I have been wanting to make a "Bad Powers, Good Reasons" TV Trope based character for a while now, and while I know it is quite likely impossible for this to function properly in the settings of Pathfinder Society, I was curious if a character could be Evil, but for the right reasons? Like, he is Evil Aligned and marked as 'Evil', but sought after the greater good for the people of the area.
Like, we all know and love Necromancy and/or Negative Energy as "Evil"... However, there was several Dragon Quest NPC's who were "Good" but still used Necromancy and Negative Energy which made their alignment Evil. I was curious if something like that would be plausable in Pathfinder as well.
Also - Can an Anti-Paladin be evil for the right reasons? He uses negative energy and death magic, but does so to protect the people of his country?
PFS + evil = no. End of story.
Outside of the limitations of PFS, yes evil can be more nuanced.
(I just had to check that I hadn't strayed into a PFS forum where I have no place being.)
I have played an utterly amoral character who always fought for goodness and light. They tended to be a lot more reliable as long as you mostly played by their rules. Edit/ OK there were occasional issues when they did not like some of the things I did.
Evil does not mean you don't love your family, your king, or whatever.
The Trope often ends in tragedy. It used to be pretty common in Westerns, so that should translate ok into a lot of games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and while I know it is quite likely impossible for this to function properly in the settings of Pathfinder Society...
PFS + evil = no. End of story.
I know reason is hard... but... really?
Oh, PFS rules specifically forbid evil characters for pretty much everything. I don't know if they even bent that rule with the Hell's Vengeance AP.
It is a Not Done thing in PFS, which I suspect is a good thing overall in an environment that is that competitive.
@ Daw - I wasn't talking about you dude. I was talking about the person who didn't even bother reading the whole post. (I said I already know its impossible in PFS and he said "It's impossible in PFS"). xD
That being said... does anyone have any examples of people being evil for the right reasons?
@ Daw - I wasn't talking about you dude. I was talking about the person who didn't even bother reading the whole post. (I said I already know its impossible in PFS and he said "It's impossible in PFS"). xD
That being said... does anyone have any examples of people being evil for the right reasons?
Pretty much anyone arguing the ends justify the means falls into this category.
I have played an evil character in a standard "lawful/good/neutral" campaign. You just have to get very specific with the character direction.
My character was a Cleric that had an intense desire to become a lich, so that he might "live forever." In his case, the only thing he truly cared about was knowledge. He wanted to be a permanent "library" to Kings and Gods alike. His "currency" (i.e. his treasure) was any tidbit of obscure information of a historical, magical, alchemical, etc. nature. He was lawful evil. The lawful part of him was able to swear not to hurt the other party members as they were -- to him -- a means to an end. They were able to help within the bounds of the party to keep him alive, just as he worked to keep them alive. He typically did this in somewhat strange ways. For example, he had the Knowledge Domain and the Undead Sub-Domain. One of the powers of the Undead sub-domain is the ability to cause someone to take on some of the characteristics of an undead creature with a touch-attack. What he would do is touch a party member, then use his Channel Negative Energy ability to "heal" the character. Somewhat creepy and unorthodox, but perfectly viable. As there were no lawful good-types in the party, they got used to his odd way of healing.
Also, the whole point of the campaign was that the world was invaded by an outside race of beings. My character wanted the world to go back to the way it was, so he had very strong reasons to work with people of all alignments to drive off the invaders.
Put simply, you can't be "evil for the right reasons" and not be evil. Evil justifies itself all the time. I don't see "right reasons" being a way to get around being evil.
You should check out the excellent Villains by Necessity, provided you can find a copy (I'd recommend checking out your local library.)
I enjoy the odd bit of Evil with some humanity attached...
In a short campaign set up to let us blow off some steam, we had a Red Mantis Assassin on leave to look after his sister (who was, for the record, a Chaotic Good Oracle affiliated with Desna that the local authorities thought was insane).
The Red Mantis was a terrible, terrible guy in most respects- for example, he got tired of negotiating his sister's release from the asylum and simply murdered the people keeping her locked up, then framed a local pickpocket who went to the gallows for the crimes, all without telling his sister what he'd done- but his love for his sister and his desire to see her happy were very real (which is why he didn't tell her about massacring six unarmed, well-intentioned people to get her out).
Likewise, he was loyal to and protective of the other members of their little band- he would never betray any of them, and anyone trying to hurt them would have to do it over his dead body. Of course, anyone not in his little subgroup of valued friends got no such loyalty.
You can absolutely play an evil character who thinks they're doing the right thing... and in real life, there's plenty of debate to kick around.
But in Pathfinder, Evil is an objectively discernible quantity.
It's possible in a home game, but very difficult to pull off successfully.
One possible model is the "evil methods vs. evil opponents" concept. The character only uses their evil abilities/performs evil actions against evil opponents; appropriate for an Asmodean anti-paladin ("Demon worshiping scum deserve no mercy!"), for example.
Doing evil for the right reasons can work with the right group and a bit of work, but not with antipaladins without a lot of work.
Antipaladins become the antithesis of their former selves. They make pacts with fiends, take the lives of the innocent, and put nothing ahead of their personal power and wealth. Champions of evil, they often lead armies of evil creatures and work with other villains to bring ruin to the holy and tyranny to the weak.
...
Role: Antipaladins are villains at their most dangerous. They care nothing for the lives of others and actively seek to bring death and destruction to ordered society.
APs truly embrace evil for the sake of evil. They champion evil as something to aspire to. APs will not try to justify their evil, it is a virtue to be cherished. Murder indicates strength of character to see things through. If the person you steal from isn't strong enough to stop you from taking something, they didn't deserve it. They see no benefit in any 'greater good'. The greater good is a lie to be exposed for the weakness it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The immediate problem that I can see is that "at any cost" is rarely necessary. It is usually a rather deceptive way of saying "I will do whatever I want to further my goals (what ever they may be) without paying more than lip service to anything else, including any concepts of morality".
That is a very different attitude from "If things become bad enough, I will seriously consider any option available, no matter how horrible, and weight their various pros and cons without disregarding morality and ethics", which is an attitude that has a much greater deal of moral validity. The reason it has much more moral validity is that a character with that attitude won't seriously consider doing terrible things unless there doesn't appear to be any good options. However, in most campaigns this sort of attitude doesn't readily distinguish itself from regular heroics, because damned if you do/don't moral dilemmas and heroic fantasy aren't exactly good bed fellows.
There is a very big difference between someone who would kill 10 innocents to save 10 000 if they genuinely could not see a better way despite their best efforts, and someone who would kill 10 innocents because it was convenient. The former is little different from "true blue" heroes in the vast majority of plausible scenarios. The latter is a monster. If you want to play a character who has a distinct attitude of "at any cost", you are almost certainly going to have to play a monster, and other characters would be totally justified if they viewed you as such and behaved accordingly.
Now I want to hear the right reasons that would justify the use of evil means (not just unlawful ones). I'm willing to bet most of them break down to "It's more convenient to use evil than find another way."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I want to hear the right reasons that would justify the use of evil means (not just unlawful ones). I'm willing to bet most of them break down to "It's more convenient to use evil than find another way."
If the way to do the Right thing that has the highest chance of success is to use Evil means then that is the right way to do it. You cannot act like "convenience" does not indicate a higher chance of success and thus lower risk than those "other ways". That's the problem that Good has. It does not have to worry about the risks because Good can take risks, fail, and still be Good. No matter what the consequences of Good's failure are for other people. Evil can do the Right thing more effectively, because Evil cares about success more than morals. And for the right thing to get done, success matters.
I'm not sure I understand your question.
It basically sounds like you're wondering if characters can be a bit morally grey?
For me an example is Kiritsugu Emiya, from Fate/Zero.
He does some very questionable things in order to achieve what he thinks is his ultimate goal of saving the world from itself.
By the same token, if you're wondering can a character be evil and want to save the world? Sure. He might believe that his way is the most effective most efficient way, and he doesn't care what he has to do to change society to save the world and protect it from itself.
Imagine if someone decided to blow up a lot of production facilities because of their of harmful nature to the environment and didn't care whether or not people were injured. His goal is to save the world from people that would destroy it very slowly, but does so in a way that shows no regard for anyone else.
I mean....it's obviously possible to have this kind of character. So I'm afraid I don't understand your question.
You want to be Millennial King, which is great
I am surprised people find the concept so hard to understand. If you have ever heard the statement to achieve something "at any cost" you are already potentially envisaging an Evil person. You can believe that good and decent things are worth protecting and preserving "at any cost", and thus be willing to do anything to achieve it. You are willing to do the awful things that protect those more naive, who don't realise that the world will destroy that which is good without a care.
Of course those who take this stance are going to have to tread carefully around the more decent members of the organisation or nation, and keep their choice of methods secret. But they still have a role to play.
Scenarios and characters like this simply don't fit well in a game where Good and Evil are tangible qualities that are detectable by spell or class ability, or touch off certain effects merely by their presence. This really isn't the game for playing Elim Garak, except as a very carefully stage managed NPC.
Related question: Any way to fit this concept into Hell's Vengeance?
(And related to that, what goes wrong at the end of this AP if the PCs fail?)
Basically this is the age old question of whether the ends justify the means. Since no one has really been able to create a 100% convincing argument in the real world, and disagreements over it abound, it is unlikely we have have any more success here.
So at best the answer will be a personal one.
Related question: Any way to fit this concept into Hell's Vengeance?
(And related to that, what goes wrong at the end of this AP if the PCs fail?)
Be a bit looser with the concept. As the line goes in Suicide Squad, "We're the bad guys". Bad guys however generally have little problems coming up with rationalistions. Doctor Doom for instance, is a perfect example. So is your average Nazi or skinhead.
As for your other question, that's no doubt written into the end of the AP, just like it is for all the others.
Put simply, you can't be "evil for the right reasons" and not be evil.
Except that almost every adventurer is a murderhobo, no matter if he or she is listed as Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil person.
You kill, you lie and sometimes you betray someone, and all of this for good reasons.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Put simply, you can't be "evil for the right reasons" and not be evil.Except that almost every adventurer is a murderhobo, no matter if he or she is listed as Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil person.
You kill, you lie and sometimes you betray someone, and all of this for good reasons.
Maybe that's the way you and your group play. It's a bit presumptious to impose that interpretation on everyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To people who say "evil for the right reasons" is still evil, a question: would someone who is "good but for the wrong reasons" still be good? For example, a selfish, greedy cleric who heals the common people, but only because he needs them strong and healthy to serve the church.
Or perhaps to take it to another level: a LG cleric of Iomedae who heals commoners, but only if they join a militant wing of the church as soldiers. To me, such a character, though ostensibly "good," is acting neutral at best, and quite possibly evil.
Here's the thing. You like many others are making the assumptions that Good and Evil are nothing but equivalent mirrors of each other.
Except that they aren't. Good requires that you take an effort, that you don't choose the easy way out of taking shortcuts, or doing nothing at all, standing on the sidelines. Good frequently requires you to act against naturally selfish urges.
All Evil needs to succeed in it's goals is that those that would oppose it... do nothing.
As for your cleric of Iomedae, she's stretching the limits but again that could depend on situation. If she's the cleric in a town that's being actively besiged by demonic forces, it's perfectly legitimate for her to prioritize her healing on those who are actively fighting. If the town is currently at peace, then she'd be stepping off the reservation.
Well, I think everyone can agree that using good power for good purposes is good, and using evil power for evil purposes is evil. So maybe anything else is just... neutral?
I would say that every situation needs to be judged on it's own merits instead of seeking simple catchall answers which evade the need for critical thinking.
Now I want to hear the right reasons that would justify the use of evil means (not just unlawful ones). I'm willing to bet most of them break down to "It's more convenient to use evil than find another way."If the way to do the Right thing that has the highest chance of success is to use Evil means then that is the right way to do it. You cannot act like "convenience" does not indicate a higher chance of success and thus lower risk than those "other ways".
Go back to the OP, where he says he wants an Evil character who seeks the greater good. By definition, an Evil character will NOT seek the greater good, or they wouldn't be defined as Evil. An evil person doesn't care about the suffering of others, unless it affects him negatively somehow (like when his close associates have problems). An evil character might pursue a course of action that may achieve a net good for many others, but the evil person is doing what he does for his own, selfish reasons. This is how most Evil PCs sneak into 'good' parties; they have similar end goals but very different reasons.
A neutral character might use Evil power to achieve a good end. That is someone who can justify convenience over morality. These people tend to run afoul of 'good' characters because of the Evil powers they're employing.
As to Anti-paladins, the creation of one is essentially a rejection of all that is Good and a celebration of Evil, they will NOT care one speck about things like the 'greater good'. As far as they are concerned, everyone should embrace Evil and the rule of the strong over the weak, who should be thankful they are allowed to live.
Maybe that's the way you and your group play. It's a bit presumptious to impose that interpretation on everyone else.
I'm pretty sure that everyone plays this way. It's Pathfinder, not World of Darkness or you name it. You play as adventurer, not pacifist, so it is expected that you will use your sword or magic to kill, for the good or bad.
Like people said before, someone with demonic powers can use them for the right reasons and that is perfectly fine, hence I don't agree with the statement that: "evil for the right reasons does not exists". Ending someone's life is an evil act, but you can do it for a good purpose - to safe innocent life. Your average paladin is a killing machine, designed to protect innocent lives by slaying those that threaten them... and this is what I call "evil for the right reasons".
If you break it down to basics, it is still an evil act, but because doing so saved innocent life, we no longer see it as something evil. These people are called heroes.
To people who say "evil for the right reasons" is still evil, a question: would someone who is "good but for the wrong reasons" still be good? For example, a selfish, greedy cleric who heals the common people, but only because he needs them strong and healthy to serve the church.
Or perhaps to take it to another level: a LG cleric of Iomedae who heals commoners, but only if they join a militant wing of the church as soldiers. To me, such a character, though ostensibly "good," is acting neutral at best, and quite possibly evil.
This is a very nebulous, complicated, personal question. But let's say for the moment that:
-A person using evil power for a greater good is still evil.
-A person using good power for selfish and dangerous reasons is actually evil.If these can be simultaneously true, how is that possible? Is it that evil is inherently superior to good? Why is it not:
-Person with evil power working towards good = good.
-Person with good power working towards bad = good.Or at least:
-Person with evil power working towards good = good.
-Person with good power working towards bad = evil.
The cleric in your example probably stops being lawful good and starts being lawful neutral and loses her cleric powers as she is a cleric of Sarenrae, who is neutral good.
Think of evil as a stain. Basically after you introduce evil into yourself, you can't be good anymore without not doing any evil stuff. Now you can have goals that are overall good as whole, but that doesn't change that you're doing some dark stuff along the way to accomplish that goal.
Imagine that a wizard had a spell that would bring about perfect happiness for the planet, everyone would have everything that could want or need and is always absolutely happy. But he needs to sacrifice a million people as a component of the spell. His end goal may be good, but he's going to hell for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ending someone's life is an evil act
No, it's just an act. Most of the time it's an evil act, other times it is merely a neutral act. Killing in self-defense - and by extension in the defense of others - is a neutral act, not an evil one. That's how Paladins get away with it, otherwise they would fall every time they take a life - the Paladin's code does not care what your reasons for committing an evil act are.
It might be fair to say that killing someone is never a good act. This gets murky when Evil Outsiders are involved, because it is expected that Good opposes Evil (while Evil need not oppose Good).
Now I want to hear the right reasons that would justify the use of evil means (not just unlawful ones). I'm willing to bet most of them break down to "It's more convenient to use evil than find another way."
Murder a city of thousands so that the plague won't spread and kill millions. Keep in mind in this situation you can't just cure disease.
I'm pretty sure that everyone plays this way.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that you are incorrect.
However, it would be fair to say that a broad majority of games include the heavy slaughter and/or betrayal of sentient beings in the pursuit of the party's objectives.
Now I want to hear the right reasons that would justify the use of evil means (not just unlawful ones). I'm willing to bet most of them break down to "It's more convenient to use evil than find another way."Murder a city of thousands so that the plague won't spread and kill millions. Keep in mind in this situation you can't just cure disease.
Never heard of quarantine? If you have the capacity to kill thousands without the infected but otherwise healthy getting away to spread the disease, you probably have the means to contain the epidemic until it burns itself out. Murdering people wholesale is far more likely to cause the epidemic to spread (as people flee the murdering) than employing a quarantine.
Murder a city of thousands so that the plague won't spread and kill millions. Keep in mind in this situation you can't just cure disease.
Unless you have a solid reason to believe literally everyone is infected and can't be cured, it would still be evil because you're killing innocents. Good is partly going that extra step to make sure the weak are protected and the meek have a voice. Further, killing them at all could still be evil. Someone might have developed a natural immunity because of the disease. Some may have holed themselves up and simply won't ever be infected. Another part of good is tempering actions. If the goal is stop the spread of the plague, simply siege the city and restrict travel in and out. Let the gods sort out who lives and dies.
Now, if you destroyed the city anyway, that would be neutral. If you had reason to believe the city could be saved but destroyed it anyway, that would be evil.
Ok how about burning down a town to force the people to move. That way the dragon won't come and eat them. Perhaps you have to kill some people so that the beast can't feed off there souls. You must kill the leaders of [insert city name here] so that you can finish a ritual to keep the Tarrasque locked away.
Ok how about burning down a town to force the people to move. That way the dragon won't come and eat them. Perhaps you have to kill some people so that the beast can't feed off there souls. You must kill the leaders of [insert city name here] so that you can finish a ritual to keep the Tarrasque locked away.
You're still most likely killing innocents and therefore evil. Good doesn't let you absolve yourself of the responsibility for your actions no matter the goal.
Ok how about burning down a town to force the people to move. That way the dragon won't come and eat them. Perhaps you have to kill some people so that the beast can't feed off there souls. You must kill the leaders of [insert city name here] so that you can finish a ritual to keep the Tarrasque locked away.You're still most likely killing innocents and therefore evil. Good doesn't let you absolve yourself of the responsibility for your actions no matter the goal.
I'm not saying that the Ends justify the means. I'm just giving examples of times someone could be doing an evil act (which they think can be covered by the out come) for good.
A Necromancer who creates undead to help take care of widows and orphans.