Core rulebooks alignment section is tosh anyway.
Core rulebooks alignment section is tosh anyway.
Is it? It works so well that I would dare say I live my life by it. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying there is no such thing as an adventurer who is neutral on the moral axis? That would almost be the inevitable conclusion of how you stated things.
Far from it.
I did say mercenaries and adventurers who aren't promoting good. But it's pretty easy to promote good. Being altruistic isn't hard. Protecting innocent life often comes bundled with the whole "kill these things and take their stuff" since adventurers quite regularly end up doing the latter for reasons such as "Man these orcs are bullying these peasants".
Even if your hardened mercenary wouldn't normally risk his life for people without pay, he might still have a heart. Maybe he sees some kid on the streets and buys him dinner, or breaks up a fight where some dudes are beating up some half-orc lady. Maybe he gives some sort of grizzled reason such as "Three against one ain't right, so I evened the odds," but you still did something altruistic and protective of another.
And evil people can do those things too. Just like good people do evil things. But a lot of it is a matter of quantity. It's also a lot easier to do evil and lots of it in a hurry. The dwarf who's good to his friends and family, cordial to the average joe, may still be evil because he has no qualms what-so-ever with strapping that orc down and smashing one bone with his hammer every time the orc gives him the wrong answer to the question asked. Or he might be an adventurer purely for the gold, a true mercenary, looking not for the betterment of others but for how much loot he can fill his clan's vaults with and the stories of his success can be sung in the halls of his ancestors.
Is it so hard to see how characters could be Good, Neutral, or Evil and still be people? With hopes, dreams, motivations? Is it so hard to believe that the amoral necromancer unconcerned with petty things like kindness and morality would go to the ends of the earth to rescue his wife and child, the only people he gives a damn about or sees as anything more than sacks of calcium and protein to be used?
Is it so hard to imagine that a Good character might have some sort of flaws that make them occasionally hurt, oppress, or kill people? The well meaning hero with a hot temper who's prone to tavern brawls? Or he's really nice with some people but he really, really wants to *insert act of hurting, oppressing, or killing* a particular person for a particular reason (maybe said person murdered his sister and though a good man his heart lusts for revenge).
I'm disappointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You take the same people who prefer non-lethal damage and beautiful diplomacy and plop them down into cyberpunk or any modern setting and suddenly they gleefully murder, rob and beautifully explode property without any feeling of regret. And they are still friends together, will not backstab each other because they have not been conditioned to feel like they need to do that.
Apathetic setting frees players to be themselves?
Alignment is fun, but I wish we could have it without embracing its "judgmental" side. Which is probably why Law vs Chaos is more subtle about it than Good vs Evil due to being less judging.
Apathetic setting frees players to be themselves?
Mot quite, but in my opinion the setting can attribute a lot to players expectations of how characters are formed, played and portrayed.
Golarion, in my opinion, has a sort of heroic atmosphere around it. It the place where heroes battle monsters for some sort of metaphysical good to win.
In other settings, say Shadow Run, Warhammer 40k, WoD or the like, there doesn´t seem to be this good that everybody is fighting towards and that tends to, in my experience to change how both players and GM´s shape their stories.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And evil people can do those things too. Just like good people do evil things. But a lot of it is a matter of quantity. It's also a lot easier to do evil and lots of it in a hurry. The dwarf who's good to his friends and family, cordial to the average joe, may still be evil because he has no qualms what-so-ever with strapping that orc down and smashing one bone with his hammer every time the orc gives him the wrong answer to the question asked. Or he might be an adventurer purely for the gold, a true mercenary, looking not for the betterment of others but for how much loot he can fill his clan's vaults with and the stories of his success can be sung in the halls of his ancestors.Is it so hard to see how characters could be Good, Neutral, or Evil and still be people? With hopes, dreams, motivations? Is it so hard to believe that the amoral necromancer unconcerned with petty things like kindness and morality would go to the ends of the earth to rescue his wife and child, the only people he gives a damn about or sees as anything more than sacks of calcium and protein to be used?
Anecdote, the character I mentioned earlier falls pretty firmly into this.
His entire deal was, as a Monk, he was on the usual quest for self-perfection. But he would achieve it by any means necessary. Basically joined the party because adventuring groups tend to fight really strong things and improve their combat skills a lot faster. He was perfectly willing to murder a man who got in his way, overcoming obstacles in an efficient manner being a part of perfection in his eyes. Torture was not out of the question (he once melted bits of a man's face off with an acid Elemental Fist until he talked. Then he was going to let him live before the party stepped in, as mentioned above).
He looked down on the weak, though he had a bit of an odd definition of that. The weak were the average, or below average. You didn't have to be good at combat, just good at SOMETHING. A master tailor was worthy of respect in his eyes, because he was closer to perfection in his own profession than others, for example. Anyone who didn't fulfill their potential or try to better themselves may as well be cattle in his eyes, and he couldn't care less what happened to them.
The only real exception was children. Never harm a child. They're little balls of potential that have yet to be realized, snuffing one out too early could deny it the chance to be great.
Clearly a despicable human being, all around, but with an honor code and worldview that fits well into many parties (adventurers tend to be exceptional by default, after all), and a goal that lets him work toward the right thing for the wrong reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil people are people, but they aren't people I want being the protagonists.
You can't have positive transformations without a negative start.
Kind of like how Avatar the Last Airbender is about an exiled prince and his quest to redeem himself in his fathers eyes, ruthless and furious, yet on the way he learns more about the world, himself, and eventually grows to become a good young man who returns to his kingdom to stop his father's reign of terror across the world, and overcomes his greatest challenges and fears in the process before returning the world to peace with the wisdom and knowledge gained from his mentor uncle and life experience.
There's also this bald kid and a fluffy flying buffalo.
One of my favorite recent characters, I defined him as neutral and a sociopath. Not that he didn't do evil things (as well as good things), but he didn't understand the difference, nor why it was the evil things he did was evil. He tried to copy the activities of other party members to blend in, but he routinely hurt animals and innocents, and was completely shocked when he was told it was wrong. He was a very fun PC experiment.
>The way I see it, Evil is the most likely to work together because they know there are fewer people who are openly evil, which makes each evil person you come across all that more important assuming they will you. to accomplish a greater evil.
EVIL isn't a political party, it is an allignment. Evil people don't even have to like doing evil, let alone one another.
As for evil adventuring parties, I personally like the trope of "evil" people doing more to save the world than "good" people would do. A politician who sacrifices a hundred villages in blood rituals so as to stop the drought that is plaguing the country, ultimately preventing more deaths. A marksman who commits regicide to prevent a tyrant from starting a war. A general who hangs a whole regiment of deserters because the alternative is to let them go, which would encourage more deserting, which will cause them to lose the war against the Dread Empire Of Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my favorite recent characters, I defined him as neutral and a sociopath. Not that he didn't do evil things (as well as good things), but he didn't understand the difference, nor why it was the evil things he did was evil. He tried to copy the activities of other party members to blend in, but he routinely hurt animals and innocents, and was completely shocked when he was told it was wrong.
That is not neutral. You do not need to understand your action for it to be evil. "routinely hurt[ing] animals and innocents", presumable for personal enjoyment, is evil no matter the level of understanding.
People not understanding their actions as evil is kinda the norm, you know?
|
An evil campaign can work so long as being evil isn't the characters' main drivers. They should just be characters who happen to be evil.
No murdering puppies & babies for giggles. And no PvP.
In general I would say that LE is a bit more playable due to the structure/honor involved. Especially compared to CE, which many players seem to think has to be played like a less family friendly version of The Joker.
One of my favorite recent characters, I defined him as neutral and a sociopath. Not that he didn't do evil things (as well as good things), but he didn't understand the difference, nor why it was the evil things he did was evil. He tried to copy the activities of other party members to blend in, but he routinely hurt animals and innocents, and was completely shocked when he was told it was wrong.That is not neutral. You do not need to understand your action for it to be evil. "routinely hurt[ing] animals and innocents", presumable for personal enjoyment, is evil no matter the level of understanding.
People not understanding their actions as evil is kinda the norm, you know?
My character didn't do that for personal enjoyment, rather to satisfy a curiosity. He doesn't really enjoy anything. He didn't understand people at all, nor why they do or do not do things. I studied some known sociopaths of history, and tried to emulate that psyche. In his head he was neutral as intent. However, his actions proved evil more often then not. I was inspired by "Dexter", but studied real world sociopaths to learn how I my try to do this.
As a kid, I always played the "bad guys", because while my friends like to win against the bad guys, I enjoy playing dying scenes. I guess I was always kind of an actor. I enjoy portraying roles, more than trying to portray my own life preferences.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My character didn't do that for personal enjoyment, rather to satisfy a curiosity.
Satisfying curiosity falls under personal enjoyment.
In his head he was neutral as intent.
That may be. Many people think what they do is right, no matter how horrible. "It's god's will", "they are only lesser beings and not really humans", "my slave is my property and I can do with my property what I want", "she left me and therefore deserved it"... pick your reasoning. ISIS probably think they are doing a good deed cleansing the world of infidels... doesn't make mass murder anything less evil.
I'm purely talking about the character, not you as a person, of course. I'm not calling you evil, just your character!
I'm not disagreeing with you, however all the motivations you mention are really too advanced for this particular character. He didn't justify his actions, he didn't understand justifications. He was trying to figure himself out, what made him tick, and he never figured it out. You're saying he did x because of y, I'm saying he did x to find out if it motivated him - and he was always depressed afterwards, because he discovered nothing about himself in the act, nor ever. He was trying to see how he fit in the world, and in the end, he didn't fit at all... and never understood why.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best way to run an evil party is not to.
That's what I thought until I started running Hell's Vengeance. That's amazingly well done. And fighting good outsiders opens up a whole new version of the game I've never explored before ('cause you don't usually fight the good guys)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(...) I'm saying he did x to find out if it motivated him (...)
How is hurting an innocent to find out if that motivates you not evil?
|
|
(...) I'm saying he did x to find out if it motivated him (...)How is hurting an innocent to find out if that motivates you not evil?
Even hurting evildoers, if they are restrained or sleeping, is morally ambiguous! (see Ravingdork's thread on killing evil cultists in their sleep and how long that discussion went! LOL)
We ran the entire Red Hand of Doom campaign with an evil/neutral party. One of the things we set up in the beginning was that we were an advance party for a big crime family looking to take over the area. We were tasked to look for threats and opportunities and to deal with them appropriately.
The invading army was likely to put a dent in the profitability of the region, so we stepped up. In doing so, we looked like heroes and were able to get in good with powerful people. This way we were able to get some ways in for some of our "friends" from down the way. Because we were able to infiltrate the highest levels in the region, we raised our worth to the Family.
------
In a Skull and Shackles, I described my captain as chaotic neutral - CG to his friends and shipmates, CE to anybody that crossed any of them. He was generous, giving bonuses and praise to crew members who did well. He paid informants well for news - good and bad - and extra if it was quick. It was known that he would go to any lengths to recover his crew and punish those who threatened them.
But traitors were subject to awful tortures. One time he was double crossed, he told the traitor that he was a snake. So he made him into one. He cut off the traitor's arms and legs, split his tongue and had him tattooed with scales. Captain Anoa would bring out his snake at times to show people what happened to those who got on his bad side. He made a little wagon so that he could bring him through Pirate ports. In another case, he was owed a debt that was past due. He invited the debtor to sit, laid a pair of pliers and a knife in front of him and let the debtor pay with teeth and knucklebones.
------
Playing evil groups well requires the cooperation of the players. They need to agree on the ground rules for the group. How much conflict is okay in the party and what forms it takes.