| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you tell a satisfying story about an evil character (not just an antihero) who neither redeems nor pays for their misdeeds?
Punisher, john wick, Machete, riddick, dexter, Jayne Cobb, Alucard hellsing, Chev Chelios, ect... There are countless 'antihero' movies, stories, ect around. It's often someone evil taking on someone that MORE evil. It's really not any different that telling a "satisfying story" about a good character.
And why worry about "redeems nor pays for their misdeeds"? Good characters can fall and pay for their good deeds can't they? No good deed goes unpunished, as the saying goes. For me telling a good story comes first, while alignment is a distant second. Just because my character assassinates people for a living, doesn't mean he doesn't have all the other things 'good' people have: family, friends, interesting backgrounds, ect... I think the mistake is that you're starting from the alignment and trying to make an evil story. Instead, make a story that happens to have someone evil in it.
In your average dungeon crawl, how does being evil actually factor into killing kobolds, undead and goblins?: what is different if the character is good? So the evil guy did it for the reward instead of doing a 'good deed' but both ended up murdering scores of humanoids...
Very very very very very very very distant
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sometimes play evil because not because "Okay lets make an evil character" but more "huh, seems like he is willing to do really horrible immoral things, it seems he's Evil".
One character I made ended up evil because of the religion they followed had some villainous practices, one characters were evil just because they did necromancy and didn't care what team the universe decided they were on even though the rest of what they did was Good, one character was hungry for knowledge and just ended up fine doing messed up stuff in the name of innovation (and didn't see a horrible afterlife as a bad thing since he had taken efforts towards effective-immortality).
Though, now a days I use the Subjective Morality rules, so it's hard to Not play an "evil" character from at least someone's perspective.
The necromancer I talked about earlier started off as did necromancy and didn't care what team that put her on too :). She had the haunted Oracles curse and it was all tied up fairly neatly in her back story, overtime people screaming, running away and trying to kill her made her bitter and she decided that being good was pointless when everyone else was gonna act like that anyway and embraced it.
I just want to play as a corporate executive turned politician, ok?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Me, for example. Should I not ping as LE, then there´s something wrong. The choices I made for my life, I had to ask myself: "Do I care that what I produce and sell kills people, ruines lives and fosters addictions, all the while being a legal thing? No, absolutely not" - in objective morality, that stance makes me "evil" and I´m perfectly fine with it, wouldn't´t have it any other way.Nobody sees themselves as evil, so how does the characters justify themselves to think they are the good guys?This, to me, is sort of the problem. Since "Detect Evil" (and similar) are level 1 spells available to a variety of classes. If you're an evil person who can cast that spell, you can scan yourself and say "yes, I am apparently evil." What sort of person, though, receives that information and does not decide "Well, I had better shape up and be a better person. I didn't think I was *evil* but I guess I've gone too far."
When I say nobody thinks of themselves as evil I don't mean they cannot realize they could qualify as evil, but rather than everybody has something to justify their actions. Even the most evil have their reasons for acting as they do that make complete sense on their minds.
"I have a family to feed"
"If I don't do it someone else will"
"They deserve it. They are only collecting what they sewed."
"If I don't think of myself first nobody will"
"Everybody would do the same if given an oportunity"
There are a lot of justifications for an evil character to keep being evil and not wanting to change.
I don't think anybody wakes up thinking "I am going to be evil just for the sake of being evil". At least most people won't.
That's what I mean with what I said. Of course someone can realize they are taking the evil path. But everybody usally has what they think they are good reasons to justify it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
another reason to not give two hoots about detect alignment's opinion of you xD
I've never played as Evil in Pathfinder.
I've played evil in narrative rules-light RPGs. The point of these games is to tell a good story, not to 'win'.
For example, I played Lex Luthor in a homebrew alternative universe Superman story, which meant I spent the game knowing:
I am the best.
No-one is as clever as me.
I have a noble cause: I am going to rid the earth of any aliens who threaten to rule over humanity.
I will ultimately triumph. Anything that goes wrong is a mere temporary setback. No prison can hold me.
I may need to do some things that do-gooders would find 'unethical' in order to get the job done. I will not let such petty qualms hold me back. I am beyond good and evil.
People are gullible fools. I will bend them to my will.
I deserve power. No-one would be better at ruling the world than me.
Anyone who gets in my way deserves what they get.
It's fun to be that kind of evil. It gave me an insight into why bad guys laugh so much. Wa ha ha ha ha!
I personally have never had fun with an evil campaign. Not my thing. I've played excessively greedy characters and had some fun. I just don't find characters willing to do horrible things to good people that enjoyable to play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Way of the Wicked deals with a lot of these criticisms of evil campaigns. By having a very strong patron and authority structure, severely limiting the chances of PCs betraying each other (using an interesting mechanic), had a very story and task driven adventure structure and uses good antagonists that exemplify everything you love to hate about goodness.
To be honest if a DM can enjoy role playing the villains of a campaign I don't see why players couldn't enjoy it too?
I enjoy playing good characters more than evil ones. And when I play evil characters I like to do it with solid motivations and some good qualities that despite not making them redeemable at least make them likable to the other players at the table.
I am of the idea that an evil character can be a hero, but with different motivations. A character who is only motivated to have a revenge against the BBEG is as valid as one who wants to free the land for his tyranny.
The Way of the Wicked deals with a lot of these criticisms of evil campaigns. By having a very strong patron and authority structure, severely limiting the chances of PCs betraying each other (using an interesting mechanic),
That all made it feel a bit Diet-Coke-Of-Evil for me TBH
Being CE will not be for everyone.
Have a good discussion in slot zero.
Set some theme that you don't want to happen in play, though they may happen off screen.
There are also games like Chronicles of Darkness, where basically everyone is a monster.
The Way of the Wicked deals with a lot of these criticisms of evil campaigns. By having a very strong patron and authority structure, severely limiting the chances of PCs betraying each other (using an interesting mechanic),That all made it feel a bit Diet-Coke-Of-Evil for me TBH
It depends on what you find appealing from evil.
If you want to be evil for being a destroyer and running rampant WotW is not your game.
If you want evil scheming, subtle evil, WotW can be more fitting.
My players though being subtle weren't decaffeinated at all. They were monsters under the cover of respectability. I loved that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think for some people part of being evils appeal is not being beholden to anything (which still doesn't mean going round on random murder sprees) I haven't played WotW but from what I've heard and read it might be an impediment to that.
I think for some people part of being evils appeal is not being beholden to anything (which still doesn't mean going round on random murder sprees) I haven't played WotW but from what I've heard and read it might be an impediment to that.
See that seems more chaotic then evil to me.
The Way of the Wicked deals with a lot of these criticisms of evil campaigns. By having a very strong patron and authority structure, severely limiting the chances of PCs betraying each other (using an interesting mechanic),That all made it feel a bit Diet-Coke-Of-Evil for me TBHIt depends on what you find appealing from evil.
If you want to be evil for being a destroyer and running rampant WotW is not your game.
If you want evil scheming, subtle evil, WotW can be more fitting.
My players though being subtle weren't decaffeinated at all. They were monsters under the cover of respectability. I loved that.
Absolutely, they do some pretty monstrous things in that campaign. For me playing a good evil character is more about Cersai and less about Jofrey. The Jofreys of the campaign can still exist but they are as likely to be your enemy as your ally.
The best evil characters have strong motivations. The ends justify the means and the means are pretty horrendous.
I'm about to start running Way of the Wicked for the second time, it was that good. There is a reason it's been in the top ten selling 3pp products since it came out (despite the author now being a pariah)
In terms of the appropriateness of the table. We use the PG/13 method suggested in the series. Terrible stuff happens and the players make terrible stuff happen but we don't revel in blow by blow descriptions of it. There is a lot of 'cut-to-scene' and the outcome described. We'd use this whenever there was torture, looting of a city, etc.
I've GMed an evil party and I've GMed an evil character in a mostly good party. Both were set in the Greyhawk campaign world.
The evil character was a 1e NE Elven Assassin. His back story was that he was a 007 type character in the employ of the Elvish state of Celene. His overall goal was to protect and to enhance the state of Celene, it's monarch and Elven kind. In order to achieve these goals he had no hesitation in using 'morally dubious' methods and really didn't care about the lives of the 'short lived' races. If he killed them he only cut their life short by a few decades, which was nothing compared to the centuries' of Elven lifespans he was protecting. He fitted into the party fine. At no point did his overarching goals interfere with the party's objectives and he wasn't into needless death or destruction.
The party played through the ToEE campaign as an evil party sponsored by the Horned Society. The party's initial objective was to find out what was going on and then, depending on their conclusion, destroy or take over the Temple. They played like a good party but with different objectives.
I think for some people part of being evils appeal is not being beholden to anything (which still doesn't mean going round on random murder sprees) I haven't played WotW but from what I've heard and read it might be an impediment to that.See that seems more chaotic then evil to me.
Freedom is not a quality exclusive to chaos.
There of tonnes of things good people can't do that evil people can and the good stuff isn't really off limits to evil people either if it's more convenient.
Not having to be beholden to the greater good is a freedom.
I have a paladin that would argue that Hes more free for following good. But thats a long conversation and I see what your saying. I do see some blending in their.
The Way of the Wicked deals with a lot of these criticisms of evil campaigns. By having a very strong patron and authority structure, severely limiting the chances of PCs betraying each other (using an interesting mechanic),That all made it feel a bit Diet-Coke-Of-Evil for me TBHIt depends on what you find appealing from evil.
If you want to be evil for being a destroyer and running rampant WotW is not your game.
If you want evil scheming, subtle evil, WotW can be more fitting.
My players though being subtle weren't decaffeinated at all. They were monsters under the cover of respectability. I loved that.
He did a fantastic one man job that most 3pp can't even dream off. Just thought devil patron was not what we were looking for. All hats tipped to Gary for what he achieved
Playing evil isn't for everyone. Some just want to play an RPG character as they would play Grand Theft Auto video games.
As for me, I do prefer playing good PCs, yet I can occasionally play evil PCs. The appeal is to be free from the RL fear oriented lifestyle. What do I mean by this? Why are we cautious around strangers? Why do we lock car/home doors? It is because we fear evil people and what they may do to us.
In a RPG, you can become the thing you fear. It is a cathartic release of sorts while in a safe environment. You aren't actually harming others. What you are doing is letting go of that fear of those other evil people by acting out that other side of the equation.
Granted, it's not something I do often. I still enjoy playing PCs of any alignment depending on my mood, and I do enjoy playing good PCs more often than playing evil (an ego thing, I prefer neutral NPCs to cheer me on rather than cower in fear of me).
My evil characters:
Ninja devkarin elf, raised to subsume herself as a part of a whole and don't think of herself as an individual. They taught her that her duty as an assasin meant everything and that feelings are weakneses. After getting to know the outer world she started to realize that there was much more out there than she was taught and she's now on a trip of self discovery to attain a balance between her life as an assasin and her sense of identity. At the same time she is a worshipper of the cycle of life and death and she thinks that giving death is a holy task that she cannot perform randomly.
Half elf enchanter wizard: Her main motivation is getting appreciation, and people to admire her. She doesn't hide her alignment (she's on a Dragonlance setting and wears her black robes) but she usually tries people to trust her, as she thinks real power is attained by having a lot of loyal followers and allies. She values a lot her allies as she thinks they are useful, but also enjoys their company. But she puts herself above everything as she holds herself in a high steem. She is also able to do anything, no matter how questionable, for what she thinks it's the greater good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you tell a satisfying story about an evil character (not just an antihero) who neither redeems nor pays for their misdeeds?
First, what's wrong about those endings?
Second, the only endings that remain are godhood, or happily-ever-after. Evil can do those too.
Just like how many folks confuse Paladin alignment as "Lawful Stupid", just like how many folks confuse Chaotic Neutral for "Chaotic Insane and Stupid", some folks confuse Evil with "Stupid"
Not every badguy gets caught or redeemed. Some do very bad things, get away with it, and then enjoy the rest of their lives.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess to cross over the diagetic barrier, my question is ultimately:
What would make a story about becoming Baba Yaga, or Darth Vader, or whatever villain a satisfying one to tell or hear?
Personal preference. Look at Sweeny Todd and other Villian Protagonists.
Edit: Jogged the memory there. The Godfather is one of the most well regarded movies ever and fits exactly what you are asking.
Jack of Shadows by Roger Zelazny is my favorite Villain Protagonist, mostly because it's a first person narrative where he doesn't realize he's evil until well into the book. Highly recommended.
There's also the Black Company books by Glen Cook, which are practically must-reads.
For myself, my characters tend to be either CGish or LEish -- which I think says a lot about my own worldview.
|
|
why is he an outcast?The Way of the Wicked deals with a lot of these criticisms of evil campaigns. By having a very strong patron and authority structure, severely limiting the chances of PCs betraying each other (using an interesting mechanic),That all made it feel a bit Diet-Coke-Of-Evil for me TBHIt depends on what you find appealing from evil.
If you want to be evil for being a destroyer and running rampant WotW is not your game.
If you want evil scheming, subtle evil, WotW can be more fitting.
My players though being subtle weren't decaffeinated at all. They were monsters under the cover of respectability. I loved that.
Absolutely, they do some pretty monstrous things in that campaign. For me playing a good evil character is more about Cersai and less about Jofrey. The Jofreys of the campaign can still exist but they are as likely to be your enemy as your ally.
The best evil characters have strong motivations. The ends justify the means and the means are pretty horrendous.
I'm about to start running Way of the Wicked for the second time, it was that good. There is a reason it's been in the top ten selling 3pp products since it came out (despite the author now being a pariah)
In terms of the appropriateness of the table. We use the PG/13 method suggested in the series. Terrible stuff happens and the players make terrible stuff happen but we don't revel in blow by blow descriptions of it. There is a lot of 'cut-to-scene' and the outcome described. We'd use this whenever there was torture, looting of a city, etc.
His next project was a Kickstarter which funded but crashed and burned, with very little communication to backers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I currently have three evil characters on the boards at the moment (with a fourth currently being built for a recruitment).
One is a LE vampire mesmerist in an evil Second Darkness game, trying to take over the Drow's control of the weapon. He's a master schemer, arrogant and manipulative, and one of my favorite characters at the moment.
Another is a NE wizard in a recently-started evil Skull and Shackles. He's primarily a diabolist, but has some extreme sadistic tendencies as well. He's cunning and careful, ready to play any role while waiting to let his victims burn.
The third is also a LE wizard, in a WotW campaign that's just getting going. Overall, his primary focus is efficiency. Ruthless, unforgiving efficiency. If someone fails him, they will have their soul sold in hiring a devil, and their corpse reanimated as a zombie. It's only logical, after all. Remove one incompetent/dissident member of society in return for two tireless workers.
Then, the one in development is a CE sorcerer. Based loosely off of Belkar (who, by the way, I think is a great example of how any evil can play nice in a party), she has powerful heroic motivations and enjoys helping people... but is utterly ruthless to her foes and really, really loves killing.
So, there's plenty of attraction to make evil characters. One draw is the ability to create smug, self-centered characters that you'd otherwise have a hard time justifying their actions as good. Another is the unique character concepts, like necromancers and diabolists, that supposedly result in a slow spiral into evil anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the easydamus "real alignment" framework for understanding "evil" (and "good") in RPGs in preference to getting rid of alignment or going with the subjective alignment rules in Pathfinder Unchained. All are superior to the base alignment rules, though.
How do you tell a satisfying story about an evil character (not just an antihero) who neither redeems nor pays for their misdeeds?
It might be a niche genre, but if you're into science-fantasy of the Warhammer 40,000 kind, there are several (series of) novels that might fit the bill. I realise it's a pretty big investment of time/effort to read a whole book just to contribute to this discussion, but I'd like to recommend these anyway. By the very nature of answering this question, the books in question might be spoiled somewhat, so any die-hard 40k fans currently churning through the Black Library may wish to skip:
The Night Lords trilogy have self-avowed villains as main characters, and though they battle other villains, they never pretend to do so for a higher purpose. In fact, while what they do could easily be spun into something noble, the characters' thoughts and dialogue keep emphasising that their motivations are fundamentally selfish and cruel. Whether the protagonist is relatable or not is of course subjective, but I found it very engaging to read.
Storm of Iron might be another good example of the triumph of evil shaped into a war fantasy romp.
As far Pathfinder itself goes, I fairly recently retired an erinyes character from a Planescape game. The character had the overarching goal of tempting another PC to join the armies of Hell (imagine the little devil on one's shoulder, opposed by the angel on the other), and as a lawful evil baatezu she was restricted in several ways from stupid evil behaviour that could cause trouble for said fellow PC. Perhaps for that reason, it was very gratifying when she did get the opportunity to twist the words of an agreement or manipulate circumstances toward evil - particularly when it was something too heinous for the temptee to contemplate, but nevertheless turned out in her favour.
Now, this erinyes character did ultimately fail in her endeavour. The other PC, who was initially firmly on the neutral side of things, eventually chose to reject all that Hell had to offer and forged a celestial alliance instead.
It was a great moment in the game and a wonderful resolution to the drama leading up to that point, so you could take that as example of good triumphing over evil.
However, in playing the character, I was always earnestly playing to convince the other PC of the merits of Team Evil. The adventures they went on were chiefly mercenary and non-altruistic, usually characterised by seeking to fulfil one ambition or another (which made the conclusion all the more powerful). And I think that's what at the core of having fun with a character: Set a goal (preferably one that works with the whole group) and pursue it, whether for good or for evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy evil characters for a few reasons.
- Spectacle. My main evil character is a self-indulgent hedonist, and that evil alignment means that her enjoyment comes before the life and livelihood of others. It can make meals into plots.
- It's fun to pretend about. Pretending to help people is very unsatisfying compared to actually helping people in practical ways. Pretending to exact revenge on fictional enemies for their perceived slights is a lot more fun, and would be miserable to actually do.
- It's easier to make an interesting character. The OP mentioned creating fleshed out characters with a background the creates their present motivations. I'm more interested in a cool but shallow character that impresses people- more of a comic-book character. That memorable and interesting thing is easier in the neutral and evil area because it can be defining without needing to explain how or why they help people.
- Much cooler associations. Daemons, rakshasas, and divs are a lot more interesting than angels, archons, and azatas. More varied deities, and more information about the demigods.
I never really got on with AD&D but remember some awesome adventure time with Deadly Nightshade my half orc cleric assassin!
I have never understood the appeal of the WoD games Vampire, Werewolf etc. The old Monsters, Monsters game from Flying Buffalo I could see for a one-shot. But the whole Evil campaign just never really make since.
I have never understood the appeal of the WoD games Vampire, Werewolf etc. The old Monsters, Monsters game from Flying Buffalo I could see for a one-shot. But the whole Evil campaign just never really make since.
Well, for the old WoD games the point was pretty much that even though you might be a monster, it's not because of anything you did (someone bit you, genetics, etc.) and they're in part about the tension between "the ways that your supernatural abilities allow you to pursue your goals" and "the things your supernatural nature force you to do now." Which is to say, they are in part about "how do you remain a person who can live with themselves despite being a vampire?"
The big difference for me is that the vampire who gets their blood from the blood bank on the DL, or who drinks from stray or wild animals, or always gets blood from consenting adults (and never enough to harm them), or whatever compromise they've made with themselves gets to believe they're still a good person. If I wrote "NE" on the character sheet and I signed up to play an "evil campaign" that's a hard illusion to maintain, I figure.
"Probably evil, but feels terrible about it and wants to change if possible" is something I understand pretty well, "definitely evil, and doesn't feel like doing anything about it" is what I struggle with; which is what I imagine "playing in an Evil Campaign" in Pathfinder is like.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) The Social Contract
When players decide to play an evil game, they talk about a lot of very important things that tend to get skipped over when more traditional games are starting up. Players recognize the danger inherent in playing a bunch of psychopaths, so they discuss what kinds of themes and behaviors they are willing to accept. There's no such thing as "chaotic-stupid" or "surprise i'm the worst kind of chaotic-neutral" in evil campaigns. People prone to playing those kinds of characters tend to curb themselves because they know they don't have the other characters/players inherent goodness to shield them from from the consequences of their a$!+&$!ry. In evil games, disruptive characters get killed. Disruptive players usually only need to learn that lesson once. It can be very cathartic for the rest of the group if they've had to put up with a disruptive player in other games.
Furthermore, saying something as simple as "no rape or rape related themes" sets important boundaries. Evil people don't have to be accepting of all evil. There's things that would make even the Joker horrified (look up the Joker/Red Skull team up for an example).
Playing in an evil game teaches players the fundamental importance of discussing everyone's boundaries and creative agendas beforehand.
2) Evil Gets S%#! Done
Evil tends to be proactive, not reactive. In many traditional games, the characters are responding to an outside stimulus (usually an evil person doing something evil). In an evil game, the characters are more likely to be motivated by a goal from the very beginning, rather than having to figure out what's going on first, get dragged around byt he plot for a while, and then finally gain some narrative autonomy sometime around 5th level (if ever).
Playing an evil character can help drag a normally passive character into a more assertive narrative position.
3) Evil Doesn't Have To Mean Insane
Take a look at the Insinuator Antipaladin archetype. Think about it for a while. It's essentially just an Objectivist or Libertarian archetype. Yes, in game terms it's evil (because greed and selfishness are objectively bad within the mechanics of Pathfinder. Don't argue. It's true.) This archetype presents an interesting roleplay challenge. This person isn't about kicking puppies and burning orphanages. It's about being utterly convinced of your own self-supremacy. This is an egocentrist with cast-iron self esteem. It's about playing a person who would literally do anything to get ahead, but only if the benefits outweigh the risks and consequences.
Frankly, it proves that an evil character can exist in a traditional party without being disruptive. All it takes is the recognition that selfish people can still be loyal, still have friends, and still have greater goals outside of themselves (as long as serving the greater goal is still directly beneficial, there's no reason not to). You could play an Insinuator along side a paladin and have all kinds of interesting moral and philosophical discussions.
4) It Can Be Fun To Cheer For The Bad Guy.
There's tons of stories where the bad guy is the character you enjoy most. Dexter. Sweeney Todd. Nightmare of Elm Street. Payback. American Horror Story. The Dark Knight. Even Star Wars (don't pretend Vader isn't the best thing in any scene).
In pretty much any horror movie, you aren't there to see the main characters. You're there to see the monster.
Usually, playing the monster is strictly the purview of the GM. It can be a lot of fun to turn those tables. Take a look at the Serial Killer Vigilante, the Pact Wizard or the Appeaser Cleric. Tell me these things don't spark some interesting narrative ideas.
5) Necromancy
If you are playing a Necromancer, you're playing someone who's at the very least comfortable with doing evil things on a regular basis. According to Heroes of Horror, if you cast Animate Dead three times, your alignment shifts. Full stop. Those are the rules.
It doesn't matter if the undead you raise are tilling fields to feed starving people, or acting as a disposable fire brigade to put out a burning orphanage. Pharasma Doesn't Care. Undead are bad, and making them is bad.
That said, necromancy is cool. It's one of the most interesting systems in the game. It's like Legos, where all the blocks are body parts. It's also a system most people don't get an opportunity to use, so it has the new and shiny feel to it for a lot longer than most other options.
6) Goblins
I have never laughed harder in an game than in the one where my group tackled Tomb of Horrors as a particularly suicidal goblin tribe. Playing an endless tide of stupid, greedy, maniacal pyromaniacs with zero self preservation instincts, and putting them into what would otherwise be a normal dungeon crawl is amazing. I highly recommend it.
#6 is pure win. It put images in my head, and consequently earned chuckles. Enough chuckles to blow my cover at work.
Tammy loved puppies.
Right up until somebody cast vile dog transformation on her puppies and they tried to kill her, before dissolving into stinking piles of gore and bones.
Your number 5 just started a whole conspiracy in my mind.
Who sends souls to the "corresponding" plane of their alignment? Pharasma. Who damns souls that try and accumulate power for themselves? Pharasma. Who is supposedly a fair and just judge, yet those that try and encroach on her domain (soul traders and necromancers) invariably find themselves slipping into evil, despite their intentions. Who is it, that, despite being "Neutral," anyone who seeks to emulate her actions are abhorred by all and are condemned after death, when she decides where they spend eternity? Pharasma.
Who's really the villain here? The person who is the omnipotent decided of "good" and "evil," setting the cast forces of heaven against any who might grow to challenge her or emulate her deeds? Or the person who uses negative energy to reanimate a few dry bones, ensuring his village won't starve come winter?
Pharasma, that's who! Millions and billions pay homage to her, the eternal decider of all living creatures fates! And she has the tenacity to declare herself beyond good and evil!
I would argue that in a world where evil exists not only in the hearts and minds of people, but as an tangible Evil that forms part of the universe, being evil for Evil's sake can be rational, not just rationalization. People with dark desires are quite likely to end up in Hell, Abbadon or the Abyss no matter what; shouldn't they pursue their dark ambitions so that in the afterlife they have fiends' favor and influence? Or, if they know they're bound for the lower planes for eternity, isn't it worth any moral sacrifice to stay alive as long as you can, even as undead?
And then there's the delights Evil offers a FRPG villain, best explained here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html
Your number 5 just started a whole conspiracy in my mind.
Who sends souls to the "corresponding" plane of their alignment? Pharasma. Who damns souls that try and accumulate power for themselves? Pharasma.
When did she ever damn souls for accumulating power?
Who is supposedly a fair and just judge, yet those that try and encroach on her domain (soul traders and necromancers) invariably find themselves slipping into evil, despite their intentions.
Urgathoa's the bad gal here, being the origin of disease and the undead makes both domains mutually implicated. Lady Pharasma very much regrets her getting out though, I'm sure. ;)
Who is it, that, despite being "Neutral," anyone who seeks to emulate her actions are abhorred by all and are condemned after death, when she decides where they spend eternity? Pharasma.
Everyone decides where they spend their eternity every day of their lives, you surely don't expect Pharasma to be held accountable for each trifling mortals activities upon the material plane?
Who's really the villain here? The person who is the omnipotent decided of "good" and "evil," setting the cast forces of heaven against any who might grow to challenge her or emulate her deeds? Or the person who uses negative energy to reanimate a few dry bones, ensuring his village won't starve come winter?
Pharasma doesn't tell the boys in gold up in heaven who to fight. If they decide to fight someone then that someone is almost invariably evil, if that same someone happens to want to control of the passage of souls in the after life. Well you can join the dots, evil god controlling the passage of all souls? Doesn't sound like thats in the interest of neutrality to me.
Pharasma, that's who! Millions and billions pay homage to her, the eternal decider of all living creatures fates! And she has the tenacity to declare herself beyond good and evil!
Destiny isn't out to get you baby, you're talking like a crazy person ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that in a world where evil exists not only in the hearts and minds of people, but as an tangible Evil that forms part of the universe, being evil for Evil's sake can be rational, not just rationalization. People with dark desires are quite likely to end up in Hell, Abbadon or the Abyss no matter what; shouldn't they pursue their dark ambitions so that in the afterlife they have fiends' favor and influence? Or, if they know they're bound for the lower planes for eternity, isn't it worth any moral sacrifice to stay alive as long as you can, even as undead?
Yeah, this is a universe with extra-dimensional god-kings that actively reward viciousness and depravity.
I imagine a lot of evil folks are actually pretty honest about themselves, and if anything are confused that more folks don't share in their outlook.
Think of just how more widespread Neo-Nazis would be if being a Neo-Nazi rewarded you with magic powers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Think of just how more widespread Neo-Nazis would be if being a Neo-Nazi rewarded you with magic powers.
Also known as the "Sith" problem.
Chromatic- before I go further, I'm just going to clarify that this is something of a joke, I don't actually think Parasma's evil, but it is kind of interesting.
1: She damns souls that are power-hungry and self-absorbed because that's a pretty common form of Evil on Golarion.
2: Urgathoa is a perfect example! She rejected Pharasma's judgement, seeing her as she truly was, and now all of a sudden she's the bad guy. Disease is really more neutral, as a force of nature, it's just that, because one of her rivals created it, Pharasma (the ultimate decider of good and evil in this conspiracy) declared it evil, to make her rivals seem worse. Of course she regrets letting a being that sees her for the corrupt despot she is escape her judgement and rise to Godhood, teaching her flock how to escape their judgement from an unjust judge through the necromantic arts.
3: Yes they decide how they will act, but who is it that declares whether any given act it "good" or "evil?" Pharasma! Besides, as the goddess of fate, how much do mortals really have control over their own actions? Up until recently, people's entire lives were plotted out for them up to thousands of years in advance!
4: You're right. Heaven does fight against "Evil," but once again, who is it that setermines what is "Evil?" Pharasma! She's the puppet master, pitting devil against angel by determining that following the law to the letter and being a vengeful warrior in the perfect, lawful society is "Evil." And, like you said, how is controlling the flow of all souls possibly in the interest of Neutrality? Connect the dots! See the truth!
5: You've bought into the lie! SHE IS THE MASTERMIND! Open your mind!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chromatic- before I go further, I'm just going to clarify that this is something of a joke, I don't actually think Parasma's evil, but it is kind of interesting.
1: She damns souls that are power-hungry and self-absorbed because that's a pretty common form of Evil on Golarion.
2: Urgathoa is a perfect example! She rejected Pharasma's judgement, seeing her as she truly was, and now all of a sudden she's the bad guy. Disease is really more neutral, as a force of nature, it's just that, because one of her rivals created it, Pharasma (the ultimate decider of good and evil in this conspiracy) declared it evil, to make her rivals seem worse. Of course she regrets letting a being that sees her for the corrupt despot she is escape her judgement and rise to Godhood, teaching her flock how to escape their judgement from an unjust judge through the necromantic arts.
3: Yes they decide how they will act, but who is it that declares whether any given act it "good" or "evil?" Pharasma! Besides, as the goddess of fate, how much do mortals really have control over their own actions? Up until recently, people's entire lives were plotted out for them up to thousands of years in advance!
4: You're right. Heaven does fight against "Evil," but once again, who is it that setermines what is "Evil?" Pharasma! She's the puppet master, pitting devil against angel by determining that following the law to the letter and being a vengeful warrior in the perfect, lawful society is "Evil." And, like you said, how is controlling the flow of all souls possibly in the interest of Neutrality? Connect the dots! See the truth!
5: You've bought into the lie! SHE IS THE MASTERMIND! Open your mind!
Urgathoa created vampires when she escaped from the Boneyard, which means she is indirectly responsible for the Twilight books.
She's earned that evil alignment through and through.