|
With Hell's Vengeance on the horizon, I'm interested in prepping a character to play for it. However, as my username might suggest, I've no real experience playing evil characters. While I do own the Champions of Corruption supplement, I've found that while it's informative as to how evil characters function, it's very basic information, for characters who are clearly evil with little nuance.
I find it hard to figure out where the line between LN and LE can be found. I don't feel comfortable perpetrating clear evil acts like torture or genocide in-game, but I feel like if I can't commit to that, I'm not truly LE, just a LN with evil bosses. And this becomes a problem since from what little info I have, an organization of Paladins is the primary adversary in Hell's Vengeance, and confrontations with them will inevitably bring up the "You're so honorable you could be a paladin, why are you serving House Thrune?" dialogue, coupled with the possibility of redemption.
I like the idea of playing the dark warrior-mage/ruthless tactical genius figure, like Darth Vader or Julius Caesar, but I'm not sure HOW to play it as truly evil if I've got a list of prohibitions/rationalizations like "I don't torture; you don't get information with it because the captive will eventually say anything to make it stop, so it's a waste of my time;" or "I don't toy with defeated foes, I'm not a sadist and a worthy opponent deserves a clean, swift end;" or "I won't bargain with devils; they're deceptive beings who'll twist anything to their advantage and betray you the moment you're no longer useful. I'll rely on my own skill and strength. Besides, I'm bound for Hell anyway."
If I have a character who thinks in these terms, what's to stop him from siding with the Paladins instead? Hell, he could even BE one at that point. What do I do? How do I write this guy's story and personality to work for House Thrune when it's clear that their decadence and sadism disgusts him? Thank you all for your advice regarding this alignment balancing act.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The true, natural order of the universe is that the strong rule and the weak serve.
The purpose of the social order is to keep score, so that everyone knows who is above and below them, and to serve the strong, by outsourcing the beatings and intimidation to flunkies and ambitious underlings.
A Hellknight would fit perfectly into your idea
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of people who might argue that Vader IS Lawful Neutral; he is serving what he believes to be the legitimate government of the land, and this is why he turns against the Jedi and the Republic. Palpatine is, technically, the true leader of the governing body, and so his word is effectively law. Your character can follow House Thrune because as much as he might dislike them on a personal level, they ARE the governing body of the land, and as such they are to be served and respected, and these paladins, while their cause is noble, are rallying against your ruler. They might be horrible, but they keep things stable. Ousting them would leave to likely another period of civil war, and is that something you want? Order is helpful, it keeps everything running smoothly and efficiently, even if it isn't *nicely*. That's what these paladins don't understand. For all their horrors, anarchy is still worse than House Thrune.
Now, assuming you DO want to go with a true LE character (which I argue Vader is, by the way), the answer is a bit complex. All Lawful characters hold lawfulness as paramount to their identity, but their reasons, as well as how this shapes their actions, are different. Lawful Good characters believe the law is paramount to goodness, at least when they are good laws. People who break the law are evil, if the laws are good. They want to have a good, lawful society where the laws protect the good people and get rid of the bad. If they were to encounter a place like Cheliax, they view those laws as evil, and therefore not applicable. That isn't a legitimate authority to them, and so they will seek to undermine it.
Lawful Neutrals are a little less picky. To them, what matters IS the law, whether they are necessarily good or bad. Order keeps society running, and following the laws leads to order. People who break the laws introduce chaos and fluctuation, and this can undermine the state as a whole. If they wish to change the laws, do it in some fashion through a LAWFUL manner, such as one might fight a law in court here in the real world. Rebellions and such simply undermine legitimate authority and cause societal strife, as well as leaving a lot of people dead. Lawful Neutrals MIGHT be persuaded to turn against the law of the land if it goes against their own personal code of honor, but that would entail the law doing very UN-lawful things.
Lawful Evils warp the law for their own ends. It doesn't matter if the law serves everyone, so long as it serves THEM. They don't have to enjoy or even partake in torture or other such things, but they do often have no problem with it taking place. To use Darth Vader now as an LE example, the laws of the Empire are beneficial to him. Use of the force is forbidden, except for a select few. The Imperial Armed Forces are a regimented and well-trained force, and he is essentially at their head. Lawful Evil characters work within the law because it makes them legitimate; how can you argue what they do is wrong if the law of the land allows such things? This works even BETTER in societies that are LG or such, but even in a place like Cheliax it makes sense. Most people are content to follow the law, even if it forces them into poverty, because we respect authority figures. A character for Hell's Vengeance is someone who benefits from the structure of Cheliax's laws, and seeks to preserve the status quo for that reason. They may plot against House Thrune independently to usurp their power, but these plots are those of political intrigue and arranged marriages, maneuvering for power within the system, which makes everything they do legitimate. In the meantime, keeping the laws as-is is the only way to preserve those plans. House Thrune is an ally because they are a path to power, even if you hate them. Lawful Evil bides its time, and is willing to work with ANYONE to further their own agenda. You might even like House Thrune, and your path to power is to somehow maneuver your way into the family. You don't have to enjoy torture to be Lawful Evil; you just have to recognize that when it happens, it gets things done. You can compartmentalize that in your mind, push it away because you aren't the one doing it.
I hope that answers your questions.
Being Darth Vader? Well, first, you start off as a Young template character with maxed out Int and low to average Wis. Later, when you lose the Young template, retrain to entirely dump Int, Wis, and Cha instead, then arbitrarily decide to be Evil and kill a bunch of children in order to shift your alignment. After that, have your character's motivation for staying Evil be that you have nothing better to do. Lastly, if your character ever gets killed, have his dying words be deciding to not be Evil anymore.
|
The last time the Chelish government fell, there were thirty years of bloody civil war. It was recent enough that a beginning elven PC lived through the entire war and a human PC may have heard about it from their grandparents.
House Thrune's rule isn't pleasant, but can it even hold a candle to the horror of all-out civil war? Whether Iomedae is more just than Asmodeus is a petty philosophical question; what you need to know is whether a chance at Iomedae's rule is worth sending another generation to their death.
From a lawful neutral perspective, it probably isn't. Those seeking to overthrow House Thrune may be well-intentioned, but they put everyone at risk.
House Thrune, not Iomedae, stopped three decades of senseless slaughter. Even if that weren't worth your loyalty, how could you trust anyone who wants to go back there?
Cheers!
Landon
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I created an LE Super Villain, Crusher, who was the head of the Business Department of University that taught both Super Heroes and Villains. Crusher had a code, and always carried through with his deals. One of the key items of his code was that he wanted to help his students learn -- successful students made better recruits for his villainous business, which was always hiring.
In the meantime, he did do evil things. But his code was what made him fascinating and made him someone the heroes could sometimes work with.
Hmm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really sounds like you want the Operative from Serenity. While people may not necessarily agree with me, I believe that he is an excellent example of the type of Lawful Evil you want.
darth vader is evil because he has to qualms about killing people, he certainly is not lawful neutral.
I like to think of Lawful Evil as the "antihero" alignment, if done right, moreso than CN.
To me Lawful Evil would be better understood as "Lawful Not-Good". Think Magneto, Sinestro, current incarnations of Lex Luthor, and even Rick Grimes from Walking Dead. The "Honorable Killer" motif from Kung-Fu movies, and I would say even Varys from Game of Thrones.
Lawful Evil means you work with others, you do not randomly kill, and all your actions have reasons behind them, it's just that those actions are merciless, and those reasons could be anything from a noble cause to personal revenge.
Think even the Punisher. He is basically just murdering criminals. He wouldn't hurt a little kid or an innocent person, but he has killed quite a few cops and countless mobsters and villains that get in his way.
In your case, it could be "he works for/alongside the Devils more to just tolerate them and eventually kill/overthrow them and take their place", or he is "subservient to them, but f+!#ing hates it, and can't wait for the day he gets to take revenge"
My general view on alignment:
If you're Good, you help people even if you don't know them. If you're evil, you hurt people even if you're friends.
Also, remember, even Hitler had friends. He was one of history's most cartoonish supervillians turned real and committed horrible, vile, unspeakable atrocities but he was a vegetarian, cared for animal rights, prohibited the use of chemical weapons, and didn't conscript women to fight.
You can be evil, even as evil as one of history's most evil people, and still have "good" qualities.
I like to think of Lawful Evil as the "antihero" alignment, if done right, moreso than CN.
any non-good alignment can be "not good" you can save the town if it happens to fall within your limited reasons, maybe to save a loved one through very harsh means ends up rescuing the town.
I heard something in one of my literature classes regarding the difference between a Hero and Villain when it came to motivation...to the effect of:
"A hero is someone who suffers a tragedy, and does what they can to make sure NOBODY has to suffer a similar fate, and a villain is someone who suffers a tragedy, and does what they can to make sure EVERYONE suffers a similar fate."
I heard something in one of my literature classes regarding the difference between a Hero and Villain when it came to motivation...to the effect of:
"A hero is someone who suffers a tragedy, and does what they can to make sure NOBODY has to suffer a similar fate, and a villain is someone who suffers a tragedy, and does what they can to make sure EVERYONE suffers a similar fate."
and an anti-hero usually is someone who makes sure a particular person doesn't suffer the same fate.
Here's a great article from KD recently about this very topic
http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/08/behind-the-screens-lawfully-evil-pa rt-1/
|
I think you should check with your GM what is view on alignments is. Because that is the definition of LE that will apply in his universe.
How do YOU see LE BTW ? The examples you gave seemed a little on the extreme side of evil to be honest.
In my understanding of the alignments, a LE person is both Lawful and Evil.
As I define them, Lawful vs Chaotic is how you react when told to act in a certain way by other people (especially those you consider legitimate : elders, authorities in place, traditions). Lawful instinctively obeys, while Chaotic instinctively rejects. Neutral acts as benefits him the most.
In my view, Good vs Evil is how you treat innocent people. Good acts to protect them, while Evil has no qualms about hurting them. Neutral would prefer to protect them but does not for whatever reason.
Note also that in my view, not caring that innocents are hurt by the consequences of your actions (ie, devoid of compassion) is Evil, not Neutral.
So, a Lawful Evil person, in my game, is someone who tends to follow orders and respect rules, traditions and authorities, especially those of his own culture, and who does not care that innocent people get hurt.
Most participants in totalitarian regimes, whether foot soldiers or higher ups, would be LE in my game.
In my youth I described LE as "a person who respects and obeys the laws....but he wants them to be HIS laws and he'll do whatever it takes to make that happen."
Vader wants order and is part of a military where he respects and honors the chain of command. But unlike the LG general who reprimands or coaches an underling who made an error, hoping that underling will do better next time, LE Vader just reaches out and chokes the guy for failing as a message to the NEXT guy to do better. No hesitation if it betters his position and his version of the law.
Unlike the knight who believes that his ruler has a right to rule, Vader is ready to overthrow Palpatine because he believes HIS version of order is the better one, he should be ruling.
Welfare of the commoner? No thanks. Fair and just treatment of all so you can be remembered as honorable and having respect? No way. None of that is as good as ruling by fear.
"Fear will keep the territories in line. Fear of this battle station....."
LE is also fine with NOT torturing. As was mentioned earlier, if you go through all the trouble to torture someone and get crappy information, you've wasted time and resources on getting nothing. So an LE saying 'Don't torture, it gives poor intel' is perfectly in alignment.
One way to see LE as looking at people as resources--no inherent sanctity of life, but still useful as pawns. No-one who knows chess will just throw pawns away--you want to get something for your value there. Whether it's an exchange pawn vs pawn, or you're grabbing a better piece, or you're just getting an advantage on territory controlled by luring someone else's piece away, you're getting something. To put it in the words of Terry Pratchett, 'Bought and sold ... but not needlessly spent.'
just feel like mentioning not all LE people are people in nobility or position with underlings. Someone may for instance be extremely loyal to their king and tradition and enforce the law but be extreme in how he does it.
|
|
Really good advice so far, thank you all. I'm beginning to get a picture of the character in my mind.
Something else I'm trying to figure out is how to depict a kind of self-loathing or guilt complex for all the crap House Thrune would presumably put him through. In my experience, tragic or even full-on Byronic characters can be hard to pull off without slipping into Wangst-territory. It's clichéd, I know, but when I think of how he'd respond to the "Why do you serve House Thrune if you hate them and their methods so much?" question would be "It's too late for me." That even after the war debts that he initially went to House Thrune for help to pay off are gone, he's done so much reprehensible stuff that he feels he can't be redeemed no matter how much he'd want it. The problem is how to portray this sense of guilt without sounding melodramatic or whiny, which is a common accusations leveled at such characters. I look at guys like Darth Vader, Macbeth, Raistlin, etc. for inspiration, yet when it comes time to play I'm worried that I'll hear the most dreaded words any villain can hear: "you're pathetic."
how to portray this sense of guilt without sounding melodramatic or whiny
Maybe small acts of kindness, while talking about how those used to be normal?
Don't talk about your character's angst at all. Just occasionally act on it, to the shock of your party members.
Figure out where your character draws the line, and act accordingly - and probably quite ruthlessly - when that line is crossed.
Darth Vader gave no zero damns about redemption. He just wasn't going to allow the Emperor to kill his son, and he killed the Emperor for trying.
Compared to neutral, an evil character wouldn't go through emotional turmoil for causing others to suffer. However, if the character is also lawful, those made to suffer must deserve it according whatever constructs he or she uses to justify causing suffering.
Thats one way to play it anyways. If you are intested in bringing your alignment to life then you will need at least the seeds of a back story. Humanize your character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Compared to neutral, an evil character wouldn't go through emotional turmoil for causing others to suffer. However, if the character is also lawful, those made to suffer must deserve it according whatever constructs he or she uses to justify causing suffering.
Thats one way to play it anyways. If you are intested in bringing your alignment to life then you will need at least the seeds of a back story. Humanize your character.
That, I do have!
Basic concept is this:
Character was born to an honorable military family, and went with his father, older brother and grandfather on campaign during his childhood, becoming a kind of troop mascot. At some point, after his grandfather died, his brother, whom he idolized, became the white sheep of the family and aspired to paladinhood. To avoid scandal, he traveled to the Worldwound to make his mark fighting demons...and ended up dead.
His dad forbade him from following in his brother's footsteps, so he studied arcane magic and became a magus instead. However, his family fortune was spent equipping his brother for the Worldwound campaign, forcing his father to go into debt. He had a grand plan to join the Thrune expedition to the Shackles to claim it for the Empire...until the PCs of Skull and Shackles scuttle that quite effectively.
Now alone, with a mountain of debts to various other houses, he's left alone to try and make his military career, when House Thrune makes him an offer...join a special forces group answering directly to the crown, and he'll be able to work down his debts...maybe even ascend in ranks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Darth Vader is CE. He does evil stuff because he wants to... because he's greedy, because he's afraid, because he's angry. He has strong allegiance to any organization, not the Jedi Order, nor the Republic. His loyalty is purely personal and based on emotion: Kenobi, then Padme, then Palpatine. He does not value consistency or discipline. When subordinates disappoint him, he may kill them, despite the disruptions in change of command that result. He's not what you would call a by-the-book kind of guy.
For LE, you want Moff Tarkin. He's a skilled leader, a careful bureaucrat, a well-respected authority. He believes in the authority of the Empire, even placing such glory ahead of his personal ambitions. He acknowledges the Emperor as the legitimate ruler, and thereby, tolerates Vader. He's always on time to meetings and he is fair, but firm, to his subordinates (most of the time). He believes in promotion based on merit. And he thinks nothing of killing 10 billion people to make a political argument. It does not give him pause to order torture, but then again, if he takes personal pleasure in it, it isn't evident. He's just a bad, evil man who values literally nothing that is not of personal significance to him.
Palpatine, of course, is NE. Power for it's own sake, personified. He values discipline, he values passion, but both always serve his greater thirst for power.
Other candidates I would suggest for LE alignment: General Kael (from the film Willow), Elizabeth's body man (from the film Elizabeth), Robert the Bruce's dad (Braveheart), Christopher Columbus (the famous explorer, genocidalist, and disgraced governor), General Zod.
Some semi-sympathetic characters from the shadier side of LN might include Erwin Rommel (reluctant Nazi general), the mayor in Baron Munchausen, various fixers and advisors from political thrillers, Yubaba (Spirited Away), Princess Sybella (Kingdom of Heaven).
Darth Vader is CE. He does evil stuff because he wants to... because he's greedy, because he's afraid, because he's angry. He has strong allegiance to any organization, not the Jedi Order, nor the Republic. His loyalty is purely personal and based on emotion: Kenobi, then Padme, then Palpatine. He does not value consistency or discipline. When subordinates disappoint him, he may kill them, despite the disruptions in change of command that result. He's not what you would call a by-the-book kind of guy.
Thank you!
Considering Vader to be LE, or say any generic power-hungry warlord to be lawful »because he pretty much is the law« is to me all wrong. Suggesting that is suggesting law is not an absolute, objective force but instead simply an ordered way of thinking - you can have your law and I'll have mine.
That isn't applied as often to Good. »I want to do good, but I want it to be MY good.« No, good is absolute. It is good to help those in peril, and it is evil to kill innocent.
Same with Law. Sure, it is much harder to pinpoint what makes a law (as in a bill, a regulation) lawful. But simply having a powerful wizard come to town and say »I now degree that it is law to give the soul of your first-born to me« doesn't make it a lawful.
In my mind, you can have a LE king. He is chosen (by blood or by election) according to rules and tradition. By then, his word perhaps pretty much becomes law - but since he himself is lawful, he will not degree every whimsy of his mind but instead follow tradition and precedence. So he would raise taxes to levels that impoverish the peasants to the point of starvation and beyond, but he will do so only after say equating the current state of the kingdom with a time of hardships where a previous king levied extra taxes. And, this is where it gets really interesting - this lawful evil king would step down if presented with doubtless evidence that he was not choose according to rules and traditions (say, someone proves that he is bastard born).
No, Palatine would not step down when he found out there had been a miscount of votes when he was elected chancellor. He is not lawful. And Vader has oblivious no regard for protocol - he rules by charisma (intimidation) alone, which makes him CE or NE at best.
Basic concept is this:
A backstory is a good thing to work with. So let's see:
Character was born to an honorable military family, and went with his father, older brother and grandfather on campaign during his childhood, becoming a kind of troop mascot. At some point, after his grandfather died, his brother, whom he idolized, became the white sheep of the family and aspired to paladinhood. To avoid scandal, he traveled to the Worldwound to make his mark fighting demons...and ended up dead.
Firstly: Honorable military family screams a good basis for lawful. This guy would be use to the concept of codes of conduct, heirarchies. Generally: If your superior gives you an order, that order is what you do. Similarly, your orders should be obeyed.
Now, the thing with the brother is both a good call for why they may be evil: 1. They had to leave because of being good and 2. Being good got them dead. That both informs a claim the world isn't nice, and that being nice isn't the best method to survive the world. Yes good =! nice, but I'm currently seeing militaristic perspective with a lump of cynicism might fit.His dad forbade him from following in his brother's footsteps, so he studied arcane magic and became a magus instead. However, his family fortune was spent equipping his brother for the Worldwound campaign, forcing his father to go into debt. He had a grand plan to join the Thrune expedition to the Shackles to claim it for the Empire...until the PCs of Skull and Shackles scuttle that quite effectively.
Further grounds for cynicism. Someone doing good lost a privilaged lifestyle this character had. More yet, the sheer humilitation of going from riches the rags. Especially when it was done to serve this guy's brother over him.
Now alone, with a mountain of debts to various other houses, he's left alone to try and make his military career, when House Thrune makes him an offer...join a special forces group answering directly to the crown, and he'll be able to work down his debts...maybe even ascend in ranks.
So this guy is willing to work with an evil group to get what he wants out of the world. They are a little bit ruthless and discompassionate.
My personal thought from the backstory (and a way to play LE in my eyes: There is an order, everyone should know their place. Doesn't matter if it's unpleasant. Do what you are told. The system is more important than you. And the system doesn't need vermin who aren't of use to it, especially those who don't even appreciate the fact that having orderly rule means they have time to plot insurrection as opposed to fending off bandits and looters. They should be put down, quickly and efficiently.
Edit: Since I'm no longer being pulled away from my computer. Evil can just mean that you're not so limited in what you're willing to do to achieve an ends. You can play an evil character and not torture people. Because yes, it's inefficient, an intelligent character recognising this will look for other ways to get what they need from someone. It's also (if you care for my above treatment) a place in which you can just play up ruthless efficiency. Particularly with defeated foes. Indeed, if the character is trying to cull debt/looking for promotion from a military background: I'd say such a style of character fits perfectly. You have a job. You'll do it clean. You'll do it fast. You'll do it well. You won't actively try to harm bystanders but if it happens, it happens. That would be the main difference between such a character and a Paladin. Paladins care.
Some semi-sympathetic characters from the shadier side of LN might include Erwin Rommel (reluctant Nazi general),
Sorry to derail but Rommel wasn't a member of the Nazi party and even attempted to remove Hitler from power in a coup. He was well respected by the Allies and treated POWs respectfully, refusing orders to commit war crimes like killing POWs and deporting Jews. He protested mistreatment of civilians, including punishing soldiers for committing war crimes and requiring payment for laborers.
Whether or not you think he is, one self-styled evil example that might fit here would be Havelock Vetinari from the Discworld series. He at least once described the idea of bad men, likely implying himself, and basically the idea that they do put people in a place and expect them to work for the better of the realm. (Whether he really is LE or LN or CG or just AM is up to you.)
That said, the background you're giving looks very interesting. Second son of a noble family, first son goes pally and gets himself killed dead, things just keep going wrong, and lo and behold hellknight.
Although I'd still say he should at least show the lawful side too. 'I burned the orphanage, yes. The nuns who ran it had foregone five months of taxes, and we had reliable reports that rebels were stockpiling weapons, especially gunpowder, inside. No, we didn't burn the orphans! We reassigned them to proper state-run orphanages first.'
Whether or not you think he is, one self-styled evil example that might fit here would be Havelock Vetinari from the Discworld series. He at least once described the idea of bad men, likely implying himself, and basically the idea that they do put people in a place and expect them to work for the better of the realm. (Whether he really is LE or LN or CG or just AM is up to you.)
Vetinari is just really good at his job.
The alignment system falls apart quickly with complex characters. I can make as much, probably more chaotic arguments for Lex Luthor. In one battle Superman taunts Luthor
"Where's that cancer cure? You once boasted of all the great things you could do if I weren't' around? I was gone for a year. Where is that cure!"
The answer of course was that Luthor was too busy ordering things around to suit his whims even after getting all the legitimate power he could ask for.
I think the much bigger problem with that comparative is that comic characters (due to multiple authors) can be written incredibly inconsistently. :P
More on topic (since I can't edit my above): How to play a LE character with a bit of tragedy? Well, consider that they have committed various atrocities. With presumably a chance to not do it every step of the way, there is evidently something that character valued more than trying to be good. Or even, there is simply what a lot of people do: Internalisation.
"So a few innocents died; do you really think that preferable to anarchy? I do what I do because it means less people dead, at the end of it all. If you desire real, actual change, you have to accept that it's a painful process."
That's arguably very different flavour though, but a character who is zealously strident about a warped morality is one way to twist evil in a way that's playable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's sort of what I'm going for. At his core he's a military man and a patriot, and his grandfather told him stories about what Cheliax was like during the civil war, so he's very invested in that not happening again, and he wants the family name to be restored. He hates the dirty work he has to do to get there, but then war and politics are the dirtiest businesses there are, and he'd rather shoulder the guilt himself than allow others to go through it.
That's sort of one reason why I have him against paladins after his brother died. Not just that his own paladin brother died, but he's developed this view that paladins will throw lives away needlessly for the cause of "good," not caring about the collateral damage or the lives they destroy in the process. So instead of taking the "if you wanna make an omelet you have to break some eggs mentality" he's more "You paladins smite without any reflection as to what the consequences are, and the consequences of a revolution is that a lot of you paladins will die, a lot of my soldiers will die, and hundreds more innocents will be caught in the crossfire. I don't want that, so STAND DOWN!"
|
You may find it helpful to play a character who is Lawful Evil rather than to try to play "Lawful Evil." There are a lot of different types of characters that are best described as lawful evil.
The character who doesn't torture or doesn't toy with defeated foes doesn't have to be lawful evil but he can be. There just needs to be something that makes him evil. Lawful Evil is often distinguished from other types of evil by having lines that they won't cross. (In fact, one of the common types of Lawful Evil I've seen played is "I would be lawful neutral but torture is my standard method for getting information and torturing people makes me evil.") Maybe he is a slaveowner. That doesn't mean he has to approve of torture. Maybe his goal is genocide. That doesn't mean he can't read the evil overlord list. ("Shooting is not too good for my enemies.") Most people, evil or not have lines that they won't cross. They say that rapists and child molesters are looked down on in prison. That doesn't meant the other criminals can't be evil. Just that there are lots of different ways to be evil and you don't need to do all of them to join the club.
Some literary examples:
Arguably:
The operative from Serenity.
-evil for murdering innocents by the boatload in pursuit of the Alliance's goals. But he does not toy with his victims and doesn't seem likely to do anything that would ordinarily be thought wrong unless it serves the Alliance.
Jack Bauer from 24
-arguably evil for torturing suspects whenever there is a ticking time bomb. But no ticking time bomb, no torture. In fact, some people might argue for some kind of good alignment because the circumstances of the show justify his methods and other than his extreme methods, he could be good.
Stannis Barathion from Game of Thrones
-arguably evil for sacrificing his daughter and executing Melisandre's enemies. But other than that, he would be a shoe-in for Lawful Neutral.
Now, I suspect that a lot of people would argue whether Stannis Barathion and Jack Bauer are actually Lawful Evil. But whether or not the character as presented in the book is lawful evil, it is easy to imagine a lawful evil character modeled on them. Maybe you'd have to go further than Jack Bauer does in the show to be lawful evil. But keep adding ruthlessness and I'd guess most DMs will say you'll arrive sooner or later.
More clearly
Darth Vader
Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones
"Gentleman Johnny" Marconi from the Dresden Files
The astrologers and king of the Dark Tower in Somewhither
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't think of it as being "Evil".
Think of it as "supporting traditional values", being "tough on crime", and being "a Loyal Chelaxian Patriot".
Torture is "regrettably necessary enhanced interrogation of terrorist sympathizers".
Paladins are "mealy-mouthed, bleeding-heart liberals who are too blind to see the importance of a strong central Monarch to protect Cheliax".
Chaotic good people are "terrorists who think they're heroes when they leave nothing but anarchy and destruction in their wake."
Slaves are "naturally lazy, shiftless, and mentally inferior people given food, shelter and care in exchange for their work. They have to be forced to work or they'd just live off the charity of others and do nothing productive, just being leeches on society."
So, basically, take the USA republican party and turn it up to 11.
Some semi-sympathetic characters from the shadier side of LN might include Erwin Rommel (reluctant Nazi general),Sorry to derail but Rommel wasn't a member of the Nazi party and even attempted to remove Hitler from power in a coup. He was well respected by the Allies and treated POWs respectfully, refusing orders to commit war crimes like killing POWs and deporting Jews. He protested mistreatment of civilians, including punishing soldiers for committing war crimes and requiring payment for laborers.
I gave him a Neutral alignment, I think I did all right by this troubling, yet in some ways admirable, figure.
Jack Bauer is also on the nastier side of LN; I wouldn't call him evil as his motives are pretty respectable. But he does Evil things in the name of doing good, or just doing what needs to be done. To me, prudence, even extreme prudence, is the mark of neutrality.
Princess Leia is the fuzzier side of LN. She believes in good, she does lots of good, but again, when it gets down to brass tacks, she does what is necessary. She acts out of prudence, not out of abundant compassion.
So, Bauer is less evil than Rommel but moreso than Leia, in my estimation.
To go evil, just take away some level of restraint, some pretense that a greater good is being served, take away the lines that separate the great from the godlike. In the most stark moment, the only thing that separates Tarkin from Leia is that he is willing to kill, and she is willing to allow others to be killed. They both sacrifice Dantooine to their larger political goals.
Some semi-sympathetic characters from the shadier side of LN might include Erwin Rommel (reluctant Nazi general),Sorry to derail but Rommel wasn't a member of the Nazi party and even attempted to remove Hitler from power in a coup. He was well respected by the Allies and treated POWs respectfully, refusing orders to commit war crimes like killing POWs and deporting Jews. He protested mistreatment of civilians, including punishing soldiers for committing war crimes and requiring payment for laborers.I gave him a Neutral alignment, I think I did all right by this troubling, yet in some ways admirable, figure.
Jack Bauer is also on the nastier side of LN; I wouldn't call him evil as his motives are pretty respectable. But he does Evil things in the name of doing good, or just doing what needs to be done. To me, prudence, even extreme prudence, is the mark of neutrality.
Princess Leia is the fuzzier side of LN. She believes in good, she does lots of good, but again, when it gets down to brass tacks, she does what is necessary. She acts out of prudence, not out of abundant compassion.
So, Bauer is less evil than Rommel but moreso than Leia, in my estimation.
To go evil, just take away some level of restraint, some pretense that a greater good is being served, take away the lines that separate the great from the godlike. In the most stark moment, the only thing that separates Tarkin from Leia is that he is willing to kill, and she is willing to allow others to be killed. They both sacrifice Dantooine to their larger political goals.
Rommel also chose suicide to save his family so clearly he is not Evil.
Evil implies the cutting down of others for personal gain with the blatant intent and knowledge of doing so. The main difference comes down to LE has a code of when and where it should be done and only then should it be done (i.e. extermination and exploitation of a contemporarily viewed-as lesser race for the benefit of one's own race), NE does it whenever the situation presents itself (a rich dude takes a wrong path down an alleyway and is now devoid of pockets and eyeballs), and CE specifically seeks it out for reasons as trivial as even entertainment purposes. Is it that cut and dry, no, but those are as good of general descriptions as you can get.
On the other hand, I would argue that doing potentially evil things for the goal of good stands under neutral, not evil. Good implies that you strive to protect innocents in every way possible (which would make almost every adventurer out there not good) but neutral implies that you wouldn't usually hurt someone just for personal gain but might if it means a way to balance that sacrifice back out; furthermore, if the only options are kill innocents or not, what's the purpose of a neutral?
I hope my definitions of Good, Evil, and Lawful helped, but I would not call Darth Vader Evil in any definition of it - especially when you consider that the order to kill younglings was after he was betrayed by the system he grew up with, meaning its likely he was convinced that they were brainwashing the younglings making them unsavable. His character also doesn't seem to shift when he saves his son, just his priorities are realigned, he sees a new side of the reality of what he and the emperor are doing and changes his actions but his character doesn't change. (Even though Vader calls it the dark side all the time, it's not "him recognizing he is the bad guy" its simply the fact that the force has two actual sides stimulated by different "brainwaves"; one is called dark, the other light.) I would probably put him at overall TN leaning LG but about triply more lawful than good (citing the fact he grew up a slave child instilling a heavy self-interest based motivation that still persists through out all turning points in his plot for why overall neutral).
You're actually already on your way to being LE. It basically just means having a code (like what the sith follow) that allows you to do evil stuff. You don't have to do ALL the evil stuff to be evil. If your personal code says you don't torture people, maybe you just outright kill them. Who needs information if you're an overpowered death machine?
Goals are also a pretty big part of it. I would consider The Hound from "Game of Thrones" to be LN. He does some pretty bad stuff on the orders of evil people, but it's all in the name of money or survival. If your character BELIEVES in the goals of his evil masters, and his main goal is to commit evil for the sake of evil, with reward being a secondary motivation, then he's evil.
A lot of the campaigns I've played in have been evil, and I love Lawful Evil characters, even though I usually play Chaotic Evil. It enforces loyalty to the party even if everyone is a bloodthirsty psycho.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the campaigns I've played in have been evil, and I love Lawful Evil characters, even though I usually play Chaotic Evil. It enforces loyalty to the party even if everyone is a bloodthirsty psycho.
That's actually a big part of what I want to get out of this character, that he's the token "good" teammate out of potentially even nastier PCs.
"Monster? Perhaps, but I am more than that. I'm the leash. My job is to keep these OTHER monsters in line."
"Monster? Perhaps, but I am more than that. I'm the leash. My job is to keep these OTHER monsters in line."
I love that.
|
"Monster? Perhaps, but I am more than that. I'm the leash. My job is to keep these OTHER monsters in line."I love that.
Reminds me of the operative in Serenity. He's trying to make a better world, but...
"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."
He's one of the better examples of LE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
Basic concept is this:Character was born to an honorable military family, and went with his father, older brother and grandfather on campaign during his childhood, becoming a kind of troop mascot. At some point, after his grandfather died, his brother, whom he idolized, became the white sheep of the family and aspired to paladinhood. To avoid scandal, he traveled to the Worldwound to make his mark fighting demons...and ended up dead.
His dad forbade him from following in his brother's footsteps, so he studied arcane magic and became a magus instead. However, his family fortune was spent equipping his brother for the Worldwound campaign, forcing his father to go into debt. He had a grand plan to join the Thrune expedition to the Shackles to claim it for the Empire...until the PCs of Skull and Shackles scuttle that quite effectively.
Now alone, with a mountain of debts to various other houses, he's left alone to try and make his military career, when House Thrune makes him an offer...join a special forces group answering directly to the crown, and he'll be able to work down his debts...maybe even ascend in ranks.
To fill out the line a step further:
His oldest sibling was as you said above (Lawful Good/Paladin), but was not only killed fighting in the Worldwound, but the death caused by the treachery of demon cultists who had infiltrated the Crusaders, and who performed some vile ritual upon the body and then sent it back in pieces, and one of the debts incurred by the family was an attempt at Resurrection that failed, likely due to said ritual.
His middle sibling was Lawful Neutral, and and actually got into the Chelish Navy, and was killed during the battle with the pirate armada of Skull and Shackles) when the galley slaves revolted. Whether the death was at the hands of the rebelling slaves, the pirates, or from some incidental cause is unclear.
Between the grief and the debts, the parents are now broken, and the family is enslaved in all but name . . . and the in name part is definitely on the horizon.
Now the youngest brother is MUCH MORE susceptible to Thrune's offer.
