Hello friends! So I'm playing an Inquisitor of Asmodeus in our current Hell's Vengeance campaign (no spoilers please!) and, although we've been playing it for a little while, I'm having trouble really getting into the headspace of the character. I've not really played evil characters before, and I don't want them to be too cliché or comical or anything. I want to understand them, to get why they're evil so I can make realistic arguments from their point of view even though I don't agree with them as the player. But, as a non-evil person, I really have trouble rationalising his thought process. I was wondering if anyone's handled similar characters before and if they could maybe provide some advice. I'll include some character details below in a spoiler, not totally relevant but could be useful for context.
NOTE: Due to the nature of the topic, I recognise the possibility for some less than nice topics to come up, so I want to keep things respectful and within forum guidelines. The character is not sexist, racist or homophobic, there are plenty of ways to be evil without taking that approach. Also, this is kind of my first time reaching out on the forums, so apologies if this thread should go elsewhere or something - lemme know and I'll move it if needs be!
Thanks in advance! <3
Vittorio Imbrexus
Eventually, Vittorio turned his own father over to the guard, who arrested and executed him. Impressed by his devotion to order, a sponsor from the Church of Asmodeus took Vittorio under his wing, thoroughly indoctrinating him into its beliefs. He joined the Chelish navy, his brother signing on some years later with less patriotic vigor. Nero eventually had enough of the cruelty of Chelish society and aided a man in escaping custody for the same crime as their father, then fled the country. Vittorio was also stripped of his rank, guilty by association, and left disgraced. He fell into a spiteful, self-pitying depression until the starting events of Hell's Vengeance reignited his sense of purpose.
Vittorio sees Chelish society a weakening, softening country that needs to be dealt with via a strong hand. He trusts in the idea of a society where everyone has their place, that that place is determined by strength and conviction, and that defying Order is Bad TM. There was a line in Liane Merciel's Hellknight that I like, something like "You would burn society to the ground so that everyone may stand equal in the ashes," and I think that kind of retort is part of his ideology. He respects the Queen and powerful members of Cheliax's authority, but there are many nobles and soldier he feels do not deserve their station due to being too soft/idle, and that someone should take it from them and do it better. He's tactical, analysing, and scheming, as is the way of Asmodeans, and considers laws and contracts with a keen eye for loopholes (or as keen as he can be with a 12 Int). He also has some serious pent up hate and rage, and despite his attempts at self control his temper can get the better of him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When creating heroic characters, it's usually good to give them a notable character flaw to grow their depth. Similarly, when creating a villainous character, it's usually good to give them a character virtue. Maybe the character is unusually nice to some group of people or creatures. Maybe he genuinely appreciates some quality in others, like cleanliness or artistry.
In all other ways, your villain should be self serving. Other people may be important, but not as important as yourself. Even other people who are important to you, like your teammates, they are almost always important for what they can and have done for you. A good villain is a "hero" in his own mind. He is the main character of his own story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me the simplest way to play evil characters (usually NPCs) is to take a hardline or twisted stance on something that would ordinarily be considered a virtue.
In the case of your character the obvious choice is fanatical patriotism based on your backstory. Another common one is a strong sense of justice that gets twisted into the character acting as judge jury and executioner, as the old saying goes. These are so common as to be cliches so you might want to pick a different virtue or combination of virtues to twist to make your character more original.
Not all evil characters have to be focused on actually being evil. Asmodeous often focuses seems to focus more on Law than evil, or at least that is what the religion likes to project. So, instead of building a character focused on evil focus on law, but to be totally lacking in the good aspects of law. The only exception is where you stand to gain.
Basically, you consider yourself as one of the elect and ordinary rules don’t apply to you and yours. You are special because without you and those like you everything would be chaos. The law has to be followed, but you can grant you and yours the most favorable terms when doing so. Indulging your own personal vices is your well-earned reward for your dedication to the cause.
I think your backstory is great and really provides all the headspace you need! He doesn’t need to be mustache twirling evil, he just has to do the things he thinks are best without much regard to anyone else (such as turning in his father).
His underlying rage could really just be an excuse for him, “don’t make me angry, you won’t like me when I’m angry…” but anger is a choice, and one he always chooses- it’s the easy route, but one he can claim victimhood in whenever he feels “angered”.
Though that ashes quote and lashing out might be a little divergent for a legalistic like Asmodeus, seems more like a religiously inspired rager of some type.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character never has to be comical, but certain concepts inevitably pigeon-hole a character to certain types of behavior.
The Lawful Evil alignment allows a player a decent enough range. Your character could be a ruthless pragmatist, a minister who believes the ends justify the means, an opportunist who hides behind--and takes advantage of--the laws of the land, a retainer who values his own loyalty and honor more than his victim's innocence, a knight who has oathed himself to fell deeds in the name of vengeance, and so on. The common denominators in the core concepts of the alignment involve a rational, calculated use of power and order, and a willingness to hurt, kill, and oppress in order to achieve one's aims or ambition. Some dress this up with conventions of honor and integrity, while others are sincere about their claims of righteousness.
Next, we have to take into account being the devout, committed follower of a deity and being faithful to its ethos and edicts. Asmodeus concerns himself with contracts, pride, slavery, and tyranny. Within his ethos, and the hierarchy and world-view these produce, servants are expected to offer unwavering obedience to their masters. The strong should rule the weak, and, just as importantly, it is right for them to do so. At the same time, though, the dogma of Asmodeus is such that gaining an advantage over others by way of an ostensibly fair deal is seen as praiseworthy.
Finally, we have Asmodeus's domains, whose values define the character's own. These include Evil, Fire, Law, Magic, and Trickery. His subdomains include Arcane, Ash, Corruption, Deception, Devil (Evil), Devil (Law), Divine, Greed, Legislation (Law), Rites, Smoke, and Sovereignty.
That final step essentially defines what kind of prideful and tyrannical hunter of the enemies of Asmodeus's faith the character is. Is he an Inquisitor who sincerely believes in the mandate of the strong to rule over the weak, who takes pride in counting himself among the former, and who justifies it all on the grounds of the order he ensures in society? Is he a sly Inquisitor who uses guile and deception to reveal and entrap the enemies of the faith, who takes pleasure in both his calling and the rewards he reaps for it? If he an obsessive, violent zealot for whom the means by which the enemies of the faith are punished--unforgiving flames--is as important as their sin?
There are, ultimately, practically dozens (hundreds?) of ways to combine the ethos of Asmodeus with the traits described under Lawful Evil. Many of them will be familiar (often uncomfortably so), but I don't think any of them have to be cliche, per se. Looking at your character's backstory, I think that's a very nicely crafted approach to an Inquisitor who focuses on the Law domain.
These are all really great responses, thank you! I appreciate the time you took.
...when creating a villainous character, it's usually good to give them a character virtue.
I like this a lot, and it's not something I've really considered about him yet but there's definitely space to do so. This is something I'm gonna look at a bit more before our next session this Saturday.
I'm in agreement with a lot of you focusing on order and fanatical patriotism; he "wants whats best for the society of Cheliax" in a very twisted way that makes him think opposing, good-aligned people with the same goal are just as wrong as they see his views to be. Without order there is chaos. But it also has to be the right brand of order, none of that soft Iomedaean stuff!
I actually gave him the Persistence Inquisition as he buys into the ideology heart and soul, and is stubborn and bull-headed enough to not back down in the face of opposition (also free Step Up and a little 10ft extra movement now and then is fun - git back here you varmint!). It's almost like a blind faith at this point, his indoctrination has given him all the right thoughts to think to justify his actions and never doubt. I'm looking forward to the first time he's made to really question himself, and how he'll react to it - totally not against him having a moment of redemption, but I also don't want to play him as just "a good guy brought up evil and waiting to figure it out."
Within his ethos, and the hierarchy and world-view these produce, servants are expected to offer unwavering obedience to their masters. The strong should rule the weak, and, just as importantly, it is right for them to do so. At the same time, though, the dogma of Asmodeus is such that gaining an advantage over others by way of an ostensibly fair deal is seen as praiseworthy.
This is really important. Vittorio has been praised for his tactics and ability to get the upper hand, and has praised others for doing so. It's right for the powerful to lead, its doing the weak a favour since they'd never be able to do so properly. He earns that right by being stronger, smarter. more cunning. That's his ambition and pride in play - while he respects people with the strength to rule, he also desires to be above them (especially if they're ruling but not that strong, like some of the nobility that have their right to rule inherited rather than earned.)
Thank you friends for helping me think this out, its been very helpful and inspired some other lines of thought, namely:
- How he justifies things that are harder to explain as "for the good of society" like slavery
- Why choose the Order of Hell over the Order of Heaven
- Where the weak points in his faith might be
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I think about when trying to encapsulate the philosophy/ethos of Asmodeus is the phrase "A place for everything and everything in its place" except applied broadly to people. There is a 'right' way to be in the Asmodean worldview and it's in perfect obedience to his infernal will. The structure of Cheliax is modelled after the cruel but efficient order of Hell and Asmodeus is its king. Any deviation of individuality is a dangerous attempt to disrupt that order and weaken the efficiency of perfection.
I really liked how you said that he believes that there is decay/softness in the hierarchy because that strikes me exactly the kind of thing a fascist Asmodean would perceive when comparing the perfection of a strict bureaucracy to any human institution that necessarily deals with messy and imperfect beings such as literally any living creature.
How he justifies things that are harder to explain as "for the good of society" like slavery?
Simply by the fact (in his view) that it is beneficial for society. How does one have the most efficient workforce? Slaves.
No "unions" or free workers who might interfere with the efficient and orderly workflow. No squabbling over work ethics or the likes, just hard efficient work.If someone is a slave the are weak or failed somewhere in there life, so what better use than to use there work force to the fullest potential?
Why the Order of Hell over the Order of Heaven?
Hell's Order is ruthless. A good aligned lawful man/society might forgive people for breaking the law. They might loosen or change law based on good morals. A good son might have covered his father because he's family and protecting one's family is the "good thing" to do. But instead he turned him in, because it's the right thing according the law.
What would be weak points in his faith?
That would depend on how stubborn he is and how ignorant he would be of things that prove him wrong.
There could be situations where following that law by the letter would result in more chaos than ignoring the law in that moment or just applying it a little more openly.There could someone in his upper ranks, who he always looked up to do something that's against the law, but he could justify why he did it in a way that your character could (at least partially) understand it.
Hello friends! So I'm playing an Inquisitor of Asmodeus in our current Hell's Vengeance campaign (no spoilers please!) and, although we've been playing it for a little while, I'm having trouble really getting into the headspace of the character. I've not really played evil characters before, and I don't want them to be too cliché or comical or anything. I want to understand them, to get why they're evil so I can make realistic arguments from their point of view even though I don't agree with them as the player. But, as a non-evil person, I really have trouble rationalising his thought process. I was wondering if anyone's handled similar characters before and if they could maybe provide some advice. I'll include some character details below in a spoiler, not totally relevant but could be useful for context.
NOTE: Due to the nature of the topic, I recognise the possibility for some less than nice topics to come up, so I want to keep things respectful and within forum guidelines. The character is not sexist, racist or homophobic, there are plenty of ways to be evil without taking that approach. Also, this is kind of my first time reaching out on the forums, so apologies if this thread should go elsewhere or something - lemme know and I'll move it if needs be!
Thanks in advance! <3
Vittorio Imbrexus
** spoiler omitted **...
I think something people need to remember is that Good is not Nice, and Evil is not Mean. Or at least they don't have to be.
Your character could be most appearance be an average "nice" person. Until there is some benefit or something that they seek to grab or take from someone else, and they wont hesitate to kill or do whatever it takes to get it. They're not going to attack some random person on the street for the money in their wallet, what you gain isn't worth the risk.
I will say, this concept doesn't necessarily apply with the backstory you've provided with your character. It doesn't give a clear motivation why the character would turn in their father or why they would help someone flee. Although the why there may be regret over turning in their father.
Still, the character shouldn't necessarily focus on being evil. But believing that "law and order" will save society and that you should be the one to make the laws and believing in your superiority gives you a right to take from others for your own benefit, because ultimately it will put you in a position to "make the world a better place".
I think something people need to remember is that Good is not Nice, and Evil is not Mean. Or at least they don't have to be.
Your character could be most appearance be an average "nice" person. Until there is some benefit or something that they seek to grab or take from someone else, and they wont hesitate to kill or do whatever it takes to get it. They're not going to attack some random person on the street for the money in their wallet, what you gain isn't worth the risk.
I will say, this concept doesn't necessarily apply with the backstory you've provided with your character. It doesn't give a clear motivation why the...
True, but when given the choice between doing something Good or Evil, too many times of choosing Good will cause an alignment shift. To maintain your Evil alignment, the Evil choice needs to be selected more often than not.
True, but when given the choice between doing something Good or Evil, too many times of choosing Good will cause an alignment shift. To maintain your Evil alignment, the Evil choice needs to be selected more often than not.
I think something people need to remember is that Good is not Nice, and Evil is not Mean. Or at least they don't have to be.
Your character could be most appearance be an average "nice" person. Until there is some benefit or something that they seek to grab or take from someone else, and they wont hesitate to kill or do whatever it takes to get it. They're not going to attack some random person on the street for the money in their wallet, what you gain isn't worth the risk.
I will say, this concept doesn't necessarily apply with the backstory you've provided with your character. It doesn't give a clear motivation why the...
I disagree in the sense that you can choose to do good to maintain appearance. I also disagree with the sentiment that doing enough "insubstantial" acts of good could ever undo something like being a murderer. No amount of "holding the door open" will atone for murder. Now if you open an orphanage to take care of a bunch of children, and STOP murdering, and have a genuine change of heart you can go from evil to good. I also believe that slipping from good to evil is a lot easier than going from evil to good, and that making the change from evil to good requires intention and doesn't just accidentally happen.
Yes it's not equal. It doesn't need to be in my opinion. Good is hard. Evil can absolutely pretend to do good to avoid notice and fit in.
Edit: I also disagree that with the notion that it's as simple as "number of times" you choose to do something. There is a "weight" to how good or evil an act is. I agree that if a player role plays a character as maximum intensity acts of good and never chooses evil or only choose minimally evil acts they probably need to reevaluate if they're evil. I wont say even this is impossible though, because a character may again make these choices to keep up appearance.
Nothing is more villainous and reviled than thinking you have a trusted and good person as your leader/trusted individual and discovering that they're a monster that's been hiding their true self from public view.
You can do generically good things for evil reasons, and it doesn't "count" as good. But some acts are hard-good or hard-evil, like casting good or evil spells. And if you do enough of those acts, you get "corrupted" into a different alignment.
Well, an Inquisitor of Asmodeus wouldn't have access to those good spells that would "corrupt" them in the first place.
And honestly I can agree that the casting of evil spells should shift your alignment in small increments toward evil.
But again I don't think any amount of casting protection from evil spell should shift evil creatures from good to evil.
I realize the rules support it, but it's one of those cases where I simply disagree.
It's easy to fall to evil. It's hard to climb up to good.
But perhaps the issue is more which spells have the good and evil tags. It doesn't make sense for something like Prot Evil to be innately good, or rather it can make sense for it to not be innately good. Like evil creatures could want to be protected from other evil creatures.
But perhaps the issue is more which spells have the good and evil tags. It doesn't make sense for something like Prot Evil to be innately good, or rather it can make sense for it to not be innately good. Like evil creatures could want to be protected from other evil creatures.
the thing is, a Protection from Evil spell is "powered" by "good" energies. Having those energies channeled through your body cleanses you and causes you to act more good.
Remember in Pathfinder Good and Evil are actual things that can affect you and change how you act.
I have to agree with Claxon that a lot of spells have alignment descriptors that maybe should not. It probably stems from the idea alignments are basically the same. Too me it seems like the default alignment the rules are based on is lawful good. For the most part lawful good tends to avoid attacking those who share its beliefs and values. Chaotic and evil alignments do not follow this, especially chaotic evil.
A chaotic evil character may need more protection vs attacks from evil sources than they do from good sources. A demon worshiper is probably going to interact with evil characters more than they do with good characters. How is the demon worshiping cleric supposed to protect himself vs the demons his rivals send to attack him when He cannot cast protection from evil because it is a good spell? Treachery and backstabbing are almost required by this alignment, so why cannot you defend yourself vs the summoned monsters your rivals are going to send to kill you?
Any deviation of individuality is a dangerous attempt to disrupt that order and weaken the efficiency of perfection.
Hell's Order is ruthless. A good aligned lawful man/society might forgive people for breaking the law. They might loosen or change law based on good morals. A good son might have covered his father because he's family and protecting one's family is the "good thing" to do. But instead he turned him in, because it's the right thing according the law.
These are really good lines, I think these are going to be integral to his reasoning when faced with the sorts of conflicts we expect to come across. Thank you for that!
I think something people need to remember is that Good is not Nice, and Evil is not Mean. Or at least they don't have to be.
Funnily enough, my first character idea was actually the most charismatic, cheerful and jolly Hellknight you ever did see (mostly because I found some really good art for it and got inspired), I was really going to play into the dissonance between their demeanour and the sorts of merciless atrocities they were willing to commit in the name of Hell's Order. Even Vittorio is still a gentleman in polite society, he speaks respectfully and can even be charming when he wants to be, and its not even always manipulative. He likes to reward and encourage "good behaviour" - even gave a silver piece to a little girl that taddled on her vandalising friends, told her Asmodeus would be proud of her.
On the question around good and evil spells, I've definitely heard some arguments for both sides. In our Carrion Crown game, one of my players was a Hallowed Necromancer and he picked up Wracking Ray. I was like "isn't that an evil spell? Just excruciating amounts of pain?" and he posited "is it any more evil than blowing people up with Fireball? There are all sorts of terrible things we do to people with non-evil descriptor spells" and honestly I couldn't really argue with that.
But also there is of course the element of Good and Evil/Order and Chaos being tangible forces (or at least in 1e), so when it comes to the alignments of divine casters I guess it makes more sense that they can't channel the energies of their opposition into spells any more than they can into their Channel Energy ability. Maybe that demon worshipper would absolutely love to cast Prot From Evil/Prot from Chaos to keep themself safe from other demons/The Consequences Of Their Actions(tm) and is just unable to because it requires an energy inaccessible to them, so they're stuck with finding alternatives.
As for exactly what changes someone's alignment, I know there are some more objective ones like rituals at an evil shrine for example, but I feel like a lot of them are too subjective to box in. If its an element that comes up in play, I usually prefer for it to be a steady descent/ascent, a slippery slope down into evil or an inch by inch redemption arc. I think a good person can do evil now and then without it immediately becoming their alignment, though it makes for a great inner turmoil segment. And even in just the first book of Hell's Vengeance, Vittorio has risked himself to save a comrade from death because he cared for them. He's not suddenly a good person, but one might look at that and think he's perhaps not all bad.
But perhaps the issue is more which spells have the good and evil tags. It doesn't make sense for something like Prot Evil to be innately good, or rather it can make sense for it to not be innately good. Like evil creatures could want to be protected from other evil creatures.the thing is, a Protection from Evil spell is "powered" by "good" energies. Having those energies channeled through your body cleanses you and causes you to act more good.
Remember in Pathfinder Good and Evil are actual things that can affect you and change how you act.
That is a valid interpretation.
But I think it's equally valid to not give Prot Evil the good aligned descriptor. And more generally remove it (and other aligned descriptors) from a lot of spells.
But perhaps the issue is more which spells have the good and evil tags. It doesn't make sense for something like Prot Evil to be innately good, or rather it can make sense for it to not be innately good. Like evil creatures could want to be protected from other evil creatures.the thing is, a Protection from Evil spell is "powered" by "good" energies. Having those energies channeled through your body cleanses you and causes you to act more good.
Remember in Pathfinder Good and Evil are actual things that can affect you and change how you act.
That is a valid interpretation.
But I think it's equally valid to not give Prot Evil the good aligned descriptor. And more generally remove it (and other aligned descriptors) from a lot of spells.
Sure, in your game, do whatever you want, more power to ya. I'm just saying that as built, Good and Evil are tangible things in Pathfinder.
Sure, in your game, do whatever you want, more power to ya. I'm just saying that as built, Good and Evil are tangible things in Pathfinder.
But perhaps the issue is more which spells have the good and evil tags. It doesn't make sense for something like Prot Evil to be innately good, or rather it can make sense for it to not be innately good. Like evil creatures could want to be protected from other evil creatures.the thing is, a Protection from Evil spell is "powered" by "good" energies. Having those energies channeled through your body cleanses you and causes you to act more good.
Remember in Pathfinder Good and Evil are actual things that can affect you and change how you act.
That is a valid interpretation.
But I think it's equally valid to not give Prot Evil the good aligned descriptor. And more generally remove it (and other aligned descriptors) from a lot of spells.
I'm not saying they're not tangible things.
I'm saying we should be more selective about what things at a narrative level are given those tangible forces.
Sure you can narratively describe protection from evil as the cosmic fabric of good being used to protect someone. You could also just say it's magical energy, neither good or evil.
I'm okay with some spells having the aligned descriptors, I just think that Paizo went overboard with it in PF1 and there are too many things that don't have a good reason (IMO).
An example of a spell I agree with having an aligned descriptor is infernal healing. Because it uses a drop of devil blood or unholy water. That's enough for me to say yes, this spell uses some low level cosmic forces of evil.
But not every spell with aligned descriptors is like that.
The problem with the alignment descriptor on spells is that it is poorly done. Some of the spells have an alignment descriptor that does not make sense others that should do not. Shadow Projection is considered an evil spell because you gain some of the abilities of a shadow. Undead Anatomy allows you to change into an undead and gain many of the forms abilities but is not an evil spell. Another example is that Undine’s Curse is an evil spell, but Bestow Curse is not. Undines are not an evil race, so why the spell is considered evil, when other curses are not?
It also assumes that the only thing that may want to oppose something is it opposite alignment. Many times, a neutral alignment may oppose an extreme alignment. For example, a lawful neutral cleric that worships a true neutral deity might oppose a chaotic evil character. If the chaotic evil character is summoning neutral evil monsters the lawful neutral character can cast protection from good, but that shifts his alignment to good. Doing this enough will eventually shift his alignment to lawful good, which means he becomes an ex-cleric. By following the goals of his deity and opposing an extreme alignment he can no longer function.
The alignment shift isn't so bad. You just have to balance that in your downtime. It's a bit like doing a penance. For every protection from evil you cast, you cast 2 protection from good.
Clerics are just kind of out of luck though, as they can't cast spells that oppose their deity's alignment.
So, now I have to create a chart to make sure I don’t drift out of my required alignment because I am following the teachings of my deity, by opposing an extreme alignment. I am not even actively opposing evil; I am simply defending myself against attacks. The source of the spell is my deity who is true neutral, but that still shifts my alignment to something he opposes. Opposing something does not mean you support its opposite. That is fundamentally flawed thinking.
A spell with an alignment descriptor should be something that only that alignment would want to cast.
Love the idea of a CN caster using Protection From Evil and then decking a passerby in the face like "oof, that was close, I was almost a good person for a moment."
But yeah no I've come across some weirdly tagged spells recently. Also did you know Raelis Azatas can cast the evil tagged Symbol of Pain? Did some poking around on what outsiders of the Upper/Lower Planes could cast what (mostly looking at positive and negative energy channelling spells), and there's a few weird ones.
So, now I have to create a chart to make sure I don’t drift out of my required alignment because I am following the teachings of my deity, by opposing an extreme alignment. I am not even actively opposing evil; I am simply defending myself against attacks.
You are defending yourself by surrounding yourself with literal good. You're soaking in good and some of it rubs off if you do it often enough.
And it's not like you need a complicated chart. 1 for 1 is enough. I just suggest 2 for 1, so you don't even get close to sliding, which is even less complicated.
So, now I have to create a chart to make sure I don’t drift out of my required alignment because I am following the teachings of my deity, by opposing an extreme alignment. I am not even actively opposing evil; I am simply defending myself against attacks. The source of the spell is my deity who is true neutral, but that still shifts my alignment to something he opposes. Opposing something does not mean you support its opposite. That is fundamentally flawed thinking.
A spell with an alignment descriptor should be something that only that alignment would want to cast.
Alternately, non-good spellcasters seeking to defend themselves from evil creatures might use tools other than ones that are categorically outside their ideology or outright opposed to their very makeup.
That said, I agree that the labeling of spells in Pathfinder is far from consistent (never mind ideal).