play a questionably evil character you are going to need to consult each GM you play under as to how far you can push that questionability. Otherwise you are going to end up arguing with the GMs a lot.
Since both discussing the issue with each and every GM or, alternately arguing with a lot of GMs are both a pain in the butt. I try to avoid playing questionably evil characters. It's just not worth the hassle.
Also I believe the warning about the alignment shift was when I coup de graced a gnoll slave trader we were supposed to "take care of" and I mentioned Urgothoa, he claimed I was making a sacrifice to her. If memory serves the only thing I said was Urgothoa take you. She's the god of death right? Basically I just told the guy to die.
But I suppose the inconsistency in what truly defines you as evil makes these sort of troubled characters impractical. Thanks everyone, you have been a great help.
|
|
Dexter didn't kill because of any sort of code. His actions were defined by two overriding principles. 1. His need to kill and 2. His need not to get caught. Part of that strategy was to turn his needs towards politically acceptable targets, people more monstrous than he was.
You enjoy killing. That is evil. Yoh are going through a code so that your intent is acceptable within the rules of society. That is lawful. Think about Dexter or any other Serial Killer killer. They generally enjoy killing but need a code to do so. That generally lands them in LE territory..
My mistake. I wasn't clear with the phrasing. Dexter doesn't need to kill because of the Code of Harry; that part was already with him (evil). He just saw the code as a way of providing rules and regulations for himself which would prevent him from getting caught (lawful).
|
"Twisted Urge to Kill" and "Insatiable Bloodlust," cursed or no, I have a hard time buying that the character isn't evil. It's pretty Snidely Whiplash if you ask me.
If you are looking for an anti-hero type, and don't want to be an angsty fop, consider separating from Urgathoa. The connection really drives the evilness home on top of those things.
Something you may want to look at is someone who genuinely believes they are doing good, but ends up not truly being a good guy. Take someone who worships Serenrae and sees the only way to redeem enemies is in her judgment, so he murders them coldly. Or Overdoing the Justice portion of Iomedae. That can be twisted into an inquisition (not class ability) type attitude, where you torture enemies to get the answers you want.
If you are looking for something more primal, you can have, say a tribesman who's belief that if they don't destroy their enemy utterly, Rovagug will rise up and devour their family member's souls.
There are ways to work these things in.
If you wanted to still use Urgathoa, figure out the connection from an RP side. Being driven to do something by a curse makes you a monster like a werewolf, or worse, something to be put down like a rabid dog. Having other reasons would be more of an interesting dynamic.
|
|
Also I believe the warning about the alignment shift was when I coup de graced a gnoll slave trader we were supposed to "take care of" and I mentioned Urgothoa, he claimed I was making a sacrifice to her. If memory serves the only thing I said was Urgothoa take you. She's the god of death right? Basically I just told the guy to die.
But I suppose the inconsistency in what truly defines you as evil makes these sort of troubled characters impractical. Thanks everyone, you have been a great help.
Pharasma is the goddess of death. Using Pharasma in your quote above would be likely be less problematic.
|
|
PFS doesn't (currently) allow evil characters.
You want your character to perform actions that straddle the line of evil.
Evil actions will require an alignment shift at the GM's discretion.
The GM is also required to warn you prior to taking the action so you can do so fully informed. At this point, your options are:
- Betray your character's ideology/motivation
- Argue with the GM* over whether the action is evil
*please, please, please don't pick this option
- Proceed and pay for the atonement at the end of the scenario
So my best advice is to always have enough gold on hand for an atonement and don't bat an eye if the GM says you're going to need one. Consider it an ethical consumable.
If you want the in-game justification, it is your character paying penance for failing to properly channel and control his bloodlust.
Of course, that's hard to square with the ideals of Urgathoa, but that's one of the problems you run into when you choose to worship an evil god in PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pharasma is the goddess of death. Using Pharasma in your quote above would be likely be less problematic.Also I believe the warning about the alignment shift was when I coup de graced a gnoll slave trader we were supposed to "take care of" and I mentioned Urgothoa, he claimed I was making a sacrifice to her. If memory serves the only thing I said was Urgothoa take you. She's the god of death right? Basically I just told the guy to die.
But I suppose the inconsistency in what truly defines you as evil makes these sort of troubled characters impractical. Thanks everyone, you have been a great help.
Pharasma is the god who judges souls and decides where they go. She is the goddess of death.
Urgothoa does have some death aspects to her, but really, she is the god of undeath. "Urgothoa take you" might well be a wish for the soul to come out of the natural order of things, and into the horrible evil of undeath.
Areas of Concern Disease, gluttony, undeath
Domains Death, Evil, Magic, Strength, War
So if I made the same character but he was chosen by pharasma, it would not only make more sense, but it would also be more tolerable?
|
|
So if I made the same character but he was chosen by pharasma, it would not only make more sense, but it would also be more tolerable?
I think that would be significantly better. (But that is my opinion.)
If souls are sent to pharasma, they get sent to where they belong. Reincarnation, to their gods' sides, to heaven (et al), or to hell or the abyss. They are not trapped into undeath. To me, this is just less evil.
Hm, this problem was honestly caused by a misunderstanding of what a goddess stood for, and probably would've went alright if I knew better.
|
I chimed in on the other thread, and have to agree here. Your character, at least in my book, doesn't sound evil. No more than an angry barbarian trying to hold back urges (good example from above). The problem did likely stem from the whole Urgathoa thing, who is very much an evil goddess and not the normal "death" goddess people think of.
Re-flavor your character to Pharasma and I doubt you'll have any issues. Heck, or even Groetus (god of the end times). Not the first character I've seen that has used the end times as an excuse to kill.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also I believe the warning about the alignment shift was when I coup de graced a gnoll slave trader we were supposed to "take care of" and I mentioned Urgothoa, he claimed I was making a sacrifice to her. If memory serves the only thing I said was Urgothoa take you. She's the god of death right? Basically I just told the guy to die.
That sounds more like a misunderstanding. It's the equivalent of saying "Devil take you!" You mean "go to hell" and the GM hears "I sacrifice you to Satan." I think if you hit that again, just tell the GM that's not what you meant and ask how to rephrase that in the future. Sending someone to Pharasma is perfectly acceptable.
I've even run into a lawful good inquisitor of Damarak, the empyreal lord of lawful executions: no one blinked when he insisted on killing captured bad guys, because he listened to their defense, pronounced judgment on them, and dispatched them quickly without unnecessary pain. Sure, he killed guys who had surrendered and dedicated their deaths to his god, but there was nothing "evil" about it according to the game rules. In the end, it's all about how you spin it.
Look over the deities on the Pathfinder Wiki and see if there's one that fits the character better than Urgothoa. Pharasma would be more palatable, but someone who's more about pain (like Callistria or Zon Kuthon) might fit the character better. If you ran a bloodlusting worshipper of a war god like Gorum, no one would bat an eye.
|
|
I've even run into a lawful good inquisitor of Damarak, the empyreal lord of lawful executions: no one blinked when he insisted on killing captured bad guys, because he listened to their defense, pronounced judgment on them, and dispatched them quickly without unnecessary pain. Sure, he killed guys who had surrendered and dedicated their deaths to his god, but there was nothing "evil" about it according to the game rules. In the end, it's all about how you spin it.
I think it has a little more than spin. Being a follower of a good god means that you have a vested interest in finding the right answer to the question -Should these guys die or not- . If you enjoy executing people then you have a vested interest in finding the solution to be kill them. If your one true joy in life is killing people then you probably shouldn't be in the decision making process.
Look over the deities on the Pathfinder Wiki and see if there's one that fits the character better than Urgothoa. Pharasma would be more palatable, but someone who's more about pain (like Callistria or Zon Kuthon) might fit the character better. If you ran a bloodlusting worshipper of a war god like Gorum, no one would bat an eye.
Sad but true.
|
|
So my best advice is to always have enough gold on hand for an atonement and don't bat an eye if the GM says you're going to need one. Consider it an ethical consumable.
This won't necessarily work long term. One of the expectations of atonement is that
The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.
If you repeatedly make the same decisions and take the same actions, the argument could be made you are not "truly repentant" and would not qualify. Expect table variation.
|
|
I've even run into a lawful good inquisitor of Damarak, the empyreal lord of lawful executions: no one blinked when he insisted on killing captured bad guys, because he listened to their defense, pronounced judgment on them, and dispatched them quickly without unnecessary pain.
I'd have a major problem with that. Lawful characters do NOT get to take the law into their own hands except under the most extreme of circumstances. In fact, I'd ding him on alignment if he did that. In general, of course, as always circumstances matter
|
I'd have a major problem with that. Lawful characters do NOT get to take the law into their own hands except under the most extreme of circumstances. In fact, I'd ding him on alignment if he did that. In general, of course, as always circumstances matter
I've even run into a lawful good inquisitor of Damarak, the empyreal lord of lawful executions: no one blinked when he insisted on killing captured bad guys, because he listened to their defense, pronounced judgment on them, and dispatched them quickly without unnecessary pain.
It depends whether you're in the camp that 'Lawful' means to always follow the law - even in the wilds of the world, or if 'Lawful' means following a code etc. (You may be able to tell which camp I'm in by the phrasing. :P)
|
|
It depends whether you're in the camp that 'Lawful' means to always follow the law...or if 'Lawful' means following a code
IMO, this is the key difference between camps when arguing alignment. Its hard to define the rule that govern both without finding loopholes. I lean more towards the latter because a LG character should never be compelled to follow an evil law just because its evil and with the former, that could be a possibility. Lawful does not mean you cannot lie, but a character that follows the latter definition might consider it so and therefore not do it.
As an anecdote, I turn to the anti-paladin. I have always felt it should be lawful evil rather than chaotic. They typically follow a similar "code of ethics" that a paladin does only from the perspective of evil. IMO, a paladin of Asmodeus is much more likely than a paladin of Rovagug. I never liked the image of an anti-paladin as a wanton, perhaps mindless engine of destruction which would more fit with CE. More of a calculating warrior-leader who sought to forcibly convert followers through intimidation, murder, and perhaps gile, using slavery and torture to force capitulation all in the name of evil and in reverence of a greater power from whence their power was derived (deity).
But of course, that is just my opinion.
|
|
So my best advice is to always have enough gold on hand for an atonement and don't bat an eye if the GM says you're going to need one. Consider it an ethical consumable.This won't necessarily work long term. One of the expectations of atonement is that
The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.If you repeatedly make the same decisions and take the same actions, the argument could be made you are not "truly repentant" and would not qualify. Expect table variation.
The key is making it clear the character is 'truly repentant' even if the player is not. And as I said, that's a lot trickier when the character is worshipping an evil god.
That's also one of my issues with the whole "you can be one step away from the deity you worship" thing. I think that works as a starting point, but theoretically the character should be striving to match their alignment to the god's. And any actions that bring you closer to that alignment should be welcomed, rather than something to atone for.
So...I agree with you? I think that's what I'm saying.
|
|
So...I agree with you? I think that's what I'm saying.
Yeah, we may be talking in circles. My point was that you're proposal works if we're talking about a single incident or perhaps a few, but if the player continues, game after game, to perform the same "evil" action only to ask for atonement in the end, I would posit that they are not meeting the requirement of "truly repentant." Under those parameters, I think a GM would be within their right to deny said atonement.
|
|
So...I agree with you? I think that's what I'm saying.Yeah, we may be talking in circles. My point was that you're proposal works if we're talking about a single incident or perhaps a few, but if the player continues, game after game, to perform the same "evil" action only to ask for atonement in the end, I would posit that they are not meeting the requirement of "truly repentant." Under those parameters, I think a GM would be within their right to deny said atonement.
Agreed. It's more a fail-safe for if that same 'evil' action is riding the line and you're trying to account for table variation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on where the code comes from. If your code is something entirely made up by yourself, then you're a chaotic character. If the code you swear by comes from a nation, an order, or any kind of group that's outside of yourself, then it's lawful.
Perspective and opinion. I happen to disagree.