It's still evil, but it's for the "right" reasons. Which is the topic at hand.
I like the idea of a guy who pings as evil, but is also really friendly, loving and charitable. It's very Addams Family.
I forget what the thread was called and where it was posted, but there was a thread about a Benevolent Necromancer who rules over a kingdom. In this kingdom no one has to work for there whole natural life, but when people die he raises them to work for 100 years service.
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.
If they won't flee if they know a dragon is coming (because you TOLD THEM), why would they flee if you burn the town down? They still don't believe you, and they'll fight the fires, exhaust themselves and then be unable to flee when the dragon does show up.
Why can't you help people flee this beast? How do you know this ritual works? What GM comes up with these kinds of contrivances?
I think you're missing my point. We're talking about a person deciding to employ evil means - in general - to achieve greater good. In this specific case, he wants to employ Necromancy and Negative Energy as his primary means to 'do good things'.
I forget what the thread was called and where it was posted, but there was a thread about a Benevolent Necromancer who rules over a kingdom. In this kingdom no one has to work for there whole natural life, but when people die he raises them to work for 100 years service.
The control scheme falls apart. Animated Dead need to be controlled, so you need a lot of spellcasters (basically, all of them) controlling the undead, all the time. Most other undead are free willed and will break control in rapid order.
Also, animated dead don't have Profession or Craft skills, so they can't produce anything of quality. The undead that do have these skills would have to be controlled rigidly, which requires even more, higher level spellcasters.
At best you can replace brute-force labor...which you can already do with animals. So you save a small amount of agricultural output in return for tying up your spellcasters. It works a bit better militarily, but every time a spellcaster goes down your military asset undead turns against your army.
I forget what the thread was called and where it was posted, but there was a thread about a Benevolent Necromancer who rules over a kingdom. In this kingdom no one has to work for there whole natural life, but when people die he raises them to work for 100 years service.The control scheme falls apart. Animated Dead need to be controlled, so you need a lot of spellcasters (basically, all of them) controlling the undead, all the time. Most other undead are free willed and will break control in rapid order.
Also, animated dead don't have Profession or Craft skills, so they can't produce anything of quality. The undead that do have these skills would have to be controlled rigidly, which requires even more, higher level spellcasters.
At best you can replace brute-force labor...which you can already do with animals. So you save a small amount of agricultural output in return for tying up your spellcasters. It works a bit better militarily, but every time a spellcaster goes down your military asset undead turns against your army.
Command Undead (the spell) + Extend Spell (or Lesser Metamagic Rod of Extend) lets a caster control absolutely stupid amounts of undead safely. Literally 100s of HD worth.
Command Undead (the spell) + Extend Spell (or Lesser Metamagic Rod of Extend) lets a caster control absolutely stupid amounts of undead safely. Literally 100s of HD worth.
Regardless of the numbers of undead, you're still stuck micro-managing them if they're mindless. If they're not mindless, every time they pass a Will save you've got problems. Animate Dead is the only spell AFAIK that allows the caster ongoing control without renewal issues.
The scheme basically requires selfless, non-evil intelligent undead who want to support their descendants. That's great, but the 2nd generation of these guys don't have the skills to support the 3rd generation because they didn't spend their lives working for a living, so as the population grows, the support base remains the same and the entire system becomes poorer and poorer until the living people enter the economy as producers again.
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.
As already pointed out, your correct in assuming this is not a character that could be made for PFS since their strictures prohibit evil characters, but it would COMPLETELY be possible for a home game.
One of my favorite examples of this kind of character in recent media is the 'Operative of the Alliance' in the movie 'Serenity'. He knew he was evil, he knew he was a monster, he knew he would never live in the 'normal' world but he was totally convinced that the horrible deeds and atrocities he committed in the name of society were all absolutely necessary and he was willing to be damned for it so that society could flourish.
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.
The whole topic, IMO, gets a bit more difficult when you introduce the concept of Supernatural Evil along with the concept of morally evil. Let me explain what I mean.
The 'Operative of the Alliance' was morally evil. He was not constructed of the very energy and fabric of evil itself and as such had more autonomy in his actions based on his free will, his job and the orders of his masters, who while definitely evil were not really the kind of 'destroy existence and cause the most harm and suffering while doing it' evil that most supernatural evil is.
IMO when your add in the existence of supernatural evil you add in a cosmic level faceless, formless possibly even sentience-less force that wants, suffering, pain, destruction and corruption to be spread simply for the horrors it brings and in situations where you are using that power long term you cannot help but be influenced by it and start to be bent to it's needs more than your own.
So while using undead and negative energy would still be a valid evil tool I would think the one using it would know that it is very much against the rules, etho's and sensibilties of those good folks and societies he is trying to serve so would probably either use it sparingly, hide it's use or only use it when there were no alternative means to reach his goals.
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?
In my opinion, no. Antipaladins are the champions of evil and chaos. They whole point is not just to be bad guys, it is to actively oppose and destoy all that is good while causing the maximum about of pain, destruction, insanity and suffering while they do so. Much as Paladins receive their abilities from the 'powers of good' Antipaladins get theirs from Evil and as such the likleyhood of them serving good in any capacity are extremely slim.
That is not to say it is impossible but the reason they would have to serve good would have to be extraordinary indeed and it would not be for long. There would have to be some sort of large plan from a major power of evil to require such and in the end the Antipaladin really would not be 'Evil but for the right reasons'. It would still be evil, serving evil, tricking good into thinking your getting ahead when your not.
I generally think your concept can work with a Lawful Evil, is hard but maybe possible with a Neutral Evil and is on seriously shaky ground and probably not really possible with a Chaotic Evil.
Again all the above are my opinions on the question you put forth based on what I think the rules have said. I am not saying my interpretation is the only one or absolute but I do think it is right given what I know, have read on the game and have personally played. I hope it helps.
Let's consider the following situation. You are at the mercy of the BBEG. He has the group character's loved ones, and a few hundred people, each in a separate room that is unreachable by the PC's, and that to enter the BBEG castle to fight him, they have to choose to sacrifice one group of the other? Either way they sacrifice innocents to ultimately defeat the evil.
Or to stop the war, they must kill an innocent child who was implanted with a magical artifact that sustains his life but also riles up the hatred in everybody for miles around him? Either they must choose to fight out the war killing hundreds, or kill the child who is not responsible for his actions.
Having to choose between letting the villain go or killing him and triggering a spell that his minions will cast upon his death that will kill an entire town? You either let the villain go so he can commit more evil, or doom an entire town to death.
The Addams Family weren't really evil. I remember them mostly as just creepy and masochistic.
It depends on which version. The family portrayed in the original Charles Addams cartoons in the New Yorker.... very much so. Charles Addams didn't have that much kindness for the TV show.
And Charles Addams was a rather colorful duck himself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's consider the following situation. You are at the mercy of the BBEG. He has the group character's loved ones, and a few hundred people, each in a separate room that is unreachable by the PC's, and that to enter the BBEG castle to fight him, they have to choose to sacrifice one group of the other? Either way they sacrifice innocents to ultimately defeat the evil.
They are NOT sacrificing anyone, the BBEG is the one doing the killing. Pressing on in the face of a hostage situation isn't an evil act, it's a sad necessity in an unfair world. Not being able to save everyone is not the same as choosing to do evil.
Or to stop the war, they must kill an innocent child who was implanted with a magical artifact that sustains his life but also riles up the hatred in everybody for miles around him? Either they must choose to fight out the war killing hundreds, or kill the child who is not responsible for his actions.
Removing the artifact is a neutral action under these circumstances. Not even good will insist that an innocent life has infinite value. When something starts to become 'Necessary', moral choice gets removed. The evil here was committed by the person who hooked the child up to the artifact in the first place. They get to bear the moral burden of it.
I'm assuming here that things like Cure Light Wounds, Heal or Wish/Miracle can't save the child, given it's incredibly contrived to begin with.
Having to choose between letting the villain go or killing him and triggering a spell that his minions will cast upon his death that will kill an entire town? You either let the villain go so he can commit more evil, or doom an entire town to death.
Again, you are not responsible for the evil acts that the villain's minions commit. The villain could use the exact same tactic to threaten the players into surrender - or servitude.
None of these are salient to the point of a character being built to use Evil Powers for good purposes.
It's true, other people committing evil actions in response to your actions doesn't make you evil. That's how evil tries to make you hesitate and not do good, but it doesn't make you evil.
All those situations are no win situations, and assuming there isn't ways around the problem (like in the first example why can't you teleport in avoiding the BBEG and teleport everyone out?) it's not your fault that the BBEG is going to kill people in response to your trying to stop him. It doesn't mean he needs to be stopped any less.
Okay, I will admit, those are bad examples, it was too late at night.
I do want to address the example given of raising the Undead as quardians. From what I understand, a major complaint was
A. It was violation of the dead bodies.
I'm pretty sure that the people whose bodies those were would be pretty kosher with using the to prevent the deaths of their descendants and the destruction of their legacy.
B. Violates the soul, prevents resurrection.
Whose going to Resurrect them? It seems in most games that the priests capable of it reserve it for the people who can pay for it, Adventurers, Nobles, etc. I never have seen a priest wander from town to town raising commoners from the dead. And even then, what about people who died of old age? Even if we did have this extremely charitable Resurrection priest, is he going to raise them only to have them die again shortly after.
Okay, I will admit, those are bad examples, it was too late at night.
I do want to address the example given of raising the Undead as quardians.
There's the 3rd argument that animated dead are Neutral Evil and explicitly murderous if they get out of control. Many casters create far more undead than they can easily control - sealed chambers work fine to keep them in, until they don't. Then uncontrolled undead are loose to act on their limited instincts.
I do believe someone already posted the Undead type, which said nothing about the creatures being evil. I do believe the ones that go evil when they are out of control are Zombies.
Evil for a good reason, reminds me of the bad guy in Serenity. He was evil so other didn't have to be.
But really reverse this and you get the "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
You should take a look at how Dungeon World handles alignments, evil characters earn xp by doing selfish things, but not necessarily hurting others.
"Your evil is my good. I'm Sutekh the Destroyer. Where I tread, I leave nothing but dust and darkness. I find that good."
Its all about perspective...
Evil for a good reason, reminds me of the bad guy in Serenity. He was evil so other didn't have to be.
Meh. I loved Firefly and Serenity, but let's remember this guy was advocating all of humanity being brainwashed into submission. Sure, you'd have no crimes or unhappiness, but no happiness(*) either. Just an orderly world full of orderly drones supporting the ruling class. His vision seems pretty Lawful Neutral rather than good.
(*) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Miranda project was supposed to make the people submissive, not happy.
When your solution to society's problems is 'mind control everyone', though, you're trending Evil in your intentions - disregard for the desires and freedoms of other people.
The reason the Undead type doesn't include any rules imposing alignment is because it's possible to be a non-evil, sentient undead. You still have a will of your own, so you can make your own decisions.
Undead that are mindless, however, default to being fueled by the negative necromancy energy fueling them. They are literally running on liquid evil in their fuel tanks.
Evil for a good reason, reminds me of the bad guy in Serenity. He was evil so other didn't have to be.Meh. I loved Firefly and Serenity, but let's remember this guy was advocating all of humanity being brainwashed into submission. Sure, you'd have no crimes or unhappiness, but no happiness(*) either. Just an orderly world full of orderly drones supporting the ruling class. His vision seems pretty Lawful Neutral rather than good.
(*) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Miranda project was supposed to make the people submissive, not happy.
When your solution to society's problems is 'mind control everyone', though, you're trending Evil in your intentions - disregard for the desires and freedoms of other people.
Wasn't he also the guy who grew so horrified when he saw what Miranda caused that he let Mal and the knees go? I don't think he even knew what Miranda was.
Even evil has standards.
I loved Firefly and Serenity...
Somewhere, Freehold DM just got an unsettling chill down his spine...
Wasn't he also the guy who grew so horrified when he saw what Miranda caused that he let Mal and the knees go? I don't think he even knew what Miranda was.
Not 100% sure, but once the message was transmitted he had basically lost the fight and saw no reason to keep fighting (i.e. no need for vengeance).
Wasn't he also the guy who grew so horrified when he saw what Miranda caused that he let Mal and the knees go? I don't think he even knew what Miranda was.Not 100% sure, but once the message was transmitted he had basically lost the fight and saw no reason to keep fighting (i.e. no need for vengeance).
Except that he also goes, "I think they will find I am no longer their man" as well.