Derklord |
2E = rolls a d12 at the fast food joint, orders that value meal
So I guess I'm 2E CN in real life? because I've done that multiple times. Usually with pizza and d20s or sometimes d30s, and one time I did three rolls with a different dice each to select a hotdog - one for the type of sausage, one for the second ingridient, one for the sauce. IIRC, I ended up with a regular wiener, a fried egg, and honey mustard.
Claxon |
Seeing alignment as a result of your actions rather than the other way around always makes things easier for me. Just have a character concept for how you want your PC to act, and then let that determine what your alignment is. It shouldn't be a set of guidelines, it should be a consequence of your actions.
This is typically how I do it. With my character sheet just having neutral neutral written on it typically (unless the class I'm playing has alignment restrictions). And then I just play the character how I want and update my alignment when it's relevant.
Sandslice |
Sandslice wrote:2E = rolls a d12 at the fast food joint, orders that value mealSo I guess I'm 2E CN in real life? because I've done that multiple times. Usually with pizza and d20s or sometimes d30s, and one time I did three rolls with a different dice each to select a hotdog - one for the type of sausage, one for the second ingridient, one for the sauce. IIRC, I ended up with a regular wiener, a fried egg, and honey mustard.
Maybe?
The "d12 for value meal" was actually a second-hand anecdote, from one of the last 2E games I'd played in. One of the players literally did roll d12 to choose value meals. He also played a mace-wielding stoic paladin who successfully redeemed an enemy over the course of several sessions. Chill guy, too. (:
Scavion |
Arssanguinus wrote:Even an evil person can have some consistent behaviors which can be called good. No reason a neutral one cannot.They can, but it undermines their official alignment. To make the official alignment believable again, the character would have to show a lot of aligment typical behavior to compensate.
There's no real undermining going on. Evil people don't have to be mustache twirling caricatures. They can be really great parents, law abiding citizens, passionate lovers, and inspiring leaders. They're just also complete monsters when it comes to their goals or methods. Alignment isn't a straight jacket determining what you can and cannot do. It's a reflection of the actions you have taken.
Also "making up" for alignment really shouldn't be a thing. It takes a lot to change alignment. Good to evil/Lawful to Chaos should be a gradual change. Its an erosion or rebuilding of values that should be clearly indicated when you hit the midway point of neutral.
MrCharisma |
This is typically how I do it. With my character sheet just having neutral neutral written on it typically (unless the class I'm playing has alignment restrictions). And then I just play the character how I want and update my alignment when it's relevant.
Yeah I typically don't put anything down for alignment until it comes up. I kind-of default to NG, but if I feel like I've been playing something else I'll put that down even if it gets me bit by a Chaos Hammer or something (my Bloodrager is CN, bordering on CG).
I don't even wrote it down for Divine classes, though that did get me in trouble recently (I just assumed I was exactly aligned with my deity, but I didn't actually have anything down =P )
Obviously Paladins are LG.
Matthew Downie |
Alignment isn't a straitjacket determining what you can and cannot do.
If I remember correctly, this is exactly what it was originally designed to be. In early D&D there was a problem with random murderhobo players. They attempted to fix this by having the GM say, "You can't rob that merchant: you're Lawful. If you change your alignment, you get massive XP penalties."
It's a reflection of the actions you have taken.
It makes more sense to me if alignment determines actions, not the other way round. First, you become evil, and then that makes you willing to do evil things. There are all sorts of examples in the game of evil entities who haven't necessarily done anything evil yet, but are evil in their heart.
Let's say someone turns me into a Vampire. By the rules of the game I would become Evil. Because I'm evil now, I'm willing to hurt innocent people. Then I would hurt innocent people.
If actions determine alignment it seems like you could just say, "I'm a Vampire now? Cool. If I don't do any evil deeds I can maintain my Lawful Good alignment and keep my Paladin powers. I'll just buy some blood or whatever so I don't get too hungry."
That doesn't seem like the game world as presented to us.
Scavion |
Let's say someone turns me into a Vampire. By the rules of the game I would become Evil. Because I'm evil now, I'm willing to hurt innocent people. Then I would hurt innocent people.If actions determine alignment it seems like you could just say, "I'm a Vampire now? Cool. If I don't do any evil deeds I can maintain my Lawful Good alignment and keep my Paladin powers. I'll just buy some blood or whatever so I don't get too hungry."
That doesn't seem like the game world as presented to us.
Undead don't follow the same alignment rules in Golarion. A Vampire(Or any undead that doesn't explicitly state otherwise) is evil and is always evil.
For non-Golarion games, there is nothing stated in alignment that states a compulsion to act under those restrictions. You could, hypothetically, rebuild your alignment. The application of the template forcibly shifts your alignment so you would immediately fall, but you could hypothetically redeem yourself. It'd be difficult though.
Claxon |
Let's say someone turns me into a Vampire. By the rules of the game I would become Evil. Because I'm evil now, I'm willing to hurt innocent people. Then I would hurt innocent people.
If actions determine alignment it seems like you could just say, "I'm a Vampire now? Cool. If I don't do any evil deeds I can maintain my Lawful Good alignment and keep my Paladin powers. I'll just buy some blood or whatever so I don't get too hungry."
That doesn't seem like the game world as presented to us.
Personally I think things that forcibly change your alignment are a different case rather than the generic example of how alignment should work. Generally a character should do what makes sense to that character, based on their experiences and desires.
But when stricken by supernatural evil like being turned undead, it changes you. A paladin turned vampire is evil and has stopped being a paladin. Perhaps they spontaneously turn into an antipaladin if they embrace it. If they don't, perhaps they now are conflicted with supernatural forces spurning them to do evil while inside the still remember their good nature of how they used to be and long to return to it.
In this case the player and the GM should work out how they want this to come across, assuming the GM allows the player to continue playing the character. For some reason I recall a rule that stipulated a player character becoming evil/undead became a GM NPC, but I don't have anything to back that up. It may have just been a group house rule.
LordKailas |
For some reason I recall a rule that stipulated a player character becoming evil/undead became a GM NPC, but I don't have anything to back that up. It may have just been a group house rule.
Well, the spawn ability that undead creatures have state that the newly created spawn is under the control of the undead creature. So, if a PC gets turned into one of these they completely lose agency of their character. So for all practical purposes, they are now an NPC since they can't resist the will of their new master. It's enough of a thing that it's one of the perks of the Agent of the Grave prestige class.
At 5th level, an agent of the grave has prepared his body and mind for the transition into undeath. He gains a +5 bonus on any ability check, skill check, or saving throw related to the process of transforming into an undead creature. This bonus can be used on any check related to becoming a creature like a lich (the process of which is largely left up to the GM’s discretion). Additionally, if slain by an undead creature with the create spawn ability, the agent of death retains his Intelligence (regardless of the type of undead he is transformed into) and free will (he is never under the control of the creature that killed him). Unless otherwise noted by the undead creature’s create spawn ability, the newly created undead agent of the grave loses all of his class levels. This makes transformation into a lich and vampire among the most appealing options for an agent of the grave seeking undeath.
Derklord |
Scavion wrote:Alignment isn't a straitjacket determining what you can and cannot do.If I remember correctly, this is exactly what it was originally designed to be.
I guess you missed my first post in this thread? Because therein I quoted form the CRB where it literally says that "Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." CRB pg. 166
As usual, what was true in whatever edition of D&D is utterly irrelevant for Pathfinder.
If actions determine alignment it seems like you could just say, "I'm a Vampire now? Cool. If I don't do any evil deeds I can maintain my Lawful Good alignment and keep my Paladin powers. I'll just buy some blood or whatever so I don't get too hungry."
That doesn't seem like the game world as presented to us.
"If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character."CRB pg. 168
The rules also literally advised the Atonement spell to "repair" an involuntary alignment change:"An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality"Ibid.
The Helm of Opposite Alignment outright states that the change "is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook", and that "the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible", because it overrides the normal rules. As for the vampire stuff, that requires you to die - it's literally a new character at that point. Templates aren't (usually) intended to be applied to PCs, you know?
Runehacking |
being hit by a car, is it evil because I pushed them?
You pushed someone and they got hit by a car? That's pretty evil indeed.
I guess it is easy to respond when you completely ignore everything else being said by someone else and only take a small portion of what they said to respond to.
Zepheri |
Quixote wrote:being hit by a car, is it evil because I pushed them?You pushed someone and they got hit by a car? That's pretty evil indeed.
I guess it is easy to respond when you completely ignore everything else being said by someone else and only take a small portion of what they said to respond to.
If you hit whit a car by accident that don't mean you are evil.
Evil is if you hit some one because you want or you hit someone by accident and in fear you run away.
Kiniz |
Rather than the original issue of it being evil, you also have to consider how a CN character wouldn't normally pay to free a group of slaves only to let them go. I love the example and how it makes us think, that the slave trade is evil, but letting slaves go is good, and how these two things interact.
Personally I'd consider the character to just be a little less chaotic, rather than moving on the good-evil scale. They're going about things the prescribed method, following local rules and paying for the purchase rather than trying to do it unconventionally. Ignoring the good-evil question of buying slaves to free them, choosing to recognize it as a legitimate deal, and dealing with the situation straight on, feels more lawful than chaotic. That doesn't mean an alignment change, just something for the player and GM to consider as a "maybe this character is a bit less chaotic than we thought."
As for the good-evil question, it would depend a lot on circumstance. Why are they freeing the prisoners, what do they have to gain from this, is it a truly altruistic act or is there a hidden motive? Alignment is such a finicky business that no two (Non-PFS) tables will really do the same, so this is something best discussed with your GM about how they view the alignment axis in their world.
Zepheri |
Vampire don't change to evil because the book say so. In my experience with the vampire change its because his hunger, wen you started at first you are like hypnotized when you are full you realize what have you done and there is when you know that old you have changed and you need to decide what to do. Of course if you have a master he will order you to feed and to accept your new life or die. This can shift your alignment to evil.
TheGreatWot |
Yes the book say but how do you explain the change?
In Pathfinder, the state of being an intelligent undead makes you evil, simply because unliving beings fueled by negative energy are inherently evil (aside from the very occasional outlier like ghosts or servants of certain deities).
There are myriad examples of vampires in Paizo's work that were turned into undead against their will, including a few who actually hate undead and are ashamed of what they have become. Those vampires are still evil. You cannot be an intelligent undead, with a mind powered by negative energy, and be nonevil- aside from ghosts, for some reason. If you are Good-aligned, and become a vampire, you become Evil-aligned automatically.
Whether that's a good design choice or not is a different matter... I think the "always evil" rule for undead is a bit restrictive and not too lore-friendly, but that's the way it is.
DeathlessOne |
Yes but "always" don't mean all, 1 of 1000 or 100.000 can be of other alignment and I know you don't like different publisher but that it's was an explanation of d&d monster manual
I'm going to do my research in Pathfinder if they have something similar
TheGreatWot has the right of it in the Pathfinder universe. As much as you can reason and justify WHY someone who became undead should have a shot at remaining Good, undead by their very nature are Evil. This can lead to some great character drama as the person deals with new, inherent desires that conflict with their previous moral patterning. But, it is an exception, rather than the rule. You WILL find exceptions to the undead are always evil rule in the Bestiary books, but they will be incredibly few. SOME Ghosts, as already mentioned, and some NPCs in adventure paths.
Zepheri |
Zepheri wrote:TheGreatWot has the right of it in the Pathfinder universe. As much as you can reason and justify WHY someone who became undead should have a shot at remaining Good, undead by their very nature are Evil. This can lead to some great character drama as the person deals with new, inherent desires that conflict with their previous moral patterning. But, it is an exception, rather than the rule. You WILL find exceptions to the undead are always evil rule in the Bestiary books, but they will be incredibly few. SOME Ghosts, as already mentioned, and some NPCs in adventure paths.Yes but "always" don't mean all, 1 of 1000 or 100.000 can be of other alignment and I know you don't like different publisher but that it's was an explanation of d&d monster manual
I'm going to do my research in Pathfinder if they have something similar
You mean like sir Roderick in rise of the runelords 1rs book he is CN he is undead
TheGreatWot |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Artofregicide wrote:Well that don't make senseZepheri wrote:Let say you are a paladin of iomedae and one day you are transformer into a vampire do your alignment change or you need the evil first?At the moment you become a vampire you also become evil.
It makes sense if you consider an infusion of negative energy into the being of a mortal creature to be an evil influence.
I honestly don't think it makes too much sense either, but that's the canon.
TheGreatWot |
Do all hatchlings chromatic dragon start as evil to?
Yep. Chromatic dragons are stated quite often to be inherently greedy, prideful, selfish, and arrogant. Those are not traits that they develop- they are inherent to chromatic dragonkind.
As for undead redemption, that's also true. You can't redeem someone if their soul is corrupted by them becoming an evil undead. Usually the most merciful option is to destroy them. Whether or not Pharasma judges them by their actions as an undead, or by their actions as a mortal, I'm not sure. I'd have to do some reading to find that out.
Claxon |
There have been undead (specifically ghosts) that are canonically not evil in Paizo written materials, but it's exceptionally rare. I don't know if any other kinds of undead have been not evil.
We do know the Ragathiel (though a deity now) was born the son of evil fiend Dispater and redeemed himself.
So we know these sorts of things are possible, but their rarity reinforces how uncommon it should be, and people playing in Golarion should understand that it most likely shouldn't happen.
DeathlessOne |
If this is true then undead creature can never get redemption unless they are destroyed and they soul it's free
Remember, just as always evil is not 100% evil, never get redemption is not always 100% true. With how all* undead function in the Pathfinder universe, the soul of the person is trapped within the shell of the undead, and fuels its existence just as the negative energy sustains the creature. For nearly all intents and purposes, that 'person' is no longer the same being. It may have all the memories and impulses that the former identity possessed, but it is all funneled and filtered through a new lens of Evil.
Undeath, when you break it down to its core moral and mechanical implications, is Evil for a reason.
DeathlessOne |
So it's almost like your soul it's condemned since if you do good for 23 year in life but when you transform in vampire and do evil for 100 year you will go to hell (and this is because the game don't let you to try to redemptions and put you directly to evil even if you don't want to)
Well, no. Unless you think that Pharasma is completely inept at her sole role in the entire multiverse of the Pathfinder setting. I think the issue lays with you still holding on to the concept that the vampire is still the same 'character' or is the 'soul' of the person whose body it now animates. You need to find a way to divorce those two concepts in your mind. That character is DEAD and its soul is being held hostage by an Evil force. You may be using the same character sheet, with similar stats (new and improved abilities), but the person you have been roleplaying is gone, and something Evil has taken its place. Only echoes of that character remain, as memories and impulses that the new Evil creature has in its possession.
Scavion |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There have been undead (specifically ghosts) that are canonically not evil in Paizo written materials, but it's exceptionally rare. I don't know if any other kinds of undead have been not evil.
We do know the Ragathiel (though a deity now) was born the son of evil fiend Dispater and redeemed himself.
So we know these sorts of things are possible, but their rarity reinforces how uncommon it should be, and people playing in Golarion should understand that it most likely shouldn't happen.
His mother being diametrically opposed to Dispater in some aspects probably helped the potential for good. I like to think of Ragathiel as like a Ifrit/Tiefling, but a demigod.
Count Palamancer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok - there is another way to view the creation of a Vampire...
You are not the same person at all..
in that story line (in Order of the Stick) the party cleric has been killed by a Vampire - and as a result has "risen" as a Vampire. But as Roy finally figures out - a Vampire is "just some undead thing hiding behind his face!".
The point at which a Vampire raises from the dead is like the "birth" of a new creature. It may look like the person who used to inhabit the body - it may even have some of the former inhabitants memories, but it is "not the same person at all".
Claxon |
ok - there is another way to view the creation of a Vampire...
You are not the same person at all..
in that story line (in Order of the Stick) the party cleric has been killed by a Vampire - and as a result has "risen" as a Vampire. But as Roy finally figures out - a Vampire is "just some undead thing hiding behind his face!".
The point at which a Vampire raises from the dead is like the "birth" of a new creature. It may look like the person who used to inhabit the body - it may even have some of the former inhabitants memories, but it is "not the same person at all".
This is basically how I look at all undead. The process of being turned undead warps what an individual was. Sure, the undead will have all the memories of it's previous existence, it may any have many similar traits and personalities, but I imagine it is like the case of Phineas Gage where his brain injury caused a distinct change in personality. I think that process of being turned undead has a similar impact.
Count Palamancer |
Or something like that a Vermlek demon - only it is an undead "soul" that has been birthed into the body, not an actual physical body inside the body.
(Is the previous soul still there? There are lots of questions that could be worked on there, without even getting into rules mechanics... I do kind of like the way OoTS handled it in the link I gave above... where the Vampires are having to deal with the former inhabitant of the body...and they are treated as two different individuals in the same body. But this mechanics of this could easily be several other threads...)
TxSam88 |
One thing I think you all are missing on, is that in general, once a character turns Evil, it's no longer a character but an NPC.
From the section on alignment:
"The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are usually for monsters and villains. With the GM’s permission, a player may assign an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are often a source of disruption and conflict with good and neutral party members. GMs are encouraged to carefully consider how evil PCs might affect the campaign before allowing them."
Claxon |
One thing I think you all are missing on, is that in general, once a character turns Evil, it's no longer a character but an NPC.
From the section on alignment:
"The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are usually for monsters and villains. With the GM’s permission, a player may assign an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are often a source of disruption and conflict with good and neutral party members. GMs are encouraged to carefully consider how evil PCs might affect the campaign before allowing them."
That's not always true, but generally yes evil characters in a party don't play well with good (and sometimes even neutral) characters.
From a balance perspective, as a GM I'd never allow players to become undead (in PF1). The resistance and immunities gained are too strong.
Sir Ol'Guy |
oh, I don't know. I've done a lot of things in my gaming days, but then I have been doing this for... goodness... My current players recently pointed out how old their parents were when I started running RPGs... only one of them got into double digits. And one had to switch to how old his grand parents were...
sigh.
Yes, I have run campaigns with Evil parties. and with a mix of both. From a balance perspective, I've often found having an undead PC in the party to be no more unbalancing than having a high-powered customized PC... I know I have said this many times, but it really is mostly on the player. Give a "Evil Monster" to a good player, someone fun to have at the table and a joy to play with? and you have a good game. Give a Paladin to a "Richard" player, and you begin to see why Pallys are one of the most controversial classes at the table. It's not the PC, it's the Player. In this case, it's not the Alignment, it's the Player.
DeathlessOne |
Well I don't know but to pc change to npc because the change of alignment/creature is a bit to extreme.
If the game put you that you can play with the alignment of evil, why then when you change into vampire (or other intelligent undead) you are no longer a pc.
GMs are actually encouraged to NOT allow alignments that would cause issues with the overall narrative. Allowing Evil players into the game opens up a whole other issue that I personally feel few are entirely prepared to deal with, AND to balance out the repercussions this has on the minutia of the verisimilitude of the game.
Either way, and I have to ask, when did you come to believe that anything done on the Evil alignment axis was 'fair'? I only bring this up because you stated that you thought "is a bit too extreme." This implies a certain expectation of fairness. There is a certain amount of 'fairness' we come to expect when we deal with mechanical aspects of the game but bringing in morality (even an artificial one like in Pathfinder) will completely shatter any semblance of fairness when kept consistent. Evil alignments are NOT 'fun and games' in the long run, and have very serious consequences in the game universe. You are begging for tragedy and ruin.
But, I digress. Play how you want as long as you have fun.
Zepheri |
Zepheri wrote:Well I don't know but to pc change to npc because the change of alignment/creature is a bit to extreme.
If the game put you that you can play with the alignment of evil, why then when you change into vampire (or other intelligent undead) you are no longer a pc.GMs are actually encouraged to NOT allow alignments that would cause issues with the overall narrative. Allowing Evil players into the game opens up a whole other issue that I personally feel few are entirely prepared to deal with, AND to balance out the repercussions this has on the minutia of the verisimilitude of the game.
Either way, and I have to ask, when did you come to believe that anything done on the Evil alignment axis was 'fair'? I only bring this up because you stated that you thought "is a bit too extreme." This implies a certain expectation of fairness. There is a certain amount of 'fairness' we come to expect when we deal with mechanical aspects of the game but bringing in morality (even an artificial one like in Pathfinder) will completely shatter any semblance of fairness when kept consistent. Evil alignments are NOT 'fun and games' in the long run, and have very serious consequences in the game universe. You are begging for tragedy and ruin.
But, I digress. Play how you want as long as you have fun.
Oh but they are fun it's depends of the player and the gm point of view. Unless most of the people only think to destroy evil there are other that really enjoy to do evil. This is why there are some prestige class that focus in this alignment like the demoligist, devilish,hellknight
DeathlessOne |
Oh but they are fun it's depends of the player and the gm point of view. Unless most of the people only think to destroy evil there are other that really enjoy to do evil. This is why there are some prestige class that focus in this alignment like the demoligist, devilish,hellknight
Oh, they certainly ARE fun ... as long as you are the one benefiting from the Evil and suffer no real repercussions. But, when I said fun earlier, I wasn't talking about the individual fun we experience when we get to play the bad guy. I was speaking in a more broad and expressive manner.
Evil is fun when you are isolated from the ramifications and effects those actions have on others, specifically the NPCs and innocents within the game world. Suspending verisimilitude and empathy towards other intelligent creatures, simply because we (as players) do not see them as real people, just one of many ways we distance ourselves in order to enjoy the gameplay. This is what I meant when I mentioned 'keeping Evil consistent'. We simply do not experience the full measure of what it means to be an Evil character, even when we play as one.
This might make people a bit uncomfortable or may seem judgemental towards their style of game play. It is not meant to be anything other than holding up a mirror in which one should view the reflection. Personally, I find a deeper understanding of the nature of Evil to enhance my enjoyment of the game, and the drama within it. Others may not.
Arssanguinus |
oh, I don't know. I've done a lot of things in my gaming days, but then I have been doing this for... goodness... My current players recently pointed out how old their parents were when I started running RPGs... only one of them got into double digits. And one had to switch to how old his grand parents were...
sigh.
Yes, I have run campaigns with Evil parties. and with a mix of both. From a balance perspective, I've often found having an undead PC in the party to be no more unbalancing than having a high-powered customized PC... I know I have said this many times, but it really is mostly on the player. Give a "Evil Monster" to a good player, someone fun to have at the table and a joy to play with? and you have a good game. Give a Paladin to a "Richard" player, and you begin to see why Pallys are one of the most controversial classes at the table. It's not the PC, it's the Player. In this case, it's not the Alignment, it's the Player.
Just as/even more often the ‘problem’ with a paladin at the table lies with the behavior of the OTHER players.
LordKailas |
Sir Ol'Guy wrote:Just as/even more often the ‘problem’ with a paladin at the table lies with the behavior of the OTHER players.oh, I don't know. I've done a lot of things in my gaming days, but then I have been doing this for... goodness... My current players recently pointed out how old their parents were when I started running RPGs... only one of them got into double digits. And one had to switch to how old his grand parents were...
sigh.
Yes, I have run campaigns with Evil parties. and with a mix of both. From a balance perspective, I've often found having an undead PC in the party to be no more unbalancing than having a high-powered customized PC... I know I have said this many times, but it really is mostly on the player. Give a "Evil Monster" to a good player, someone fun to have at the table and a joy to play with? and you have a good game. Give a Paladin to a "Richard" player, and you begin to see why Pallys are one of the most controversial classes at the table. It's not the PC, it's the Player. In this case, it's not the Alignment, it's the Player.
This is absolutely true, I have played a bunch of evil characters. However, because I'm not a disruptive player this has never been a problem. I do always ask the DM for permission first before making a "non-standard" character and I have on occasion been told by the DM "no, I don't think that will work with the game I have planned." When this happens I'm not argumentative with the DM I just shoulder my disappointment and make something else.
Now, when I am playing an evil character I try to make sure that I give them motivations for why they are running around saving the day and generally being helpful to the party. For example, I have an evil druid in a 5e game I'm playing. He wants to purge the world and "reset things" and he wants to do it for entirely selfish reasons. However, the reason he's helping the party and saving the world from disaster is because the world needs to end on his terms not someone else's. Being a high wisdom character his plans haven't been shared with the other PCs and it's things he tends to work toward in the background during downtime. Weirdly, because the other characters in the group lean more toward neutral than good they haven't taken issue with my character at times when his evil "shines through".
As for the question of undead always being evil. It's the way things work in Golarion. It's why you end up with a deity like Serenrae. Whom in-spite of being all about redemption, commands her followers to slay demons and undead on sight because such creatures can not be redeemed.
Zepheri |
Arssanguinus wrote:Sir Ol'Guy wrote:Just as/even more often the ‘problem’ with a paladin at the table lies with the behavior of the OTHER players.oh, I don't know. I've done a lot of things in my gaming days, but then I have been doing this for... goodness... My current players recently pointed out how old their parents were when I started running RPGs... only one of them got into double digits. And one had to switch to how old his grand parents were...
sigh.
Yes, I have run campaigns with Evil parties. and with a mix of both. From a balance perspective, I've often found having an undead PC in the party to be no more unbalancing than having a high-powered customized PC... I know I have said this many times, but it really is mostly on the player. Give a "Evil Monster" to a good player, someone fun to have at the table and a joy to play with? and you have a good game. Give a Paladin to a "Richard" player, and you begin to see why Pallys are one of the most controversial classes at the table. It's not the PC, it's the Player. In this case, it's not the Alignment, it's the Player.
This is absolutely true, I have played a bunch of evil characters. However, because I'm not a disruptive player this has never been a problem. I do always ask the DM for permission first before making a "non-standard" character and I have on occasion been told by the DM "no, I don't think that will work with the game I have planned." When this happens I'm not argumentative with the DM I just shoulder my disappointment and make something else.
Now, when I am playing an evil character I try to make sure that I give them motivations for why they are running around saving the day and generally being helpful to the party. For example, I have an evil druid in a 5e game I'm playing. He wants to purge the world and "reset things" and he wants to do it for entirely selfish reasons. However, the reason he's helping the party and saving the world from disaster is because the world needs to end on his...
Poor arueshalae I hope she never meet a serenite or iomedaes, or her redemption of going to the garbage
Scavion |
Poor arueshalae I hope she never meet a serenite or iomedaes, or her redemption of going to the garbage
Calling that redemption is hilarious, but I am quite biased. She basically gets forced by Desna to change her ways. I imagine Sarenrae would smite her since it's quite the abomination of what is considered one of her primary tenants. Iomedae is canonically a huge a!~@%%# so not much luck there either. She'll murder you in cold blood if you disagree with her.
Artofregicide |
Zepheri wrote:Calling that redemption is hilarious, but I am quite biased. She basically gets forced by Desna to change her ways. I imagine Sarenrae would smite her since it's quite the abomination of what is considered one of her primary tenants. Iomedae is canonically a huge a%+!~+! so not much luck there either. She'll murder you in cold blood if you disagree with her.
Poor arueshalae I hope she never meet a serenite or iomedaes, or her redemption of going to the garbage
Oh, are you one of the writers of of the AP? I have some questions about the Ivory Labyrinth.