There's really nothing complicated about the premise: if you try to kill someone who isn't actively harming you (starting a war), you're Evil. If you try to defend yourself against someone who initiated aggression upon you, that does not make you Evil (although you may be for other reasons).
Unless they're harming someone else, or they're doing harm passively (through, say, allowing your enemies to use their resources). War generally is complicated in most settings. Look at Golarion, or Eberron. There are "Count Evil is attempting to blow up the world" wars, but there are also "Five brats can't agree on who gets the crown" wars.
There's really nothing complicated about the premise: if you try to kill someone who isn't actively harming you (starting a war), you're Evil. If you try to defend yourself against someone who initiated aggression upon you, that does not make you Evil (although you may be for other reasons).Starting the war maybe, but what about the soldiers doing the actual fighting?
I always viewed soldiers as lawful neutral.
It certainly fits the classic image of "I'm just following orders."
And just to reiterate my point, I think any alignment is playable with a group so long as the player actually tries to get along with the others at the table, and that a disruptive player can use any alignment as an excuse to be a gigantic pain in the ass.
This is getting weird.
|
No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.Wrong.
Is your CE character going to commit evil acts? Yes? [...] So unless your planning to always be restrained into NOT being evil then you ARE going to cause friction. And that is NOT a valued member of the team.
the evil acts can (and usually in my experience are) performed when the rest of the party is absent or they are otherwise in no position to know they happened.
Also... a "good" Evil character in a good party can often offer a lot of interesting moral dilemma to the rest of the party.
|
|
***
So whenever someone thinks Chaotic evil they think acting like a total psychopath without control instead of someone who is probably just selfish and rebellious with little respect for strict protocol.While Chaotic neutral is not just a rebel and a free-thinker, but obviously someone who is raving mad and out of control.
Why do so many people let some bad actors define what alignment are allowed in their campaigns?
Well, Chaotic Evil does describe itself as
If I want something, I take it. Might is right. The strong rule the weak. Respect me or suffer. Fear me. There is only today, and today I take what I need. Anger brings out the best in me. I am the stronger one.
Core Concepts
Anarchy, anger, amorality, brutality, chaos, degeneracy, freedom, profaneness, violenceA chaotic evil character is driven entirely by her own anger and needs. She is thoughtless in her actions and acts on whims, regardless of the suffering it causes others.
In many ways, a chaotic evil character is pinned down by her inherent nature to be unpredictable. She is like a spreading fire, a coming storm, an untested sword blade.
So if you're just "someone who is probably just selfish and rebellious with little respect for strict protocol", you're not Chaotic Evil, you're chaotic neutral. Degeneracy and violence are core components of what being chaotic evil means, which is also why many GMs and scenarios ban its use.
Chaotic neutral on the other hand, should still be a viable choice for an adventurer (if not necessarily a hero), but I have literally never seen someone show up to a table with "Chaotic Neutral" listed as their alignment and play anything other than a raving psychopath or deranged schizophrenic. Literally never. So myself and most GMs I play with usually lump it together right alongside chaotic evil, since the two have always been, in our experience, indistinguishable at the table.
first of all.. I do not agree at all with your description of chaotic evil. what you cited is an example not a "this is all there is to the chaotic evil"
If you are selfish and rebellious with little respect for strict protocol that makes you chaotic, but doesn't say much about your attitude in the Good-Evil axis.
If you pair that with malice, self interest and a certain callousness, that's where the evil stand.
hell.. succubi would not fit your description, and succubi I think are the quintessential chaotic evil. Still... they don't exhibit much violence or anger or brutality, nor they act randomly, as a matter of fact they are regarded as very cunning and even sophisticated.
But they are out to play with you.... you are a toy in their schemes... and there is no rule that will stop them from using you, for them rules and hearts are just meant to be broken.
It's an evil you can relate to. even if you are not evil yourself.. you can talk with it, is not a foaming raving mad monster.
She probably has enough schemes of her own to accomodate alliances with plenty of Lawful Good characters as long as they are able to make compromises for the greater good... or of course.. as long as they don't know what they are really dealing with.
But contrary to a devil who operates and believes in tight societal structures and regulations, contracts etc. a succubus would rather believe in pleasing herself.
How would a PC with the same attitude would totally be just as Chaotic evil, and would totally work in a party, even one with good aligned characters.
Why do you think that friction prohibits working as a team? It's actually a pretty bizarre position to take. Heck, in how many fictional parties/teams/buddy pairings/etc do you not see friction between group members? Are you saying that in none of these groups the members value each other despite their personal conflicts?
The first season of Star Trek The Next Generation had pretty much no friction between the main characters and is generally considered to have been poorly written. Not that it was the writers' fault...
|
Evil alignments work with the right groups in the right campaign.
Sometimes its harder to justify why their off trying to save the world though.
I ran age of Worms with an all evil party, set in Eberron. Actually, some of the party where neutrals as well.
In that scenario, we had the group working as agents for The Keeper, evil deity of death. Their job became to prevent the rise of another god of death so the Keeper maintained its sphere of influence.
This worked because it gave all these evil types a common cause. We didn't need a leader in the group because the deity they all followed acted as a default leader.
I guess most people see issues when there are individuals with their own agendas working in a mixed team, rather than a unified front.
It also makes many of Paizo's AP's difficult to run as the default assumption is you'll be heroes and take on quests for the good of the world rather than any other driving force. Not sure how many evil people would actually do that, but then I'm sure folks could be very creative in their motivations.
I would say that if you perpetrate violence upon innocents just because someone tells you to, that makes you Evil.
I would say the harm that becomes most soldier who "desert" mitigates that they are following orders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do I have to bring up the Milgram experiment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I've found that evil characters can be very easy to create with motivations in a heroic party. All you have to do is remember that evil people are still people.
"These goblins are going to burn down the town?! I'll rip their tonsils out through their nostrils! My family lives here, and nobody f#*+s around with my family."
"I can't believe my drinking buddy's joined this crazy adventuring party. I guess I should probably tag along—she's naive about the way the world works, but nobody deserves to die for that."
"Demon worshipers? By Asmodeus!"
"Hey, that guard better leave that kid alone! If there's anything I, a Chaotic Evil Galtish rabble-rouser, cannot stand, it's The Man using his privilege to push around folks who can't fight back. These tyrants need to be taught a lesson, and my axe will be their teacher."
"These slavers picked the wrong tavern to harass. I happen to like the staff here—they're polite and are the only humans I've ever met who know how to brew half-decent ale." Alternatively: "I hope to one day buy this tavern from these stupid humans, and I can't do that if it's burnt to a cinder. I'll have to kill the slavers, then track down whoever sent them here."
"Hey!...That orc just shot my cat! "
Naturally, many of these motivations don't last forever. But evil people are still people. After traveling with a band of heroes for a while, some of it's bound to rub off on you as long as said "heroes" aren't jerks. At the very least you should make a friend or two.
No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.Wrong.
Is your CE character going to commit evil acts? Yes? [...] So unless your planning to always be restrained into NOT being evil then you ARE going to cause friction. And that is NOT a valued member of the team.
the evil acts can (and usually in my experience are) performed when the rest of the party is absent or they are otherwise in no position to know they happened.
Also... a "good" Evil character in a good party can often offer a lot of interesting moral dilemma to the rest of the party.
Ok lets look at the tables that like secret agendas and lone wolves.
YOU can't predict how other players will feel about mr evil. They could be anything from interested to irritated to horrified. It's probably worse if it happens away from the party because now the players have to act like they don't know while adventuring with the evil nasty person. The game stops being fun while they watch you do horrible torture, murder, or worse while they can't stop you, the game becomes ALL about the evil guy and not about doing good deeds.
This is just one example... it's entirely possible to play off mr evil as comedy relief with the intention of being stopped and the group could have fun with it. BUT this is the exception the rule is far closer to the first example. It's normally special snowflaking at it's worst. Now in this kind of anti-team game special snowflaking isn't bad... but when the group is good and that guy wants to be mr evil YOU can't know going in if it's going to explode in your face or be great. BUT it would be a safe bet to assume the players who are going for a good game are more likely to be highly annoyed if the GM allows a mr evil into the game. It's like allowing ONE player to dictate the whole direction of the campaign.
Yeah, I would actually steer away from Mister Evil or Belkar "LEMME AT 'IM" PCs. Those only work in less serious games where you never even remotely acknowledge that the psychological reality of "I like to murder people because it is fun" is "I should really be imprisoned or killed before I succeed at doing it".
Good thing Chaotic Evil PCs don't have to be like that. You don't have to commit evil acts—you do have to be willing to (though you can certainly have standards). Maybe you're an escaped slave. While escaping, you murdered numerous innocent bystanders who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, including several children. You aren't intent on killing like that again. But you will if you have to. You do not have any regrets, because you'll do anything to stay free.
Can this still lead to friction? Absolutely. Especially if a mission involves capturing some slavers and you just want to kill them, or if the party needs to surrender and you'll fight to the death to avoid that. And if a so-called "teammate" decides to help subdue you to make things easier on you...well, they were never much of a friend anyways.
However. Can that Chaotic Evil character function in the party? Hell yeah! They're otherwise a pretty likeable guy—they keep dogs, protect the helpless, and assist little old ladies in crossing the road. They'll be invaluable in completing your quests, and can become a lifelong friend to fellow partymembers.
But they will commit acts of inhuman savagery a thousand times over before they wear the chains again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a pretty awesome power to have, I won't lie ;)The only reason anybody wants to play chaotic neutral or evil characters in a non-evil group is to disrupt the game, that's why those alignments are often banned.I wish that I too had the power to read the minds of everyone who has ever or will ever do a certain action.
As I said before. I agree that some players really are jack-holes trying to disrupt the game. But I think (in my experience) more often it has just been players that just don't know any better. They really think they are supposed to play that way with those alignments.
..
Lately I have been putting the following 2 statements in my campaign intro.
A ping on Detect Evil does NOT justify unprovoked murder. A person/creature can be evil and not yet have committed any crime that warrants death. Also remember Detect Evil does not ping if a non-cleric under 5th level.
.
I would prefer this campaign to not include PvP or adversarial relationships between the PC’s (or players for that matter). I feel that a LG paladin and CE cleric of Rovagug are usually not appropriate in the same group. If you both decide you still want to do it, then the 2 players are in charge of finding a way for the 2 PC’s to get along in the same group. You need to find a way to make it work. That is definitely NOT my job to referee you personal relationships. If the 2 of you can’t come to an agreement, you should both make different characters. This is my version of the “Don’t be a jerk!” rule.
Lady.
One time, at the end of the campaign, we captured the BBEG's right hand man. We interogated him to learn of his boss's plans, but he was too tough and didn't say anything. The PC, beingsissiesgood people, couldn't bring themselves to do anything drastic, but the information was crucial to our success, so my character, who was NE, got the information out of him through torture, which she was decent at. Only thanks to her did we manage to stop the BBEG.
Most likely thanks to bad storytelling as realistically torture is ineffective without actually effective lie detection.
|
What makes you think they don't have Detect Lie/Zone of Truth/high Sense Motive?
Besides, it's enough for the torturee to *think* you have effective lie detection. They're not going to risk their life lying if they think you can tell with a magic thingamajig.
Awfully quick to judge 'bad storytelling' for a scene you presumably weren't even a part of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.Wrong.
Is your CE character going to commit evil acts? Yes? Is this going to anger the Good party he is traveling with? Yes. So unless your planning to always be restrained into NOT being evil then you ARE going to cause friction. And that is NOT a valued member of the team.
Ever watch King Arthur? There's a guy with a falcon and he's damn good at killing. There's actually a conversation where he says that he very much enjoys killing. He's a valued member of their group and a good friend.
Evil in Pathfinder is hurting, oppressing, and killing. Good is altruism, concern for the dignity of others, and protecting innocent life. Likewise no character exhibits all of these traits 100% of the time (or else they wouldn't be a character but a caricature). You can definitely be chaotic rebellious type who is also evil and fit right into an adventuring party. I mean, seriously, where else is a better place for a chaotic evil character?
Adventuring parties = typically the freest folks ever. They also do a ton of killing and often get rich doing it.
The barbarian who shatters the orc's kneecap because she's pissed when she could have broken his arm, just to inflict extra pain for its own sake could be extremely evil. It doesn't mean that she's senseless or is in full-hate mode towards everyone. She may very well love, have people she cares about, maybe even a very loose sense of honor or taboos that she won't commit, but at the end of the day she will hurt, oppress, and kill and she'll love every moment of it.
The fact she just leaped on the dragon who was about to murder the priestess of the goodly god of holiness is just part of her job.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also very possible to play "good" characters who are grossly disruptive to the game and played as bad caricatures as well. Like I said, the problem is not the alignment but the players OOC.
It's also worth noting that the aforementioned Belkar Bitterleaf has made major steps of late to being a helpful member of the team—still Chaotic Evil (he ignores anybody's orders but his own and certainly still regards your average dead gnome as funny), but there are people he sort of cares about, and he's capable of feeling shame for mistreating someone if that someone is being especially nice to him.
That workmate or housemate who steals your sandwich from the fridge? That's a CE act right there. "The rules don't apply to me, I want that sandwich, and your ownership doesn't matter to me."
Not every CE type is into murder or rape.
It may be a CE act but a single one of that limited scale wouldn't warrant an alignment shift.
Actually CE characters are characterized by a more consistent and egregious behavior
|
|
A single one, no of course not, but if they are consistently like that.
And being consistently like that still doesn't mean you have to be into murder or rape.
All I'm pointing out is that you don't have to be the Joker or Charles Manson or even Jesse James to be CE. All it takes is being consistently into "me me me".
A lot of us probably know CE people. Many of us might have to work with them on a daily basis, because the circumstances force us into it.
I look at CE party members through that lens.
|
|
Another issue with alignments played straight up rather than shades of grey.
One persons Chaotic Evil is not another's. Problems arise when the DM feels what you're doing doesn't match alignment, while the player sees it as matching alignment perfectly.
I pretty much allow my players to play how they want. I do let them know if what they're doing is considered evil in that part of the world though.
For example, in one game I had a fighter capture a slave who'd run away. In the land they were in, slaves running away were punished, by death sometimes.
This guy used the slave to set off a trap so the group could go through to get an item necessary to protect the town the slave had run from.
To me, this would be evil in our world. Was it evil there though? No one in the land thought it was (except maybe the slaves).
Well, I would definitely call "using a slave as a living ten-foot pole" an evil act. As discussed on the current "homosexuality in Pathfinder" thread, I don't care if your "culture" says it's okay to kill babies, it's still evil.
That said, a good example of "sympathetic evil" would be using an escaped slave to set a trap for the master pursuing him. Sure, you'll try to keep the slave alive, but your top priority is to catch the slaver, and you aren't going to let the slave say "no".
Another issue with alignments played straight up rather than shades of grey.
One persons Chaotic Evil is not another's. Problems arise when the DM feels what you're doing doesn't match alignment, while the player sees it as matching alignment perfectly.
I pretty much allow my players to play how they want. I do let them know if what they're doing is considered evil in that part of the world though.
For example, in one game I had a fighter capture a slave who'd run away. In the land they were in, slaves running away were punished, by death sometimes.
This guy used the slave to set off a trap so the group could go through to get an item necessary to protect the town the slave had run from.
To me, this would be evil in our world. Was it evil there though? No one in the land thought it was (except maybe the slaves).
Sorry, still evil. And chaotic unless you're actually part of that land's law enforcement, with proper powers as appointed by its government.
Hell, one might say you're even stealing someone else's property there. Slaves aren't exactly cheap. You could legit campaign against the law 'all runaway slaves are put to death' even as NE or especially CE -- that field hand (or whatever) cost good gold and why does the state confiscate and destroy your stuff?
(And in most worlds we play this game in, Good and Evil have a say in what they are, regardless of what some bureaucrat says they are.)
|
The weirdest thing I've seen is someone who banned Neutral, because it was boring.Just true neutral, or did they ban the entire druid alignment spectrum?
I mean...I can underand. If you at least lean on one of the axises, you at least have something to work off of. Helpful, follower of rules, "I do what I want", sadist... you can easily find 'something'.
But yeah...it is likely because of a few too many lazy role players just saying "I'll just be neutral or whatever". You know the guys- the ones that just go on their iphones when NPCs are talking because they didn't point in diplomacy and dumped their CHA hard, and only come back when it is time to hit things with great sword or fireballs.
True Neutral 2nd ed style - I'd kind of agree with you.
But neutral because one simply doesn't care about alignment is straight neutral.
I played a bard that was neutral. He adventured because he's a narcissist who wants to become a legend, and his performance is telling others of his greatness. But he wants to get famous as a hero - saving the innocent etc. His main motivation for saving them is to be famous rather than caring too much. After saving someone and 'releasing them back into the wild' - his line is "Tell all your friends!" *wink*.
He's not good - because he's too narcissistic, and he'd do evil to save his own butt if he needed to. He's not evil because he typically avoids doing wrong if he can help it... bad for the image. And he really doesn't care much about the law - though again, he doesn't want to be seen breaking it much either.
So - straight neutral (NOT true neutral) - but not boring either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ban evil alignments in my games as a general rule. I do this because I generally run campaigns where the PCs are going to be doing heroic things. Evil alignments don't work because evil is generally played in one of three ways, each of which is problematic:
1) Stupid Evil - We all know why this is disruptive.
2) Diabolical Evil - A player with this kind of character would only make me wish I was running Vampire instead of Pathfinder. Also, this type of evil works best in games with heavy relationship building with a group of regular NPCs. That's something that my Pathfinder games don't really have an opportunity to establish, so it's hard to play that way anyway.
3) Subdued Evil - Not problematic in and of itself, but since my campaigns tend toward heroic deeds the character in question wouldn't stay evil for long; their actions in the campaign would inevitably push them into neutrality and toward good. To remain evil they'd have to commit some evil acts to counter the campaign-related deeds, which puts them back into category 1 or 2.
About the only time I would consider letting a player play an evil PC in one of my campaigns is if they were playing a redemption character. But then again, they wouldn't really be committing evil acts during the campaign, so them starting out as evil becomes irrelevant anyway.
|
first of all.. I do not agree at all with your description of chaotic evil. what you cited is an example not a "this is all there is to the chaotic evil"
It's nice that you don't agree, but I literally copy-pasted the definition of Chaotic Evil out of the CRB. So you'be created your own definition, basically a house rule. More power to you. Most of the things you attribute to being a non-disruptive Chaotic Evil character actually describe someone who would be considered Chaotic Neutral under the rules though.
It's also very possible to play "good" characters who are grossly disruptive to the game and played as bad caricatures as well. Like I said, the problem is not the alignment but the players OOC.
This is true. The disruptiveness of the player is always more important then what alignment they'be written on their sheet. That doesn't, of course, change the fact that some alignments seem to draw/encourage more disruptive play then others though.
|
|
hmmm, my point was to show that evil, madness and anarchy are defined by the society you live in.
Of course we all think using the slave that way was evil.
But the society they lived in didn't have an issue with it at all. The slave would likely have been executed to make example, the party used him to get something the town needed to protect itself. All was well as far as they're concerned.
In Golarion with its gods though, you have divine beings that actually define for you what evil is. This makes it harder for you to ignore alignments in that setting.
It's why I preferred Eberron honestly. The gods were more ideals in that setting than actually taking active hand in the world. You could have a faith there with Paladins and all, and some of the higher ups were actually evil. Let me tell much better stories for my group.
It's also very possible to play "good" characters who are grossly disruptive to the game and played as bad caricatures as well. Like I said, the problem is not the alignment but the players OOC.
Regardless of any other disagreement this is very true. If the group is going evil and that guy plays mr good, it is every bit as disruptive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also very possible to play "good" characters who are grossly disruptive to the game and played as bad caricatures as well. Like I said, the problem is not the alignment but the players OOC.Regardless of any other disagreement this is very true. If the group is going evil and that guy plays mr good, it is every bit as disruptive.
It doesn't even need to be in an evil group.
All it takes for, to use the stereotypical example, a Lawful Stupid Paladin to be disruptive is insisting on intervening in every event where evil might be taking place. Even when doing so is worthy of a TPK unless the GM pulls their punches, like when an evil ruler executes an adviser for disagreeing with him while surrounded by loyal guards. Yelling out "Cease and Desist in the name of Justice, Evil Wrongdoer" is just asking to get the entire group executed, regardless of what sort of people the rest of the group actually are.
Just like a CE nutjob running around shanking randoms is likely to disrupt the game regardless of whether the rest of the group are shining paragons of justice or (something) Evil "slit their mother's throat for a gold piece" mercenaries.
Note that I am currently dealing with a less extreme version of the first one in a campaign I am GMing. The LG Monk is far more disruptive than the CN Inquisitor of Gorum. The worst the Inquisitor does is execute a prisoner (that is also an evil monster) behind the party's back and act a little too aggressive when the loot gets divvied up. The Monk charges headlong into obviously dangerous situations vocalizing loudly, forcing the rest of the party to follow and stop him getting killed. He also repeatedly brings the game to the halt with his goofing off, even when the rest of the party is still in combat. Because Monks and Plague Zombies don't mix that well, so the natural response instead of borrowing a crossbow or using some of the alchemist's fire he carries around is to go round the zombies and cook up some random Gentle Repose'd goat he found while the rest of the party plays the Entangle+Archery game.
Of course, in reality these are player problems, not Alignment problems. Just like someone deciding to play a CE psychopath who shanks randoms is a player problem when the rest of the party doesn't want to have that sort of playstyle at the table.