PDA

View Full Version : Good evil person?



Salbazier
2010-11-30, 08:05 AM
So, something bugging my mind.

A character concept. Someone who seems and does have good personality. She is kind, helpful toward others, blah blah blah. sort of things that make you like a person (and mind, that is honest. Not fabricated personality or whatever) Except the character is indulging in several form of atrocities that will be classified as Evil. Like, say cannibalism. And enjoy it too. Not feeling guilty or whatever.

Is this kind of concept workable? Any ideas of other kind of atrocities that can be used and how the character views it? If we consider the ever-confusing alignment system, where that character will be placed?

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-30, 08:11 AM
This concept is workable. No one said Evil has to be mean.

She is Evil, though, no doubt about that.

Johel
2010-11-30, 08:21 AM
So, something bugging my mind.

A character concept. Someone who seems and does have good personality. She is kind, helpful toward others, blah blah blah. sort of things that make you like a person (and mind, that is honest. Not fabricated personality or whatever) Except the character is indulging in several form of atrocities that will be classified as Evil. Like, say cannibalism. And enjoy it too. Not feeling guilty or whatever.

Is this kind of concept workable? Any ideas of other kind of atrocities that can be used and how the character views it? If we consider the ever-confusing alignment system, where that character will be placed?

Cannibalism, for the sake of survival, isn't itself evil per see. One can feed on any flesh without being cast as evil.
What is evil would be the act of hunting down your fellow humans to get the food.

The concept is perfectly workable.
Your character might be from a different culture.

One where it is perfectly reasonable to eat the hearth of her enemies and bath in their blood to "absorb their strength".
For her, that's the equivalent of planting her flag and scream victory.
And what LG paladin doesn't enjoy screaming victory ?

She values her friends for their spirit and personality and will go to great length to protect them.
But she sees nothing wrong about turning their bodies into tasty meals if they get killed, given that ressurection isn't that common (while undeads are).

I'd need more exemples of acts in context to answer the "alignment" question.

PersonMan
2010-11-30, 08:28 AM
I've done it before.

Party person-very charismatic, rides a brightly-colored creature and brings fun wherever she goes.

The creature is a skeleton basilisk, and she ruthlessly turns her foes into more undead, doing the same to corpses she finds on her journeys. She acknowledges that others find this evil, but she sees it as good-she's just using one of evil's most powerful tools against itself, right?

It works with quite a few types of things, raising undead, torture, "whatever is necessary" types of things, etc.

Cannibalism is fun, primarily because you can have the character carry around cooking equipment, cook wonderful meals, etc. When asked about their meals, they casually reply that it's human meat.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 08:47 AM
This concept is workable. No one said Evil has to be mean.

She is Evil, though, no doubt about that.

Unless you subscribe to the view that "the minimum amount of Evil needed to be Evil, is being willing to debase or destroy the innocent for fun or profit"

And that anyone unwilling to harm the innocent, cannot be evil, no matter how severe the atrocities they commit against the "not-innocent" are.

I do not, however, subscribe to this view.
I've mentioned the "Evildoer whose evil deeds are only ever inflicted on those who prey on the innocent, who are thus by definition not innocent" quite a few times before in threads.

It's usually someone who believes in An Eye For An Eye- only even more so. And believes the only way to truly protect the innocent, is to inflict extreme cruelty on those who prey on them- in order to deter such predation.

Rorscharch, Dexter, The Punisher, are all possible candidates for this kind of Evil character.

And cannibalism as a means of torture, might qualify as the sort of atrocity, which committed repeatedly, is likely to get a:

"I don't care how many innocents this person saves, or how unwilling they are to harm the innocent, they're Evil"

reaction.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-30, 08:52 AM
Evil committed in the name of Good is still Evil.

Ragitsu
2010-11-30, 08:53 AM
Evil committed in the name of Good is still Evil.

Thank you.

TheCIASentMe
2010-11-30, 08:58 AM
Wouldn't this type of person be considered chaotic neutral? Good acts and evil acts in an un-intentional balance? Not particularly caring or considering the laws of the location?

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 09:12 AM
There are two splatbooks I know of that discuss what happens when a character consistantly behaves in both a Good and an Evil fashion:

Heroes of Horror- Can be Neutral. This is primarily for classes that are built around casting [Evil] spells and the like- such as the Dread Necromancer.

Champions of Ruin- Evil. This may be restricted to doing the stronger Evil deeds though.

So- it may depend on how Evil the deeds are, and if a lot of the motivation is personal pleasure.


Evil committed in the name of Good is still Evil.

Sure- the question is though, how much Evil is needed to pull a character's alignment to Evil regardless of how much Good they do along the way?

WinceRind
2010-11-30, 09:23 AM
I fail to see how cannibalism is evil by the virtue of just being cannibalism.

Why does everyone instantly picture cannibalism as actively hunting down and killing your own kind in order to feed? It doesn't have to be like that.

A culture could practice cannibalism on their members after they already die. It can even be something glorified - i.e. A powerful tribal warrior kills a huge dragon that threatened to destroy the village, but he is mortally wounded and bleeds out. Assume no magic healing or resurrection exists (those always screw everything up...), and voila! The villagers honor the warrior by ceremonially eating his remains and making him closer to his people then he ever could be. Or something like that. Certainly believable in a tribal culture of sorts, and those barbarians ought to come from somewhere.

Or, to simplify it, it could be like cannibalism practiced by Martians in Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land", in which martians had a whole ceremony about eating their own dead due to general lack of nutrition on Mars.

The point I'm trying to make, cannibalism doesn't have to be evil. At all. And considering other descriptions OP provided, that makes the character either Good or Neutral.

Salbazier
2010-11-30, 09:24 AM
Cannibalism, for the sake of survival, isn't itself evil per see. One can feed on any flesh without being cast as evil.


In that case, one may not turn evil in alignment. Society views is a different thing



The concept is perfectly workable.
Your character might be from a different culture.

One where it is perfectly reasonable to eat the hearth of her enemies and bath in their blood to "absorb their strength".
For her, that's the equivalent of planting her flag and scream victory.
And what LG paladin doesn't enjoy screaming victory ?


Another idea will be raised in different condition that makes her held to different values. If one is raised in the wild, where a lot things if not everything is fair game, or raised in custody of creatures who see human as insignificant, one's sense of sanctity of fellow humanoids will be less.



She values her friends for their spirit and personality and will go to great length to protect them.
But she sees nothing wrong about turning their bodies into tasty meals if they get killed, given that ressurection isn't that common (while undeads are).


Yup, yup. I like this kind of description.

I'm still trying to decide on many aspects of her personality. Like how far she is consider her companions dislike to her indulgence. Is she didn't care much and only held it back to avoid whole city coming at her or did she took a lot effort to for her comapanions comfort, like limiting her frequency or at least trying to only eat those they dislike.

I want the personality to be consistent and make sense.

I got the idea of this scene:

The party is in a market of an 'EVIL city' and they are passing a slave vendor advertising one of his 'wares', a young humanoid.

"... and even if you think she will make a poor worker or entairtament material, looks at those tender flesh. Cooked in the right way,, she will definitely make a first class dish. In fact, let me recommend this shop who sells the perfect spice for this kind of dish..."

Oh, she will drool for sure. :smallbiggrin: But will she purchase the little girl? Because if selling sentient beings as a commodity justified in the first place, the working them to death or eating them is only natural extension and is fair as well. Or will she refrain from doing so? Because the 'ware' in question is a helpless young that may have been kidnapped from her family? The former choice may conflict with her stated personality of being good toward others.

Yes, like PersonMan said, this is a lot of fun, as long other players does not get creeped out by it.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 09:25 AM
The point I'm trying to make, cannibalism doesn't have to be evil. At all. And considering other descriptions OP provided, that makes the character either Good or Neutral.

It wasn't specified as being the only "atrocity" the character will do though:


Except the character is indulging in several form of atrocities that will be classified as Evil.


And enjoy it too. Not feeling guilty or whatever.

Salbazier
2010-11-30, 09:30 AM
@hamishspence

Right. I'm lacking idea of atrocities that may not conflict with said generally good personality, though. Because cannibalism, like what WinceRind said, is not automatically evil, or at least does not automatically make a someone a wanton murderer/psycopath

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 09:32 AM
As a means of torture or execution, it may qualify, though.

Think Rorschach from Watchmen, only instead of breaking fingers to get info, it's biting fingers off to get info.

You can probably think of others. Evil spells that inflict extreme suffering- if a caster. Methods of damaging souls.

Champions of Ruin has a Vile feat for melee characters, that badly damages "destroys" the soul of a being killed by you- making it very difficult to resurrect until you are dead.

The "generally Good personality" might be the face that everybody she's not designated a "deserving victim" sees.

Once someone has proven themselves deserving though (and she's careful to make sure it takes a lot of proof) the gloves come off, the teeth are bared, and other cliche phrases. :smallamused:

Salbazier
2010-11-30, 09:47 AM
Haha, 'the teeth are bared', like that phrase :smallbiggrin:. Hmm, that works too. BTW, I should not typing stuff about cannibalism when I'm feeling hungry. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 09:54 AM
Slightly more disturbing is using mind-controlling magic, to force the victim to self-cannibalize.

TheCIASentMe
2010-11-30, 10:13 AM
@hamishspence

Right. I'm lacking idea of atrocities that may not conflict with said generally good personality, though. Because cannibalism, like what WinceRind said, is not automatically evil, or at least does not automatically make a someone a wanton murderer/psycopath

Summon Demons and Devils to make deals. Also summon neutral and good creatures and make deals.

Summoning Demons and Devils and making deals is generally considered an evil act since they'll always want something that will help spread chaos/evil.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 10:17 AM
True- but quite a few such classes have "any nongood" rather than "any evil".

Casting [Evil] spells (which include Fiend-Summoning) is fairly low in terms of severity, on the list of corrupt acts- and a character whose evil acts are limited to this kind of thing, might be able to maintain a Neutral alignment going by Heroes of Horror. Indeed, the Malconvoker from Complete Scoundrel, can't be Evil- and is built around this- and get as a class feature, immunity to alignment shift caused by casting these kind of spells.

What one might be looking for here- is concentrated Evil- extremely severe evil acts.

Yet balanced with a genuine concern for others.

Nice Is Not Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil), after all.

TheCIASentMe
2010-11-30, 10:30 AM
It's troublesome then because genuinely evil acts often involve not being nice.

Murder/Vigilantism? That's a D&D staple, so it's not really evil.

Slavery? Not going to avoid being evil with this one.

Soul eating/destroying/trading/crafting? Yeah, even evil creatures shrink back from this.

Necromancy? Already partially discussed. Viable option for a good necromancer.

Cannibalism has already been mentioned.

So what's left? Torture is pretty bad. Stealing. Casting evil spells. Ruling with an iron yet fair fist.

They're evil acts with a small 'e' but if you do a lot of them then they'd add up to big 'E' Evil.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 10:36 AM
Slavery? Not going to avoid being evil with this one.

unless you're playing in Forgotten Realms Mulhorand.


Soul eating/destroying/trading/crafting? Yeah, even evil creatures shrink back from this.

Hence the suggestion of it being something that an Evil character who is "nice to everyone except their "deserving" victims" could indulge in, and stay Evil regardless of Good acts.


So what's left? Torture is pretty bad. Stealing. Casting evil spells. Ruling with an iron yet fair fist.

They're evil acts with a small 'e' but if you do a lot of them then they'd add up to big 'E' Evil.

Stealing is also a D&D staple- the Chaotic Good thief is a very common archetype.

Casting Evil Spells falls into the "might not pull a character all the way to Evil" class.

And so might "ruling with an iron yet fair fist"- a Neutral senior official in an Evil regime, like Thay or Dambrath, might be this.


It's troublesome then because genuinely evil acts often involve not being nice.

If the goal is to create a character who is Evil yet genuinely nice, focus may need to be on "Really Evil Acts" as the determiner of Evil alignment, rather than "Innocent Victims".

"Nice to everyone but bad guys" so to speak.

Salbazier
2010-11-30, 10:42 AM
Well, there is stuffs that, ugh, related to sexs. Better to not touch even with 10-ft pole. So, I guess I'll just focus mostly on cannibalism.

Now, slavery why it is impossible to avoid evil with this one? That's true in our society, but in ancient world slavery is very common and not necessarily bad. In some societies slave can have properties and buy their freedom. In some case, a certain slave position may even more desirable than being freeman. For fictional example, the seanchan from Wheel of Time. maybe, if one view slavery like what I describe in previous post, but this is not necessarily the view toward slavery.




Stealing is also a D&D staple- the Chaotic Good thief is a very common archetype.


Right, that actually disturb me a bit.

DeltaEmil
2010-11-30, 10:46 AM
unless you're playing in Forgotten Realms Mulhorand.It got destroyed, because it was unpopular and illogical. Also, it was boring.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 10:55 AM
So, I guess I'll just focus mostly on cannibalism.

Combined with high-end Dominate Person effects, and illusion, this can get very disturbing.

Example of "excessive retribution"- transform something "deserving" (a fiend?) into the villain's loved one.
Cast True Domination on the villain. Or Mindrape to implant an inescapable craving for the flesh of the designated victim. Make them eat what they believe to be their loved one.


Right, that actually disturb me a bit.

On stealing, "Rob those deserving of being robbed" is the usual rationale.

leakingpen
2010-11-30, 10:55 AM
Hmm. On the same token, what about a truly good person, who every now and then goes nuts and ritually kills a person? A serial killer who gives to the poor, puts their own life on the line for others, kisses babys, pets puppys. but they have a dark secret....


The thing to remember is that alignment is the general behavior of a person. Its an unrealistic MECHANIC to separate the white hats and black hats, because its easier that way.

But there are always going to be exceptions.

On the exact example, cannibalism, I'm reminded of a line from a Heinlein novel.
"Remember, in a cannibalistic society, it is immoral to NOT eat human flesh."

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 10:57 AM
Hmm. On the same token, what about a truly good person, who every now and then goes nuts and ritually kills a person? A serial killer who gives to the poor, puts their own life on the line for others, kisses babys, pets puppys. but they have a dark secret....

Champions of Ruin calls that a good example for evil-aligned:

"most of the time they are good, but their "curse" outweighs all the good they do."

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-30, 11:01 AM
Warning; Relevant TV Trope link - Affably Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil)
Do not click if you have somewhere to be.

I generally approve of the idea, btw.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 11:08 AM
Warning; Relevant TV Trope link - Affably Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil)
Do not click if you have somewhere to be.

I generally approve of the idea, btw.

Nice is not Good was one of the alternate names:


Nice Is Not Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil), after all.

though I didn't mention that the link was to TV Tropes.

I like the idea in general of "Evildoer but Would Not Hurt An Innocent"- which is why I regularly dispute any claims that such characters have to be Neutral.

TheCIASentMe
2010-11-30, 11:20 AM
Well, there is stuffs that, ugh, related to sexs. Better to not touch even with 10-ft pole. So, I guess I'll just focus mostly on cannibalism.

Now, slavery why it is impossible to avoid evil with this one? That's true in our society, but in ancient world slavery is very common and not necessarily bad. In some societies slave can have properties and buy their freedom. In some case, a certain slave position may even more desirable than being freeman. For fictional example, the seanchan from Wheel of Time. maybe, if one view slavery like what I describe in previous post, but this is not necessarily the view toward slavery.



Right, that actually disturb me a bit.

Well when you get down to the brass tacks it does depend on what you mean by slavery. Ancient world slavery was very common and, despite what you may have heard, was generally pretty bad. Yes they could be freed... and you COULD win the lotto...

The real question is whether you would call these individuals slaves or prisoners? If they're serving a sentence as punishment for a crime, is it slavery? If they've willingly sold themselves for a certain period of time, is it slavery?

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 11:26 AM
And what if they are a people that been "slaves by birth" for centuries, without ever being especially mistreated?

David Eddings went out of his way to make the Atans in the trilogy The Tamuli this.

Their own ruler sold the whole race into slavery centuries ago- to save it from extinction- they're supposedly so homicidal that if not ordered to refrain from doing it, they'll kill each other over minor arguments.

TheCIASentMe
2010-11-30, 11:30 AM
I've never read the books. So I can't really debate that with you, but also keep in mind that you're citing a source of fiction.

I think the best answer to this would actually be whatever the DM says. If s/he considers it evil or not then... whelp?

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 11:33 AM
I've never read the books. So I can't really debate that with you, but also keep in mind that you're citing a source of fiction.

It's a case of some fantasy writers, trying to write some versions of slavery, that are justifiable.

So "Slavery is evil in a fantasy setting" may vary depending on the writer.

Salbazier
2010-11-30, 11:38 AM
Not necessarily bad is no directly contradict generally bad. Nevertheless it is accepted by the society.

leakingpen
2010-11-30, 11:42 AM
Honestly, feudalism is nothing more than dressed up slavery. You are the vassals of the lord of the lands you live on, working away, giving them a big portion of everything you make, for the privilege of being allowed to live. You aren't allowed to move elsewhere, and if the lord comes around, you do what they tell you. just about any kingdom in a D and D style game, you have slaves, whether you call them slaves or not.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 11:44 AM
It seems like there are very few acts which are generally considered a Moral Event Horizon, that don't involve harm coming to the innocent in some way.

"Damaging/destroying souls" is a BoVD example of "unquestionably a sign of an evil alignment."

"Murder for pleasure" and "inflicting indescribable torture" top the list of Corrupt Acts in Fiendish Codex 2.

"punishing someone with Death By Torture" would probably qualify as this.

Yet, even for that, there are fantasy authors, most notably Terry Goodkind, who would argue:

"sometimes it's a justified thing to do and not an evil thing".


Honestly, feudalism is nothing more than dressed up slavery. You are the vassals of the lord of the lands you live on, working away, giving them a big portion of everything you make, for the privilege of being allowed to live. You aren't allowed to move elsewhere, and if the lord comes around, you do what they tell you. just about any kingdom in a D and D style game, you have slaves, whether you call them slaves or not.

DMG2 does make a distinction between "feudalism" and "slavery". The main difference is that, in feudalism, the serf is not property.

Salbazier
2010-11-30, 11:48 AM
But Serf are part of the estate - the property. They cannot move from estate to another estate without permission (among other limitations), at least that a little tidbit i remember from history book. They are passed along with the estate.

Ruinix
2010-11-30, 11:49 AM
all this discusion remind me a real story of those rugby players from uruguay wich their plane crash in the Andes and the survirvors had to EAT their mates (wich alredy die on the crash or by frost) for save their self from death by starvation.

Salbazier
2010-11-30, 11:51 AM
all this discusion remind me a real story of those rugby players from uruguay wich their plane crash in the Andes and the survirvors had to EAT their mates (wich alredy die on the crash or by frost) for save their self from death by starvation.

Oh yeah, didn't know the true story, by i read a lot stories based on that premise. Though, that was far from what we are talking about here.

This discussion made me realized a lot potential in writing stories/making characters revolving around cannibalism.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 11:56 AM
But Serf are part of the estate - the property. They cannot move from estate to another estate without permission (among other limitations), at least that a little tidbit i remember from history book. They are passed along with the estate.

I think (at least in DMG2) they can't be sold to someone else though.

In a D&D context, there is a difference, even if it's a small one. And, depending on the setting, they may have more legal protection than most slaves.


This discussion made me realized a lot potential in writing stories/making characters revolving around cannibalism.

I'm interested in:

"Can a character cross the Moral Event Horizon, or even reach Complete Monsterhood, without ever gaining a willingness to harm the innocent?"

Cannibalism can be a part of it. Creating a scenario where the character's "deserving victim" is magically compelled to eat what they think is their most loved one (sibling, spouse, child, friend, etc)- alive.

Starbuck_II
2010-11-30, 12:51 PM
So, something bugging my mind.

A character concept. Someone who seems and does have good personality. She is kind, helpful toward others, blah blah blah. sort of things that make you like a person (and mind, that is honest. Not fabricated personality or whatever) Except the character is indulging in several form of atrocities that will be classified as Evil. Like, say cannibalism. And enjoy it too. Not feeling guilty or whatever.

Is this kind of concept workable? Any ideas of other kind of atrocities that can be used and how the character views it? If we consider the ever-confusing alignment system, where that character will be placed?

You shouldn't list Cannabalism dude. Book of Vile Darkness says it isn't evil unless you gain power (vile spell/et cetera) from doing it.

So we need other "atrocities" to see if she is actually doing evil.

Otherwise I'd say TN (Leaning evil)) or NE (but leaning good).

JaronK
2010-11-30, 12:59 PM
I've played with this one before, and it's great fun. I made a sociopathic necromancer... whose primary goal was to have friends and be liked. As such, he tried quite hard to be genuinely a good person around the party (he wanted them to like him) and in any public place (where people might pass on stories of how good a person he was). But at the same time, he saw absolutely nothing wrong with raising the dead (they could protect his friends!) or, outside their line of sight, doing horrible things to anyone who got in his way or his friends way.

Lots of fun. Fits in great with good parties (though they may not be able to know you're raising an army of the dead and hiding them in Enveloping Pits, saving it for an emergency...).

JaronK

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 01:18 PM
You shouldn't list Cannabalism dude. Book of Vile Darkness says it isn't evil unless you gain power (vile spell/et cetera) from doing it.

So we need other "atrocities" to see if she is actually doing evil.

cannibalism of a dead victim- maybe not.

Cannibalism of a living victim, however, might qualify as Death By Torture.
Magically compelling someone to cannibalize themselves until they die, probably also qualifies.

Starbuck_II
2010-11-30, 01:20 PM
cannibalism of a dead victim- maybe not.

Cannibalism of a living victim, however, might qualify as Death By Torture.
Magically compelling someone to cannibalize themselves until they die, probably also qualifies.

But that has nothing to do with cannablism as a evil.

Only murder as evil (cannablism is just as method like a sword).
and
making someone kill themselves as evil (debateable as that is a non aligned Psionic power).

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 01:24 PM
Torture is evil (by Fiendish Codex 2)

"Bringing despair" also qualifies in BoVD.

Magically making someone torture themselves, or a being they believe to be their loved one, is pretty strong on the "mental torture" issue as well as the "physical torture"

It seems more torturous to me, to be magically compelled to carve little bits of oneself, and eat them, until one dies of blood loss, than simply to be magically compelled to kill oneself by conventional means.

Salbazier
2010-11-30, 01:25 PM
cannibalism of a dead victim- maybe not.

Cannibalism of a living victim, however, might qualify as Death By Torture.
Magically compelling someone to cannibalize themselves until they die, probably also qualifies.

While cannibalism by compulsion is not exactly where I want to go with this character (though that was interestin idea) Cannibalism of the living interesting. Food taste good while fresh after all*. Not Evil if not gaining power? Well, not sure about official materials but I've seen several piece of homebrew around this forum that give benefits from eating sapient being's flesh. It makes sense to get some benefits if there is some that can be gained. It makes it not just mere or indulgence, but something actually beneficial and worth the pain :smallsmile:

*I said that, but this this remind me to a half-life, half-cooked fish dish sold somewhere in china. That drives appetite away.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 01:28 PM
While cannibalism by compulsion is not exactly where I want to go with this character (though that was interestin idea) Cannibalism of the living interesting. Food taste good while fresh after all*.


Combined with it being used as a method of interrogation, a la Rorschach, it could be pretty nasty.


Not Evil if not gaining power? Well, not sure about official materials but I've seen several piece of homebrew around this forum that give benefits from eating sapient being's flesh.

BoVD also suggests doing it primarily for the pleasure is Evil- not just for magical power.

mucat
2010-11-30, 01:28 PM
So, something bugging my mind.

A character concept. Someone who seems and does have good personality. She is kind, helpful toward others, blah blah blah. sort of things that make you like a person (and mind, that is honest. Not fabricated personality or whatever) Except the character is indulging in several form of atrocities that will be classified as Evil. Like, say cannibalism. And enjoy it too. Not feeling guilty or whatever.

Is this kind of concept workable? Any ideas of other kind of atrocities that can be used and how the character views it? If we consider the ever-confusing alignment system, where that character will be placed?

The specific example of cannibalism may not be the best one to use -- as people have mentioned throughout this threat, this can be seen as a social taboo rather than a truly evil act, depending on how the character obtains her "food", and why she is doing this.

But yes, it's perfectly plausible to have a sociable, good-natured character who does a great deal of good for those around her, while herself being thoroughly evil. It does not even have to be the oft-cited example of someone who is "faking" their good actions, or doing them for self-serving purposes. She could help people because she genuinely likes them and cares for their well-being, but still be...

Well, there are lots of ways you could end that sentence. A brutal racist who cares deeply for "her kind of people" and goes to great length to help them, but oppresses those who aren't. A ruthless crime boss who eliminates anyone she sees as a threat, while also funding orphanages not for the PR, but simply because she knows what it's like to grow up poor. A community-minded wizard who always has a Levitate spell prepared to help the neighbors get their cat out of a tree...and has murdered three book collectors to keep them quiet about clues to the location of a rare tome she has been seeking all her life.

All these characters are undeniably evil, but you could know them for weeks or years and only see their good sides. The good they do isn't faked or self-serving; it's a genuine part of who they are...and still not nearly enough to make up for their crimes.

leakingpen
2010-11-30, 01:31 PM
Oh yeah, didn't know the true story, by i read a lot stories based on that premise. Though, that was far from what we are talking about here.

This discussion made me realized a lot potential in writing stories/making characters revolving around cannibalism.

Seriously. People would eat that up!

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 01:31 PM
But yes, it's perfectly plausible to have a sociable, good-natured character who does a great deal of good for those around her, while herself being thoroughly evil. It does not even have to be the oft-cited example of someone who is "faking" their good actions, or doing them for self-serving purposes. She could help people because she genuinely likes them and cares for their well-being, but still be...

Well, there are lots of ways you could end that sentence.

A person who wreaks Horrible Vengeance on those they deem "deserving" of it can qualify as well.

It's being willing to Do Evil, that can matter more than Who the person Does Evil Things To.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-30, 01:50 PM
But Serf are part of the estate - the property. They cannot move from estate to another estate without permission (among other limitations), at least that a little tidbit i remember from history book. They are passed along with the estate.
At the lowest rungs I see what you mean. However, surfs, at least in theory, also had rights. Feudalism was basically a system of promises to protect, with obligations in exchange for such. It provided a certain amount of stability without a need for a strong central government. But enough political discussion, to answer the question, yes.
Evil isn't just moustache twirling fiends, it can be that man who goes home to his family after a long day, and goes for a couple of drinks at the tavern. Doesn't talk about his job much, but always good for a laugh 'ol Harry is. Harry works as professional torturer for the Gorzon Inquisition, making heretics to Gorzon confess. He likes his job, always meeting new people.
Evil can be so mundane. Sure, a lot Evil people are jerks, but that doesn't have to be the case.
I so want to try using that Evil Overlord suggestion sometime of having the BBEG have his grandchild/child over when the PC's arrive.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 02:08 PM
Sure, a lot Evil people are jerks, but that doesn't have to be the case.

There's an interesting monster in Munchin Monster Manual 2.5:

Auntie-paladins:


The forces of evil have long been plagued by those stalwart defenders of justice and decency, the paladins. So it came to be that the overlords of Heck - yes, that Heck, known more formally in diabolist circles as H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks - convened to create the ultimate foes of goodness, the auntie paladins. They would be the darkness to the paladins' light ... fish paste to their peanut butter ... line dancers to their boy band.

As it happens, however, paladins in munchkin worlds are a funny bunch. Somehow, the concept of a "valiant and selfless paragon of virtue" always seems to end up manifesting as a "total blowhard git." Thus, while auntie paladins are indeed as evil as paladins claim to be good, they are also as sweet and motherly as real paladins are jerks.

Auntie paladins roam the world, raising vast armies of evil, which they finance with the contents of their swear jars.

Gamer Girl
2010-11-30, 02:22 PM
In general, an evil person can choose not to do evil things and still be evil. For example, an evil person can choose not to murder someone, and still be evil.

A good person, on the other hand, as to work to be good and can not, in general, choose not to do a good thing. For example a good person can't refuse to help someone as they don't feel like it.

So an evil person can go along and even pretend to be good, while being evil all along. They are after all lying.


In my world, lots of evil folks live mixed in with the good folks. They just keep their evil out of public view. A great example is a fighter who likes to randomly murder people. He becomes a guard as he can then, by the law, kill people. He is the classic 'I caught the halfling but he reached into his pocket , so in self defense I had to behead him'. Sure he might be told about 'excessive force' and such..but mostly he will just be forgiven as being 'hot headed'.

And you can do a great evil cannibal with like an innkeeper. He watches for people traveling alone to take an kill. Most towns won't even notice the occasional traveler that vanishes. He can even do the false evil justice...Joe rapes a farm girl...and then vanishes, and everyone assumes he simply fled the town..not into the innkeepers belly.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 02:25 PM
In general, an evil person can choose not to do evil things and still be evil. For example, an evil person can choose not to murder someone, and still be evil.

A good person, on the other hand, as to work to be good and can not, in general, choose not to do a good thing. For example a good person can't refuse to help someone as they don't feel like it.

While a good character isn't required to "act good" all the time (PHB does mention that they can sometimes behave in a "not-good" fashion)

in general, it's true that being Good is an ongoing thing and repeatedly turning down opportunities to do Good can lead to alignment slippage.

Gamer Girl
2010-11-30, 02:30 PM
While a good character isn't required to "act good" all the time (PHB does mention that they can sometimes behave in a "not-good" fashion)

in general, it's true that being Good is an ongoing thing and repeatedly turning down opportunities to do Good can lead to alignment slippage.

Yes, you don't have to 'act good' all the time. But you have to act good at least half the time. And you can't let the big ones slide too much.

An evil person, for example, can choose not to murder someone, for no reason other then they feel like it.

A good person, who saw a house on fire with people burning inside, could not choose to say 'eh, I don't feel like trying to help'.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-30, 02:31 PM
A Good person is not obligated to help everyone in need. They'll just tend to gravitate towards doing so.

If it's far too dangerous, you can choose not to run into the burning building.

Thajocoth
2010-11-30, 02:33 PM
This sounds like a sort of blue-orange morality. On D&D's alignment scale, it's going to register as Chaotic Evil, like most orange-blue stuff does.

In MY alignment system, I don't see cannibalism as evil. So, I'd give a Chaotic Good alignment to your example. I think my morality might actually be somewhat orange-blue though...

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 02:33 PM
Yes, you don't have to 'act good' all the time. But you have to act good at least half the time. And you can't let the big ones slide too much.

In FC2- "Most people are only weakly aligned. They rarely commit acts strongly enough aligned to register as Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic"

If this applies to all alignments- then you can be Good and "rarely" commit acts that are Good with a capital G, or Evil and rarely commit Evil acts, and so on.

Gamer Girl
2010-11-30, 02:38 PM
A Good person is not obligated to help everyone in need. They'll just tend to gravitate towards doing so.

If it's far too dangerous, you can choose not to run into the burning building.

Sigh. Yes A good person does not need to run into the burning building to help. To just call out 'Fire!' is help. Or to help others fill buckets of water.

The point is that a good person can't choose not to help, in most cases...especially immediate ones. If they see someone on fire less then 20 feet away, they can't just say 'Think I'll go take a nap'.

Yes, they don't have to help every single person in town every single second of the day....but they can't avoid doing good for immediate things.


While the evil woman, if she see the back door was left open as everyone ran to the house fire, can choose to say 'Eh, don't feel like stealing all that money'.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-30, 02:41 PM
In FC2- "Most people are only weakly aligned. They rarely commit acts strongly enough aligned to register as Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic"

If this applies to all alignments- then you can be Good and "rarely" commit acts that are Good with a capital G, or Evil and rarely commit Evil acts, and so on.
I think that's more saying most people are Neutral, in the apathetic sense. They may gross about the high taxes in the tavern, but they aren't about to join a revolution. They won't murder someone, but nor will they stop someone from being harmed.
That is what that says to me, not "You can be Good without doing good, Evil without doing evil" That's actually a pretty scary mindset to me to tell the truth.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 02:43 PM
I wonder if similar principles apply to Law/Chaos?

Given that Law's the one with "obesiance points" to parallel Evil's corruption points, maybe a Lawful person can behave with indifference when there's an opportunity to do an especially Lawful thing,

but a Chaotic person must try and "stay Chaotic" and if they keep passing up opportunities, maybe they'll slip to Neutral?


I think that's more saying most people are Neutral, in the apathetic sense. They may gross about the high taxes in the tavern, but they aren't about to join a revolution. They won't murder someone, but nor will they stop someone from being harmed.
That is what that says to me, not "You can be Good without doing good, Evil without doing evil" That's actually a pretty scary mindset to me to tell the truth.

Given that humans "tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" (even though it's the "typical" or "most common" alignment), maybe most people are not Neutral, but aligned (though weakly) to one of the other eight?

Being Good without doing Good every minute of the day, but only doing it rarely (only rarely compared the number of nonaligned acts though) seems quite feasible to me.

In the same way, an Evil character will spend most of their time doing unaligned acts- only rarely will they do Evil acts. But it's still common enough, that they are "repeatedly and consistently doing Evil".

Gamer Girl
2010-11-30, 02:54 PM
In FC2- "Most people are only weakly aligned. They rarely commit acts strongly enough aligned to register as Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic"

If this applies to all alignments- then you can be Good and "rarely" commit acts that are Good with a capital G, or Evil and rarely commit Evil acts, and so on.

For a normal person, say a tailor or town guard, a normal day does not involve them even doing anything much alignment-wise. The tailor will be working all day, no chance to even do anything good or evil. The typical persons day is mostly alignment less for good and evil.

It's mostly only when a crisis pops up will you see good/evil alignment. For example does the tailor help fight the nearby house fire, or stay and watch his shop, as it's important no smoke form the fire gets on his cloth.


Law and Chaos alignments are more part of daily life. Law lawful person is the time that gets up at the same time every day, eats the exact same thing for breakfast, and takes the same way to work. He does everything according to a very set plan. The chaotic person gets up whenever, eats whatever, and is often late for work. The chaotic person has no plan and just does things at random.

A lawful person follows the laws, the chaotic person does not.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 02:58 PM
Law and Chaos alignments are more part of daily life. Law lawful person is the time that gets up at the same time every day, eats the exact same thing for breakfast, and takes the same way to work. He does everything according to a very set plan. The chaotic person gets up whenever, eats whatever, and is often late for work. The chaotic person has no plan and just does things at random.

A lawful person follows the laws, the chaotic person does not.

There can be a certain amount of variation within that (a lawful character who resents authority, or a chaotic character who while disorganized, whimsical, and so on, tries to follow the laws) but in general, these are the stereotypes.

Gamer Girl
2010-11-30, 03:05 PM
There can be a certain amount of variation within that (a lawful character who resents authority, or a chaotic character who while disorganized, whimsical, and so on, tries to follow the laws) but in general, these are the stereotypes.

People in general, fall into three types:

1.They Always will follow the law, no matter what (25%)
2.They will Never follow the law, no matter what(25%)
3.They follow the laws, mostly to no get 'caught' or 'in trouble'. They are more then willing to break just about any law if they think they could get away with it.(50%)

Driving is a great example here:
1.They drive the exact posted speed limit..Always.
2.They drive whatever speed they want..often fast(and often have many tickets, license taken away, and such)
3.General do the speed limit if their is traffic. Will gladly drive fast if they think their are no cops around, and will watch out for know 'cop hiding spots'.

Terraoblivion
2010-11-30, 03:26 PM
Honestly, feudalism is nothing more than dressed up slavery. You are the vassals of the lord of the lands you live on, working away, giving them a big portion of everything you make, for the privilege of being allowed to live. You aren't allowed to move elsewhere, and if the lord comes around, you do what they tell you. just about any kingdom in a D and D style game, you have slaves, whether you call them slaves or not.

You mean apart from the part where feudalism has nothing to do with the labor relations at estates and instead denotes a system of government where the sovereign of the area hands over the area to be ruled in his name by a subordinate?

What you are talking about is serfdom and only in its most radical, rarely manifested forms. The only case of European style serfdom i have heard about where the lord had the right to actually kill you at a whim was absolutist Russia, which was very noteworthily not feudal but absolutist. What is further remarkable is that all the most radical examples of serfdom that we have in a European context took place under absolutist systems as opposed to feudal ones. That is to say, in countries where the king was the supreme ruler of the entire country and the nobles solely served as bureaucrats and officers, as opposed to subordinate rulers.

Similarly the prime example of European feudalism would be medieval Britain which was noteworthy for its small population of serfs and its large number of freeholders.

You really should take a few seconds to learn what the terms you use mean, it is much more conductive to a reasoned discourse. Especially when it is unlikely that the developers failed to make the distinction between serfdom and feudalism in their description.

WeLoveFireballs
2010-11-30, 04:36 PM
One time I played a character who was evil though not always obviously so. When the party found and confronted him out he politely said:

"You are all well aware I can brutally murder all of you in under a minute so please let that subject be for your sake as well as mine."

He was a true bad***! His greatest moment was leaping twenty feet to tackle a necromancer twice his level who was threatening the petrified halfling cleric (lovingly refered to as "Pancake" or "Puppy") with a poisoned knife, beating him unconscious and then pick-pocketing the cleric.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-30, 05:13 PM
Given that humans "tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" (even though it's the "typical" or "most common" alignment), maybe most people are not Neutral, but aligned (though weakly) to one of the other eight?

Being Good without doing Good every minute of the day, but only doing it rarely (only rarely compared the number of nonaligned acts though) seems quite feasible to me.

In the same way, an Evil character will spend most of their time doing unaligned acts- only rarely will they do Evil acts. But it's still common enough, that they are "repeatedly and consistently doing Evil".

I agree that Evil doesn't have to spend it's time doing evil every minute, eating kittens for fun. Though CS Lewis Perelandra has an example of True Evil that is both very intelligent and disgustingly petty. It is terrifying. But then, he IS Satan.
But I still say from observation, not rules, that most people are Neutral.

Grelna the Blue
2010-11-30, 05:16 PM
So, something bugging my mind.

A character concept. Someone who seems and does have good personality. She is kind, helpful toward others, blah blah blah. sort of things that make you like a person (and mind, that is honest. Not fabricated personality or whatever) Except the character is indulging in several form of atrocities that will be classified as Evil. Like, say cannibalism. And enjoy it too. Not feeling guilty or whatever.

Is this kind of concept workable? Any ideas of other kind of atrocities that can be used and how the character views it? If we consider the ever-confusing alignment system, where that character will be placed?

Of course, such a concept as you put forth is easily imaginable. Before the Civil War, there were people living in the southern parts of the U.S. who were pleasant, kind to friends, notoriously hospitable to strangers, courteous, honorable (by their standards), and yet at the same time cruel slavemasters. The culturally accepted practice of slavery tainted and degraded some people who would otherwise easily have qualified as Good and many more who would have qualified as Neutral.

Another, much less severe, example is the kender from the Dragonlance setting, who absentmindedly "borrow" anything interesting that isn't nailed down. Stealing isn't an atrocity on the Good/Evil scale, but on the Law/Chaos scale it's pretty bad.

So if you have your character come from a region where these practices (whatever they are) are no big deal, then it's easy. You may have difficulty maintaining that position in the face of the party's disapproval.

You could also give such characters a very specific mental illness that causes them to think they are doing something else (e.g., slaughtering disguised kobolds or vampiric halflings rather than innocent children) and in that case you could say that their alignment was non-evil (although probably no better than neutral). However, the rules are fuzzy in establishing how such an illness might be cured.

It can be a lot of fun to introduce this sort of character into a game. As a GM, I make about 1/4 of my villains "nice" and/or charismatic. Several times, I've gotten parties to accept them as non-villainous allies...at least for a time. Someone who commits atrocities (grossly evil acts) is Evil, no matter how otherwise nice they are (unless, as said above, they literally "know not what they do"). But that doesn't automatically make them monstrous. Evil people can have friends, loved ones, and sometimes can even genuinely care about "the greater good." I've had a PC party accept a brutal but likeable cleric (and former slaver) of the god of Blood and Conquest as a temporary ally and another one accept a ditzy and clueless necromancer who named and made pets of animated furry animals and crawling claws. They eventually redeemed the necromancer and brought her to the Light Side. They eventually alienated the slaver by destroying a piece of evil treasure to which he felt he had a right (that's right, the moral outrage that breaks up Good/Evil alliances can sometimes stem from the bad guy). Had a paladin or good cleric been with the party, however, that association with the slaver would have been untenable from the beginning.

With that in mind, have fun but don't assume that it's the other players' fault if the association doesn't work out.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 05:19 PM
I agree that Evil doesn't have to spend it's time doing evil every minute, eating kittens for fun. Though CS Lewis Perelandra has an example of True Evil that is both very intelligent and disgustingly petty. It is terrifying. But then, he IS Satan.
But I still say from observation, not rules, that most people are Neutral.

May depend on your perspective-

how many Evil Regimes in a D&D world are there, how much does the regime tend to corrupt its citizens, and how much Evil does an average D&D commoner need to do to get an Evil alignment.

If these all combine to increase probability of individuals in a D&D world being Evil, Neutral may merely be "the most common alignment for humans" (which is what the PHB says).

This is a very different proposition from "most humans are Neutral"- which would require that over 50% of humans in a D&D world be Neutral.


Someone who commits atrocities (grossly evil acts) is Evil, no matter how otherwise nice they are (unless, as said above, they literally "know not what they do"). But that doesn't automatically make them monstrous. Evil people can have friends, loved ones, and sometimes can even genuinely care about "the greater good."

This.

RedSun
2010-11-30, 06:04 PM
So, something bugging my mind.

A character concept. Someone who seems and does have good personality. She is kind, helpful toward others, blah blah blah. sort of things that make you like a person (and mind, that is honest. Not fabricated personality or whatever) Except the character is indulging in several form of atrocities that will be classified as Evil. Like, say cannibalism. And enjoy it too. Not feeling guilty or whatever.

Is this kind of concept workable? Any ideas of other kind of atrocities that can be used and how the character views it? If we consider the ever-confusing alignment system, where that character will be placed?
Yes.

She has a child-like mentality and is impulsive and immature. She deals with enemies with anger and bloodlust. If her enemy dies in the process, why not eat him? No point wasting the whole buffalo and all that. (And reprimanding her will be like lecturing a child.)

And she treats friends like friends. May even get attached to a proxy parental figure in the party. If you do her a favor you get the questionable distinction of her friendship.

She may take bullying to an extreme simply because she doesn't know better.

It's probably some form of psychopathy.

kyoryu
2010-11-30, 06:25 PM
Sigh. Yes A good person does not need to run into the burning building to help. To just call out 'Fire!' is help. Or to help others fill buckets of water.

The point is that a good person can't choose not to help, in most cases...especially immediate ones. If they see someone on fire less then 20 feet away, they can't just say 'Think I'll go take a nap'.


I agree with this sentiment, but I'd say it slightly differently.

A Good person *wants* to help. They see a fire, and their instinct is to help the people inside. It's not a matter of thinking, "oh, jeeze, I'm Good, so I guess I have to help." It's a matter of their inner compulsions.

If someone walks past a burning building and thinks, "meh, not my problem," they're probably not Good.

That doesn't mean that a Good person *has* to help every fire - they can realize, for instance, that they'd do more harm than good if there's an organized effort underway. It means that their initial impulse or reaction is to help.

With Evil, it's the same, but more a matter of "I want this, even though I'll have to harm others to get it." The first impulse of an Evil person would be "so go get it." It's not that they necessarily want to hurt people, it's just that whether they do or not is basically irrelevant to them. (They can *want* to hurt people, which just really compounds the issue).

I see Law/Chaos in the same view as well. A Lawful person *wants* order, and will try to create order where there is none. If forced to operate without a chain of command or set of rules and procedures, they'll be unhappy, and continually try to create rules/procedures to follow. A Chaotic person, on the other hand, will actively chafe under a structured environment or chain of command, and continually try to work to give more freedom of action to the individuals involved, and grant them more leeway to use the rules as guidelines rather than absolutes.

hamishspence
2010-11-30, 06:31 PM
A character might exhibit mixed traits (but that wouldn't necessarily indicate Neutrality).

For example, excess disorder might lead them to suggest people get more organized- excess order might kick off their instinct to rebel- but they might have other traits putting them into one or the other.

John Spartan in Demolition Man might be a good example of a CG character with this:

At the end of the movie:
(To the police of San Angeles): "You. Get a little dirty"
(To Edgar Friendly and his rebels): "You. A lot cleaner."
"And somewhere in the middle- well, you'll figure it out."

For the Good/Evil axis, a character's Good trait might be an instinctive empathy for others (assumed to be innocent till proven otherwise) and a default reaction to others being in trouble, being to help them.
Their Evil trait, might be insane levels of sadism and cruelty toward the "not-innocent"- which they indulge at every opportunity.

With Evil, it's the same, but more a matter of "I want this, even though I'll have to harm others do Evil things to get it."
Sometimes "this" can be something most people stand to benefit from. At other times, it might not. What sets the Evil character out is their ruthlessness- they are willing to do Evil deeds of some sort to achieve that goal.
What kind of Evil deeds though, may vary considerably- and if they are mild enough, and what they want is Good enough, then the character might be able to maintain a Neutral alignment.
If the deeds are severe enough though, or the goal is more selfish, then the Evil deeds might lead to an Evil Alignment.

kyoryu
2010-11-30, 07:45 PM
Sometimes "this" can be something most people stand to benefit from. At other times, it might not. What sets the Evil character out is their ruthlessness- they are willing to do Evil deeds of some sort to achieve that goal.
What kind of Evil deeds though, may vary considerably- and if they are mild enough, and what they want is Good enough, then the character might be able to maintain a Neutral alignment.
If the deeds are severe enough though, or the goal is more selfish, then the Evil deeds might lead to an Evil Alignment.

Agreed entirely (but we generally do on alignment debates).

I would argue that it is possible for a Good character to perform Evil acts and still be Good - if the cause were righteous enough, the Evil act minor enough, and sufficient penance was done. Where the real slippage comes is when the Good character no longer has remorse for his actions, or doesn't try everything to avoid them in the first place.

hamishspence
2010-12-01, 04:32 AM
Champions of Ruin does say that "Even Good characters can be driven to these from time to time"- so committing evil acts may not lead to alignment change from Good right away. Not unless it's something really big (DMG does mention that instant alignment changes can happen- but they're the exception rather than the rule).

It's when the evil acts become consistant- standard operating procedure- that the character is likely to become Neutral if the acts are minor, and Evil if the acts are major.

Burner28
2010-12-01, 06:20 AM
Rorscharch, Dexter, The Punisher, are all possible candidates for this kind of Evil character.



From what I have read, Rorschach has been argued or interpreted to be every alignment except Neutral Evil

hamishspence
2010-12-01, 06:24 AM
True- arguments for him being any kind of Evil, are dependant on,

1: identifying some of his acts as Evil (as defined by multiple D&D splatbooks)

2: identifying a willingness to repeatedly, unrepentantly, commit Evil acts, as a mark of an Evil alignment (Champions of Ruin).

Burner28
2010-12-04, 01:32 PM
On stealing, "Rob those deserving of being robbed" is the usual rationale.

Hmmmm. But who would qualify under those "deserving of being robbed"?

hamishspence
2010-12-05, 11:54 AM
Hmmmm. But who would qualify under those "deserving of being robbed"?

People who have obtained their goods by nefarious means- coercion, robbery, and so on.
For some thieves, rich characters who gain their riches through manipulating the gullible might also count.