My group is starting a new campaign, and I've built a character that's a bit more out of my style than usual. I know everyone plays their own way, but I'm looking for some ideas or suggestions on how to roleplay this character.
The character is an Ifrit Inquisitor, however, from a story perspective, he should be thought of more as a Tiefling. I almost never play evil characters, and I DO NOT want this character to be evil (at least not to start). The character was raised as a commander in training, in Hell, the son of Moloch and a mortal cleric. Due to his mortal parentage, agents of his mother's church we're basically able to sue for custody (via Lawful Neutral extra-planar mediators) of the young adult Ifrit, and have spent the last several years working to educate/purge the evil out of him.
I normally tend to be a light-hearted, pun making player of traditionally good and/or heroic characters. I don't want to play this guy evil, or as a jerk, but I don't want him to be my normal good guy. So, I'm trying to lean into the Lawful Neutral alignment. I want to challenge myself to rely act as and inhabit this character. One thing I thought that might help, is if I can establish 3 to 10 principles built around Law and Fire, similar to Cavalier Orders, Divine Tenants, or Paladin Codes. I'd appreciate any suggestions.
I also have already decided that I want the character to be a "my word is my bond type" as part of his personal code, but coming from Devil stock, he'll still have a bit of that "letter of the law" mentality. I'm wondering if I should make him honorable, and if so, what honor divorced from good might look like?
I do know, his military upbringing does make him respect the chain of command, but he likely chafes when under the command of those he perceives as somehow lesser. I'm wondering what quirks or habits I can give him to convey this type of character? I'd also appreciate tips or suggestions on how to catch or curb myself when I might react more as me than as my character. I still want to have fun with my group, but I want to embrace the acting side of roleplay a bit more with this character, and that's not my normal style.
Any ideas are welcome. I'll also be glad to answer questions or supply extra info to help flesh this concept out. Thanks all!
Sysryke wrote: I also have already decided that I want the character to be a "my word is my bond type" as part of his personal code, but coming from Devil stock, he'll still have a bit of that "letter of the law" mentality. I'm wondering if I should make him honorable, and if so, what honor divorced from good might look like? One real world example of a code of honor that is divorced from good is that adopted by Italian organised crime groups, the Cosa Nostra, 'Ndrangheta and Camorra.
These men refer to themselves as 'Men of Honor". Their loyalty is primarily to the criminal organisation they belong to. The Italian public believes they actually are honorable to some extent, or at least they used to.
Sicily is full of mafia widows though I understand it is not as bad as once was. The mafia code of omerta, silence, applies to everyone not just mafia themselves. It means if the mafia killed your husband you will remain silent of the mafia will kill you too.
The effect these murderers and extortionists have on society is immense. Describing anything about their conduct as in any sense honorable or principled is deranged, but they do and many people outside the group take notice of these inane claims.
Outlaw bikers also have a similar code and a hagiography of sacred objects, their "colours", developed very quickly.
One difference is bikers interpret their code as not allowing murder of members of their gang. In the mafia promotion by murder is the norm, where it is much rarer among bikers.
One thing very few people know is that scientific research into human behavior shows a persons moral code is a weak indicator of behavior.
Joynt Jezebel wrote: Sysryke wrote: I also have already decided that I want the character to be a "my word is my bond type" as part of his personal code, but coming from Devil stock, he'll still have a bit of that "letter of the law" mentality. I'm wondering if I should make him honorable, and if so, what honor divorced from good might look like? One real world example of a code of honor that is divorced from good is that adopted by Italian organised crime groups, the Cosa Nostra, 'Ndrangheta and Camorra.
These men refer to themselves as 'Men of Honor". Their loyalty is primarily to the criminal organisation they belong to. The Italian public believes they actually are honorable to some extent, or at least they used to.
Sicily is full of mafia widows though I understand it is not as bad as once was. The mafia code of omerta, silence, applies to everyone not just mafia themselves. It means if the mafia killed your husband you will remain silent of the mafia will kill you too.
The effect these murderers and extortionists have on society is immense. Describing anything about their conduct as in any sense honorable or principled is deranged, but they do and many people outside the group take notice of these inane claims.
Outlaw bikers also have a similar code and a hagiography of sacred objects, their "colours", developed very quickly.
One difference is bikers interpret their code as not allowing murder of members of their gang. In the mafia promotion by murder is the norm, where it is much rarer among bikers.
One thing very few people know is that scientific research into human behavior shows a persons moral code is a weak indicator of behavior. Moral codes follow behavior not the other way round. Note also the Catholic Church and it's endless scandals about child abuse.
So a real world answer to your question is a "non-good", or even to the believer good, moral code of system of honor can be any damn thing.
I get that it can be very broad. I'm looking for some more concrete examples pertinent to this character. I guess I should have also clarified honor divorced from good or evil. All of those real world examples are pretty much categorically evil, and subjectively bastardizing the concept of honor.
We tend to associate honor with goodness in the real world. I'm trying to see what it might look like without obvious moral ties in the game setting, but not to use the word honor as a cover or excuse for evil acts. One claiming to have honor isn't the same as actually having it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lean into the person being strongly opposed to disorder. Order is good, disorder is undesirable and unpleasant. One may or may not like the various laws, rules, societal expectations, norms etc. but one should follow them or at least make changes in accordance with certain guidelines. Society is bigger than the individual, though individuals can take on positions of power in the system. Being reliable, working well with others, not making a fuss or at least making a fuss within socially acceptable limits, expecting others to follow the same standards.
Even without being evil or particularly heartless you can come off as callous.
"I get that taxes here are harsh and a better system would be preferable, but the right answer isn't to stop paying taxes or starting a rebellion. Civil wars make things worse for everyone. Try to work within the system and things will be better all around. Even if the odd individual suffers a bit, that's preferable to everyone just doing their own things. We'd be in a right mess if everyone did whatever they liked without tthinking about the consequences."
Honor =/= Good. Honor is esteem in the eyes of others or rigorously following a code of behavior, regardless of what an individual or the objective ethical framework of the multiverse thinks. There are plenty of examples of codes of honor not aligning with what various other people consider Good.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Slightly more specific ideas/suggestions to build in:
1) Always tell the truth, but never the whole truth
2) You can be flexible with "true, from a certain point of view" logic
3) View those who tell outright lies as "dishonorable demons"
4a) Part of your out-of-hell experience is that you dislike sadists, but find comfort in strict hierarchy - and try to create rules and clearly defined roles for yourself and others around you
4b) You call out anyone who seems sadistic - even if it is just friendly ribbing; you also insist people "stay in their lanes" for roles - even if it is they start the campfire, when that is YOUR JOB
5) Fire is our friend. It is a purifier, it is the great "reset button" in nature for when the forest becomes too chaotic with underbrush, it brings life to otherwise inhospitable places, it is necessary for making the best tools and weapons, and allows even mere humans to see through the darkest of nights.
6) Anyone who dislikes fire is wrong in the head, and you will try to bring them around to appreciate fire
7) You always seek out the ruler of the area you are at, make an effort to learn their laws (written and unwritten), and then make your judgement as to whether they are worthy of your obedience or should be overruled by your higher authority - and corrected
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think the idea you mentioned of creating a few principles will really help. Once you have those, so much of your roleplay will be easier.
If you as a player a really good at puns and have loads of fun with them -- even if you don't want it to be part of this character -- you can. Just, only use the puns that pop into your head that are acerbic or scolding. This doesn't mean to be a jerk, like you said, but if puns are always coming into mind for you at the table, use the occasional one that stings. Which, of course, can add roleplay opportunity if your PC learns one of his, um, 'LN' puns turns out to offend. Then you can roleplay an apology. .... But to not do it at all -- if it's what comes naturally to you for fun,....
Don't think of 'Order' as a generic or epistemological philosophy. Like before when you were going to come up with a few principles for Fire and Law, think of In-Game-Situations where said principles show themselves. If you decide a 'principle of law' is to never just kick in the door to fight the monster on the other side, roleplay that principle (knowing that sometimes other players are going to get their way by just kicking down the door without planning, without listening, without checking for traps). But keep in mind, a principle of Law and Order that only has application in real life may never come up in-game. Jay-Walking, coming to a complete stop and using your turn-signal even at 3:00 in the morning, memorizing the statutes, ...these are things of law and order that just don't come up in game. Always accepting an Orc's surrender is something that comes up in-game. For example, you may decide you're racist to Elves and say things like, 'All Elves are Chaotic.' Or be prejudiced against Chaotic Aligned NPCs. Again, not to be overtly a jerk -- just tacitly roleplay it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Another element to think about is the fact that, as an inquisitor, you're a divine caster. In the default setting of Golarion, that means you serve a patron god, who will have certain expectations about your behavior. Depending on the campaign, that may just mean the basic rule of staying within one alignment step of your god. But there are also sourcebooks like Inner Sea Gods that go into more detail about the tenets of the faith and the role of its priests.
[I realize that this is the 1E forum, but the entries for gods in 2E do an excellent job of summing up the god's expectations in a few Edicts and Anathema. A look at those might help you find some ideas for that list of principles that you're looking for.]
Given your character's origins, would his patron be an archdevil, or the god of his mother's church? In either case, I could see literal "law" being a core concern for him. Laws bring order, but require study to understand properly. And those who understand the laws best also know how where the loopholes are, which they can legally exploit--which could promote more order overall, or make a mockery of it, depending on the circumstances.
I grok do u wrote: Slightly more specific ideas/suggestions to build in:
1) Always tell the truth, but never the whole truth
2) You can be flexible with "true, from a certain point of view" logic
3) View those who tell outright lies as "dishonorable demons"
4a) Part of your out-of-hell experience is that you dislike sadists, but find comfort in strict hierarchy - and try to create rules and clearly defined roles for yourself and others around you
4b) You call out anyone who seems sadistic - even if it is just friendly ribbing; you also insist people "stay in their lanes" for roles - even if it is they start the campfire, when that is YOUR JOB
5) Fire is our friend. It is a purifier, it is the great "reset button" in nature for when the forest becomes too chaotic with underbrush, it brings life to otherwise inhospitable places, it is necessary for making the best tools and weapons, and allows even mere humans to see through the darkest of nights.
6) Anyone who dislikes fire is wrong in the head, and you will try to bring them around to appreciate fire
7) You always seek out the ruler of the area you are at, make an effort to learn their laws (written and unwritten), and then make your judgement as to whether they are worthy of your obedience or should be overruled by your higher authority - and corrected
I support every one of these suggestions.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Just out of curiosity why did you not go with tiefling for your race? Devil Spawn tiefling make excellent inquisitors. CHA does not do much for an inquisitor especially with the right inquisition. Their favored class bonus is similar but the tieflings is actually much better.
Honor divorced from morality would focus more on reputation and reliability. Keeping your word is important because it allows mutual beneficent deals. When both parties know that the deal will be honored cooperation become possible. In cases like this the letter of the law is usually more important than the spirit.
Even protecting other can be seen as beneficial to the person doing the protecting because it often leads to rewards latter. Which is better taking the peasant’s last gold and having them starve or collecting a lesser amount each year for decades? The trick is to leave them enough to thrive but still getting the most out of them. The lawful good character will take enough taxes to support the state but still leave the peasant enough to thrive. The lawful evil will take as much as they can but leave the peasant enough to survive. The lawful neutral will take somewhere in the middle. They want as much as they can get but also want the peasant to produce more so they get more over the long run.
What the real difference between lawful good and lawful neutral are often the reasons behind the actions instead of the actions themselves. The good character actually cares about others and wants everyone to prosper and be happy. The neutral character is more concerned with the results.
Tim Emrick wrote: Another element to think about is the fact that, as an inquisitor, you're a divine caster. In the default setting of Golarion, that means you serve a patron god, who will have certain expectations about your behavior. Depending on the campaign, that may just mean the basic rule of staying within one alignment step of your god. But there are also sourcebooks like Inner Sea Gods that go into more detail about the tenets of the faith and the role of its priests.
[I realize that this is the 1E forum, but the entries for gods in 2E do an excellent job of summing up the god's expectations in a few Edicts and Anathema. A look at those might help you find some ideas for that list of principles that you're looking for.]
Given your character's origins, would his patron be an archdevil, or the god of his mother's church? In either case, I could see literal "law" being a core concern for him. Laws bring order, but require study to understand properly. And those who understand the laws best also know how where the loopholes are, which they can legally exploit--which could promote more order overall, or make a mockery of it, depending on the circumstances.
We're in a homebrew game, but we're roughly using the various Pathfinder deities for ease of mechanics/play. I'm bound to the Divine concept of Fire, but we're using Feronia as my "official" patron deity. This is mostly a mechanical decision, as I can find little to no flavor/story info about her. However, she's N, covers the Fire domain, and offers the Bastard Sword as a favored weapon.
Story wise, I'm the son of Moloch. The early unplayed levels of my Inquisitor class would have had me evil, with either him or Asmodeus as my patron, and the character LE. At the stage where we are starting, I've been converted to LN, I still have connections to Moloch, and use profane bonuses mechanically, but I'm being brought around.
Depending on where the campaign goes, and how much my personal storyline developed, I could be brought into the fold of my mother's LG or NG fire deity (Saranae?). I was inspired by a briefly referenced deity from an old Mercedes Lackey novel, Anathaie of the Purifying Flame. This might be another face of Saranae, a Saint or lesser deity from Saranae's faith, or just a new deity. I could theoretically also get pulled back to evil, though that's definitely not the goal/hope/plan.
I suppose if we got into truly Epic play, getting into a Hell's redemption arc could be interesting, but that will probably never happen.
DeathlessOne wrote: I grok do u wrote: Slightly more specific ideas/suggestions to build in:
1) Always tell the truth, but never the whole truth
2) You can be flexible with "true, from a certain point of view" logic
3) View those who tell outright lies as "dishonorable demons"
4a) Part of your out-of-hell experience is that you dislike sadists, but find comfort in strict hierarchy - and try to create rules and clearly defined roles for yourself and others around you
4b) You call out anyone who seems sadistic - even if it is just friendly ribbing; you also insist people "stay in their lanes" for roles - even if it is they start the campfire, when that is YOUR JOB
5) Fire is our friend. It is a purifier, it is the great "reset button" in nature for when the forest becomes too chaotic with underbrush, it brings life to otherwise inhospitable places, it is necessary for making the best tools and weapons, and allows even mere humans to see through the darkest of nights.
6) Anyone who dislikes fire is wrong in the head, and you will try to bring them around to appreciate fire
7) You always seek out the ruler of the area you are at, make an effort to learn their laws (written and unwritten), and then make your judgement as to whether they are worthy of your obedience or should be overruled by your higher authority - and corrected
I support every one of these suggestions. Yep yep yep! I really appreciate all of the input so far. I do think I want to dig in just a bit on the sadism angle though. Being from Hell, and raised to see that environ as lawful and "normal", the infliction of pain and torture is the "just" sentence of the souls of the damned. There is purpose in that pain. Sadism though, is pain for pain's own sake, or one's personal satisfaction, and that's Chaotic Demon crap. Enjoying pain isn't okay, but taking pride in the skillful infliction of "necessary pain" is virtuous. All twisted thinking, but an important nuance for a character beholden only to Law.
Mysterious Stranger wrote: Just out of curiosity why did you not go with tiefling for your race? Devil Spawn tiefling make excellent inquisitors. CHA does not do much for an inquisitor especially with the right inquisition. Their favored class bonus is similar but the tieflings is actually much better.
Honor divorced from morality would focus more on reputation and reliability. Keeping your word is important because it allows mutual beneficent deals. When both parties know that the deal will be honored cooperation become possible. In cases like this the letter of the law is usually more important than the spirit.
Even protecting other can be seen as beneficial to the person doing the protecting because it often leads to rewards latter. Which is better taking the peasant’s last gold and having them starve or collecting a lesser amount each year for decades? The trick is to leave them enough to thrive but still getting the most out of them. The lawful good character will take enough taxes to support the state but still leave the peasant enough to thrive. The lawful evil will take as much as they can but leave the peasant enough to survive. The lawful neutral will take somewhere in the middle. They want as much as they can get but also want the peasant to produce more so they get more over the long run.
What the real difference between lawful good and lawful neutral are often the reasons behind the actions instead of the actions themselves. The good character actually cares about others and wants everyone to prosper and be happy. The neutral character is more concerned with the results.
I agonized over this for months. It came down to a necessary mechanical decision. Standard Inquisitors get cursedly little Fire powers, and fire was a big part of my concept. Ifrit offers way more options for fire powers racially that the Tiefling just can't get, which was actually quite surprising to me. My GM felt that allowing me to take a few Tiefling traits as an Ifrit made more sense than the other way around. A bit arbitrary, but there you have it. The backstory though, has always been Hell based, so I couldn't bring myself to switch to an Efreet daddy from the City of Brass in the Plane of Fire. It might have worked, but I was already set.
I'm taking full advantage of my Cha bonus though. Blistering Invective is going to be one of my signature spells, and I've managed to get up to a +20(21) Intimidate bonus.
That last point of your's was very helpful to me. I've been struggling a bit with how to act differently, but it's interesting and helpful to consider that it's the motivations and results that affect morality more.
Inquisitors have access to more fire spells than you realize once you get past 1st level spells. Second level gives them Blistering Invective, Flames of the Faithful. 3 Rd gives you flame Blade, Shield of Wings, Trial by Fire. 4th level gives you Cleansing Fire, Healing Flames, 5th Level has flame Strike, If you expand it out to include light spells they get even more. Inquisitors don’t really need a lot of direct combat spells. Usually they focus on combat buff spells and their abilities. Being a spontaneous caster you are not going to want a lot of direct damage spells.
All Ifrit gives you is burning hands once per day. Devil Spawn replaces darkness with Pyrotechnics so you still gain a fire based spell like ability. Ifrit takes a penalty to WIS which is the last thing you want with a inquisitor. Gaining a 1st level spell like ability is a poor trade for lowering the DC of all your other spells by 1 and taking a hit on most class abilities.
If this is the character I think Sysryke is playing, they've got a sufficient handle on the fire options available to an inquisitor. If it is that character, I am actually pleased they went Ifirit after all.
Both Feronia (wiki link) and Sarenrae are both good options. Feronia for having been a wife of Dispater, so already has an association with Hell, and Sarenrae for being a goddess devoted to redemption.
For your (counter)points on torture/sadism, my rough reasoning was thus: Hell is generally known for fire (and oddly, cold), torture/torment, deals/contracts, hierarchy, and corruption. I considered torture and corruption as the evil portions, while deals/contracts and hierarchy as the lawful. I thought that through your "good" training you could come to specifically dislike torture and torment, perhaps recognizing that the casual torment you endured wasn't as "necessary" as your father claimed. While you may not go out of your way to alleviate suffering as a Good individual might, being averse to causing pain, unnecessarily, could still be in line with a Neutral position. It seemed like the better candidate to have as a growing anti-Hell attitude.
Corruption is usually a more nuanced and gradual thing - and usually held as something in strict contrast to a good rather than a neutral position.
Sadism/torture is a big part of many of the Evil creatures/deities, lawful, neutral, and chaotic.
Your view is perfectly valid, of course. It's your character. I am definitely approaching it more with Golarian bias, which may not square with your home game or personal takes.
Mysterious Stranger wrote: Inquisitors have access to more fire spells than you realize once you get past 1st level spells. Second level gives them Blistering Invective, Flames of the Faithful. 3 Rd gives you flame Blade, Shield of Wings, Trial by Fire. 4th level gives you Cleansing Fire, Healing Flames, 5th Level has flame Strike, If you expand it out to include light spells they get even more. Inquisitors don’t really need a lot of direct combat spells. Usually they focus on combat buff spells and their abilities. Being a spontaneous caster you are not going to want a lot of direct damage spells.
All Ifrit gives you is burning hands once per day. Devil Spawn replaces darkness with Pyrotechnics so you still gain a fire based spell like ability. Ifrit takes a penalty to WIS which is the last thing you want with a inquisitor. Gaining a 1st level spell like ability is a poor trade for lowering the DC of all your other spells by 1 and taking a hit on most class abilities.
I appreciate the intended help, but I've looked into this for months. I traded away burning hands anyway. What Ifrit gets that Tiefling does not is access to many fire themed racial feats and traits. I'm also taking the Immolator archetype, which is Ifrit only.
I know Inquisitors get some good fire spells, and my GM is allowing me a few more through my deity. I'm aware direct offense spells are sub-optimal, but they're part of my concept. My main combat schtick is any way to have burning weapons, hence the race, archetype, and spell choices. My GM was willing to allow me to take one Tiefling feat as an Ifrit to gain a gore attack, but he didn't feel like allowing Ifrit fire feats on a Tiefling.
DeathlessOne wrote: If this is the character I think Sysryke is playing, they've got a sufficient handle on the fire options available to an inquisitor. If it is that character, I am actually pleased they went Ifirit after all. Yep. Thanks again Deathless One. When I have a bit more time to tackle the formating, I'll be posting the build on that thread. It may not be the prettiest, but I feel everyone deserves a chance to see the baby they helped bring up :p
I grok do u wrote: Both Feronia (wiki link) and Sarenrae are both good options. Feronia for having been a wife of Dispater, so already has an association with Hell, and Sarenrae for being a goddess devoted to redemption.
For your (counter)points on torture/sadism, my rough reasoning was thus: Hell is generally known for fire (and oddly, cold), torture/torment, deals/contracts, hierarchy, and corruption. I considered torture and corruption as the evil portions, while deals/contracts and hierarchy as the lawful. I thought that through your "good" training you could come to specifically dislike torture and torment, perhaps recognizing that the casual torment you endured wasn't as "necessary" as your father claimed. While you may not go out of your way to alleviate suffering as a Good individual might, being averse to causing pain, unnecessarily, could still be in line with a Neutral position. It seemed like the better candidate to have as a growing anti-Hell attitude.
Corruption is usually a more nuanced and gradual thing - and usually held as something in strict contrast to a good rather than a neutral position.
Sadism/torture is a big part of many of the Evil creatures/deities, lawful, neutral, and chaotic.
Your view is perfectly valid, of course. It's your character. I am definitely approaching it more with Golarian bias, which may not square with your home game or personal takes.
I like all of this as a way to progress IF I end up becoming good. It's definitely something I want to roleplay struggling with and trying to understand. I think where the character is at right now though, he's really only been divorced from the ideals of corruption, blatant deceit, and tyranny. I think of him as having been in Hell for all of his formative years, and only on the mortal plane for the last few years.
The monks have only just pushed him out of his Evil tendencies. His being allowed out to adventure is basically them letting him off the leash to learn the values of freedom, loyalty, and comradery. He's not Evil, but he's also really not good. Yet? Only time will tell. So, no to sadism, but Lawful forms of corporal punishment, "enhanced interrogation", or retribution, yes for now.
Thanks for the Feronia link. I had no idea how similar my concept is to the lore about Ragathiel. That actually makes for a good reason why Feronia may have been willing to accept me, as my story has so many parallels to her most famous son.
|
