I am a bad person....

[Another_Poet]

Based on Tarquin's business model, his management skills and his life philosophy, I'd work for him. If I lived in the OOTS world, I mean.

Would you?

(I'm assuming that I have PC class levels. I don't want to be Minion #110, I want to be at least marginally valuable so I can work my way up through the ranks and enjoy this life of awesome he describes.)

[ThePhantasm]

Um, no. People are liking what Tarquin said because he is persuasive and eloquent. But really he has just bought into his own delusion about what really matters in life. All he cares about is being a legend, no matter what he is known for. That may constitute a "victory" for Tarquin, but it is no victory in my eyes, and I wouldn't want to be a part of it.

Tarquin is a great villain, the kind I love to hate. Don't get me wrong, he's a brilliant character. But work for him? Like Elan, I think I'd run away, or fight him.

[TreesOfDeath]

Hes awesome, but no, like other evil employees, he doesn't value your life.

If you work for him, you'll probably end up a red shirt soldier, a puppet govener waiting to be overthrown, a gladitor slave the insant you annoy him, or possibly killed/sacrficed for his amusement.

[Lvl45DM!]

Yes, you are a bad person, desiring to work for an Evil man.
Most of his workers wouldn't be that evil, just doing their job, but if you actively seek his employ, thats a LE or a NE alignment buddy

[Orzel]

Heck no.

Tarquin took the best position.
He's the evil adviser and only "the hero and his friends" can kill/defeat the EA.
And he is actively pick who is the hero and his friends.

Everyone else except the Ruler is cannon fodder. And he's chooses them too.

[Swordpriest]

"Sacrificing minions -- is there any problem it CAN'T solve?"

Nuff said. :smallwink:

[Kuma Da]

Hey, AP. How's it going? :smallbiggrin:

On topic, I think Tarquin'd probably be a pretty okay employer. You kind of have to go into it knowing that he'll treat everyone not him as expendable, but his long-term goal is essentially calculated stability. That's a pretty reliable job, as long as you know when to get out.

That said, I'd only work for him to backstab him. An uncertain and possibly horrible future without his carefully managed empires is better than a certainly mediocre-bad one with them.

[Orzel]

Hey, AP. How's it going? :smallbiggrin:

On topic, I think Tarquin'd probably be a pretty okay employer. You kind of have to go into it knowing that he'll treat everyone not him as expendable, but his long-term goal is essentially calculated stability. That's a pretty reliable job, as long as you know when to get out.

That said, I'd only work for him to backstab him. An uncertain and possibly horrible future without his carefully managed empires is better than a certainly mediocre-bad one with them.

You can't backstab him.
Drama rules state that he has to personally make the life miserable before your chances of success even gets above 0%.
He knows this and will kill you shortly after making you life a living hell.

[Callista]

Yes. Then I'd go nova on his evil-overlord butt. I don't like backstabbing people, but in this case, sneaky tactics are entirely justified.

[Kuma Da]

You can't backstab him.
Drama rules state that he has to personally make the life miserable before your chances of success even gets above 0%.
He knows this and will kill you shortly after making you life a living hell.

It's all in how you play it.

The faithful bodyguard that turns on his master is a role with its own narrative protections.

There's totally ways to nuke Tarquin. You just have to work within the system. However, while a How Would You Kill Tarquin thread would be pretty cool, this is drifting slightly off topic.

[Orzel]

I don't think Tarquin would let you get that far without a hard loyalty test.
This guy has been juggling kingdoms for decades and is Genre Savvy.

I'm pretty sure the top guys in the EoB army are all pretty bad dudes who did some nasty stuff to get there.

[The Pilgrim]

*Thinks about his current employer*

Well, I suppose working for Tarquin would be an impovement over my current position.

[Pyron]

Based on Tarquin's business model, his management skills and his life philosophy, I'd work for him. If I lived in the OOTS world, I mean.

Would you?

Nope.

Imagine if you have to apologize to him for screwing up. What scares me is that he might accept your apology.

[Giggling Ghast]

I sure as hell would not work for Tarquin. He's absolutely insane.

[Da'Shain]

Hmm.

On the one hand, funny boss who's also dangerously competent, probably perks that come with being directly under the power behind the throne, etc.

On the other hand, the work can involve torturing people to death, sending them through kangaroo courts, enslaving people, and if I screw up I'm also likely to go through all that myself.

I'm gonna go with no.

[tcrudisi]

I think I would. I think he would be strict but fair (Lawful). I'd certainly rather work for him than a Neutral (law/chaotic axis) or Chaotic individual.

[Dr.Epic]

Based on Tarquin's business model, his management skills and his life philosophy, I'd work for him. If I lived in the OOTS world, I mean.

Would you?

(I'm assuming that I have PC class levels. I don't want to be Minion #110, I want to be at least marginally valuable so I can work my way up through the ranks and enjoy this life of awesome he describes.)

Even if you had levels in a class, there's nothing saying Tarquin won't use you as a pawn. Personally, I'm not working for someone who works both sides.

[The_Weirdo]

Never. LE exist to die, not to employ.

[Another_Poet]

Everyone else except the Ruler is cannon fodder. And he's chooses them too.

This seems to be the consensus. But have you guys already forgotten a few strips back? As he revealed his master plan it showed that he needs a cadre of competent co-rulers and they all take turns teaming up in different kingdoms. He doesn't use those guys as cannon fodder, he treats them as friends and equals.

And yeah, I get that they are his old adventuring group, but he must have a plan for when paladins and heroes will thin out their numbers. I'm guessing he runs a meritocracy, at least at the upper levels of his government, so he can cherry pick the most competent to come with him to the next nation he rules.

It's speculation on my part but it stands to reason. He seems like a good planner, the opposite of Xykon, and his plan requires a lot of people doing their jobs right (and discretely) to work.


Hey, AP. How's it going? :smallbiggrin:

On topic, I think Tarquin'd probably be a pretty okay employer. You kind of have to go into it knowing that he'll treat everyone not him as expendable, but his long-term goal is essentially calculated stability. That's a pretty reliable job, as long as you know when to get out.


Hey KD! Yeah exit strategy would be key.

[WinceRind]

I wouldn't work for him, I think. Not that I mind it, but it's generally worse to work for those labeled "evil" simply due to their intelligence and lack of care towards their minions.

It's better to work for a lawful stupid and work your way up to backstab him. Should be much easier... Someone like Tarquin is too smart and genre-savvy to let that sort of thing happen but your average "Good but stupid" protagonist kind of guy you often see in movies, cartoons, comic books, manga, and so on would not be skeptical enough to see through you.

It'd be all "I trust you and I believe in you! The power of friendship-"splurch" ".

[Hironomus]

If he wanted me to work for him I don't think I'd have much of a choice.
This IS a vaguely concealed 1984 reference.

[Talyn]

Frankly, working for him might involve me hunting down escaped slaves, crucifying them and then setting them on fire.

And at the first sign of not wanting to do so, he has me up on that burning cross, too.

Pass. Even on my most Lawful Neutral days, I believe that there are some prices too steep to accept for stability.

[Morph Bark]

The only Evil character presented in the comic so far I'd actually really want to work for is Redcloak. But only if I were a goblinoid, because otherwise I think I'd be prettymuch screwdrivered.

[The_Weirdo]

If he wanted me to work for him I don't think I'd have much of a choice.
This IS a vaguely concealed 1984 reference.

Actually, you WOULD have a choice. You could refuse and die, but die as a free man.

[Barlen]

Why is it that when I imagine the recruitment attempt all I hear is:

Vir's voice saying "I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next 10 generations that some favors come with too high a price. I want to look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this"

[Seerow]

I wouldn't work FOR Tarquin, but I sure would work with him as one of his party members, controlling the government of a different nation given the chance.

[martinkou]

If by work you mean being one of Tarquin's party members, then yes I can see you getting some nice gears and treasure.

But if power is really what you want, why not work for the IFCC? Familycide, dude! Familycide!

[JonestheSpy]

I do rather wonder what AnotherPoet and the other 'Sign Me Up' folks would have to say the first time they're told to set a prisoner on fire or help torture a future wife into submission...

[Callista]

I do rather wonder what AnotherPoet and the other 'Sign Me Up' folks would have to say the first time they're told to set a prisoner on fire or help torture a future wife into submission...Probably "Aaargh." Which is generally what you say after you hesitate one second too long and get a rapier to the gut.

[SaintRidley]

Why in the world would you work for him?

I'd rather be him.

[nac]

But really he has just bought into his own delusion about what really matters in life.
Not really, he seems to know what he wants and how to get it.


All he cares about is being a legend, no matter what he is known for.
Why must he care what he's known for? He'd like power, instant gratification of his sadistic cravings and admiration as the cool villain in legends. Judging by the reaction of the community, the last part's definitely working so far. In any case, he values the moment more than unforeseeable future happiness.

Now it's possible that he'll later realize this is not what he REALLY wants, but IMO, there's no reason that's got to be the case.

[Callista]

Why in the world would you work for him?

I'd rather be him.Okay. Tarquin is a really cool villain. He's diabolical. I love him (no, not THAT way). He's as worthy a foe as Elan is ever going to get and he's going to do some amazingly evil things that might even rival Xykon's Superball of Insanity stunt.

But this "I wanna be Tarquin" (or "I wanna work for Tarquin") thing, I just... don't get. Why!?? It's nonsensical. Why would you want to be a ruler who got his power by causing a huge amount of pain? Why would you want to be personally responsible for torturing people, perpetuating slavery, et cetera, insert evil act here? I mean... it's just... I. Don't. Get it. At all. Power might be nice; but there's just nothing that could ever make that kind of thing appealing. It's like somebody offered me fifty cents to kill my own mother, or something. It doesn't even make any sense.

Maybe people like the idea of being a cool, powerful person without the "being an absolute sociopath" part. That, I could get. Or maybe it's the idea that he's managed to plan for and accept his own defeat, which is a really unusual thing for anyone, villain or hero. (And may I note that O-Chul has the exact same attitude--probably a large part of what makes our favorite badass paladin so appealing.)

But the "yeah, I'd work for him," or, "yeah, I wanna BE him"... I can only assume you guys haven't thought this through!

[Felixc-91]

Aye, remember girls and boys: Thinking before posting is very important!:smallbiggrin:

[nac]

It's nonsensical.
Well, Tarquin wants to be himself, and he's a perfectly rational being. There's nothing inherently nonsensical about being Evil, and people with fundamentally different goals will never "get it". But my guess is that what many people want is to emulate his success. Few are so confident about their dreams or competent enough to realize them with such skill and precision. :P

[Dienekes]

Okay. Tarquin is a really cool villain. He's diabolical. I love him (no, not THAT way). He's as worthy a foe as Elan is ever going to get and he's going to do some amazingly evil things that might even rival Xykon's Superball of Insanity stunt.

But this "I wanna be Tarquin" (or "I wanna work for Tarquin") thing, I just... don't get. Why!?? It's nonsensical. Why would you want to be a ruler who got his power by causing a huge amount of pain? Why would you want to be personally responsible for torturing people, perpetuating slavery, et cetera, insert evil act here? I mean... it's just... I. Don't. Get it. At all. Power might be nice; but there's just nothing that could ever make that kind of thing appealing. It's like somebody offered me fifty cents to kill my own mother, or something. It doesn't even make any sense.

Maybe people like the idea of being a cool, powerful person without the "being an absolute sociopath" part. That, I could get. Or maybe it's the idea that he's managed to plan for and accept his own defeat, which is a really unusual thing for anyone, villain or hero. (And may I note that O-Chul has the exact same attitude--probably a large part of what makes our favorite badass paladin so appealing.)

But the "yeah, I'd work for him," or, "yeah, I wanna BE him"... I can only assume you guys haven't thought this through!

Some people like power, glory, and wealth and they care little for how they get it. It isn't pretty but it's true. And to us who are more morally flexible, so long as we're on top it's easy to ignore the ruthlessly crushed eggs and publicly disemboweled chickens.

After all, so long as you understand the consequences, those thirty or so years on top would be pretty sweet.

[Felixc-91]

Some people like power, glory, and wealth and they care little for how they get it. It isn't pretty but it's true. And to us who are more morally flexible, so long as we're on top it's easy to ignore the ruthlessly crushed eggs and publicly disemboweled chickens.

After all, so long as you understand the consequences, those thirty or so years on top would be pretty sweet.ok, in this world, where we live, that almost makes sense. i mean you would have to be able to suppress a small mountain of guilt, but if you could i suppose it would be fun, for you. but consider this, its hard to work for a fictional character, so you would have to work for him in the world of Oots. there, unlike here, they KNOW what happens after death. so you would be working for a horrible person, with a distinct chance of getting killed early in life (due to getting caught up in a coup or in the way of an assassin, or one of the many other options) all the while knowing (or trying not to think about) you will go to hell for your actions. do you really want that?

[Callista]

If the idea of a bad afterlife is all that's deterring you, you're pretty far gone anyway. In general, the only reason for an evil person not to do evil is that it doesn't benefit them to do so. The less evil might not want to hurt their own families or their closest friends because that would make them feel bad. The more hardcore evil types might be deterred only by threat of punishment, and the most impulsive, not even by that.

It is entirely possible for someone who is evil by nature not to do very many evil things because they are afraid of a bad afterlife--but the ironic thing is that, if they don't change their selfish ways (i.e., change their alignment), they're going to end up in an Evil-aligned plane in the afterlife anyway. In that case, someone like Tarquin who finds it against his nature to reform may logically decide, "Well, I'm going to end up somewhere in the Nine Hells anyway; so I had better be as powerful an evil person as possible, because that's the only way to survive there." (Of course, in some cosmologies there's the option of renouncing the gods and simply being annihilated; but not everyone would choose that. Destruction of the soul is also possible in some magical ways, and of course via the Snarl.)

[Felixc-91]

i thought that if you have no god and are evil you go to the fiends... is that inaccurate?

[Callista]

In some worlds, devotion to a god doesn't matter. In some, it does.

The destruction of the souls (or at least personalities) of those who reject the gods is a Forgotten Realms thing:
Faithless (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Faithless)

So if you aren't devoted to a god, you may end up in an appropriately aligned plane, or you may end up in the Wall of the Faithless; which one happens just depends on which particular setting you're in.

[SaintRidley]

Okay. Tarquin is a really cool villain. He's diabolical. I love him (no, not THAT way). He's as worthy a foe as Elan is ever going to get and he's going to do some amazingly evil things that might even rival Xykon's Superball of Insanity stunt.

But this "I wanna be Tarquin" (or "I wanna work for Tarquin") thing, I just... don't get. Why!?? It's nonsensical. Why would you want to be a ruler who got his power by causing a huge amount of pain? Why would you want to be personally responsible for torturing people, perpetuating slavery, et cetera, insert evil act here? I mean... it's just... I. Don't. Get it. At all. Power might be nice; but there's just nothing that could ever make that kind of thing appealing. It's like somebody offered me fifty cents to kill my own mother, or something. It doesn't even make any sense.

Maybe people like the idea of being a cool, powerful person without the "being an absolute sociopath" part. That, I could get. Or maybe it's the idea that he's managed to plan for and accept his own defeat, which is a really unusual thing for anyone, villain or hero. (And may I note that O-Chul has the exact same attitude--probably a large part of what makes our favorite badass paladin so appealing.)

But the "yeah, I'd work for him," or, "yeah, I wanna BE him"... I can only assume you guys haven't thought this through!

I left implicit the "if I were evil in a D&D world" part because I thought it would be obvious.

Naturally, I only speak to a hypothetical D&D-ish world. I'd never be Tarquin in real life. Personally, I'd never be him in a D&D world, no matter how tempting it is. I'm very wobbly with my alignment, probably TN, since alignment tests seem to decide differently on me every time.

But if given a D&D world and everything that comes with that, I see no reason for anyone to want to work for Tarquin when it would be so much better to just be Tarquin.

Why be the underling when you could be the master?

If you're squeamish, why be forced to do the nasty stuff when you can have others do it and wash your hands of it all?

If you're a sadist, why simply do the nasty stuff with personal involvement when you can double your pleasure by making a squeamish underling do it while you watch their obvious discomfort?

There is no reason to want to work for Tarquin. The only options are to oppose him or to be him. For those inclined to take his side, I see no reason not to want to be him.

[Swordpriest]

It is entirely possible for someone who is evil by nature not to do very many evil things because they are afraid of a bad afterlife--but the ironic thing is that, if they don't change their selfish ways (i.e., change their alignment), they're going to end up in an Evil-aligned plane in the afterlife anyway.

You know, although I believe in good and evil in our universe as well as the D&D one, I'd have to say this is the most compelling argument against the D&D alignment system I've seen yet.

It actually pays in it to be as evil as possible. If you're evil by nature but mostly bottle it up, you'll end up as some loathsome lemure being devoured and tortured for eternity by powerful devils.

If you do as many ghastly, heinous deeds as you can, you stand at least some chance of being rewarded by being made into a physically and magically powerful immortal being with power of command and lesser demons/devils to do your bidding.

Talk about screwed up! :smallbiggrin:

[Callista]

Not screwed up at all. The D&D alignment system simply makes Evil as powerful as Good. It's not a system in which a big Good power makes everything work out all right in the end; it's a system in which Good and Evil are locked in an eternal struggle.

The only reason Elan gets a happy ending is that he's a protagonist. If Tarquin were the protagonist, he'd get a similarly happy ending.

[The Pilgrim]

You know, although I believe in good and evil in our universe as well as the D&D one, I'd have to say this is the most compelling argument against the D&D alignment system I've seen yet.

It actually pays in it to be as evil as possible. If you're evil by nature but mostly bottle it up, you'll end up as some loathsome lemure being devoured and tortured for eternity by powerful devils.

If you do as many ghastly, heinous deeds as you can, you stand at least some chance of being rewarded by being made into a physically and magically powerful immortal being with power of command and lesser demons/devils to do your bidding.

Talk about screwed up! :smallbiggrin:

Au contraire, the flaw would be the opposite. Why be evil if all you're gonna get is eternal torment, and you have empiric proof that the afterlife is real?

The way morals work, also, justifies why there are so many evil bastards out there overplaying his evil side even when it's against their better interests.

Get Tarquin. It would pay him more to pass as some benevolent ruler, attemping to be an hypocrite like Kubota, instead of being so blatantly and openly evil. He would live as a God anyway, and would generate less resistance in the population, less opposition from other rulers, and less chance of some random heroes popping up to gang on him.

But he needs to "score" DarkSide points, so in the long run it pays him more to do things the way he does.

The way morals work aslo justifies the need of so many adventurers to fight the Evil Guy's schemes.

[Burner28]

Yes, you are a bad person, desiring to work for an Evil man.
Most of his workers wouldn't be that evil, just doing their job, but if you actively seek his employ, thats a LE or a NE alignment buddy

Considering what their work would involve , they wouldn't really be Neutral

[Mordokai]

It actually pays in it to be as evil as possible. If you're evil by nature but mostly bottle it up, you'll end up as some loathsome lemure being devoured and tortured for eternity by powerful devils.

I believe FC II has something to say on the subject. Too lazy to check it up, but it goes something along the lines of not mattering how powerful you are, you are not going to end up as pit fiend right after you die, as so many evil mortals seem to imagine. If you are very powerful, you are more likely to avoid being reborn as lemure, but that's far from given. And that's for poweful individuals. It says nothing about being more or less evil. So your argument fails to hold water right there.

And that's for LE Baator. Things start to turn ugly when you hit the Abyss :smalltongue:

[Liwen]

I believe FC II has something to say on the subject. Too lazy to check it up, but it goes something along the lines of not mattering how powerful you are, you are not going to end up as pit fiend right after you die, as so many evil mortals seem to imagine. If you are very powerful, you are more likely to avoid being reborn as lemure, but that's far from given. And that's for poweful individuals. It says nothing about being more or less evil. So your argument fails to hold water right there.

And that's for LE Baator. Things start to turn ugly when you hit the Abyss :smalltongue:

Well you got kinda right the idea, but I've played in a 'afterlife' setting before and the way the DM drived it was like this : the way these things work is all about the power level. Any evil character within their 1-10 levels is likely to end up at the bottom the food chain when their disembodied soul hits Hell. Someone in the 11-20 actually has a decent shot at becoming a evil devil or demon or whatever and make the lives of the losers a eternal hell instead. Then you reach the epics. Anyone 21+ is almost mandatory to do awesome in the lower planes. Maybe not a Pit Fiend right off the bat, but something decent with easy half open doors of glory along the way. The concept was to take our old characters from a finished mid to high level campaign we did a few years back, have them die and have fun with it from that point on. We were like 13-15 and PCs characters of a mix of good and neutral aligned people, most of it chaotic. So we get to start the afterlife campaign with all of memories of our ancient life, we got de-leveled about 10 levels and instead of being simply afterlife humans souls, we get incarnated into a mix of planar races with moderate level adjustments a start a new adventure from that point on. Then a bunch of awesome stuff happened, like going back in the mortal realm to solve new issues that were... unfortunate consequences of us acting like typical PCs and sometimes (read almost always) leave the work half finished once we get the loot. Pretty funny stuff. That was like the 'repenting' act. Then we got involved in some plots related to old villains we killed back in the old campaign who basically went through the same afterlife transformation we did, only sooner than us and thus they had more time to re-level up and become threats to us once more

**Back on topic** :smallredface:

Yes, if you would voluntarily work for Tarquin, I'd be a bad person, but if you have no moral conflict into this then yes you could do very well under him, especially if you have skills. If he forced it on you and you accepted it, then you're his *b-word* and a coward too. If you openly oppose him while still being a level 1 weakling you're an idiot and you're dead. If you get the hell out of his realm range, level up on someone pretty cool adventures, then come back to retake the homeland from him and be like *wtf we're almost epic level now, it's pwnage time!* then you win and then you can take his place and be as evil or good or neutral or whatever as you want to be : ).

So the options available to you are, in order from the less to the most advantageous for you :

a) Rebel against him as a wealking - you die
b) Submit and be Minion #123568754 - aka a nobody
c) Get some levels and a decent resume, then postulate for a recognizable minion position - You'll enjoy a decent amount of goodies and luxury until some hero shows up and Tarquin orders you to defeat him, at which point you'll be defeated in a awesome duel.
d) Completely ignore Tarquin and bug out. Make a life of yourself as an adventurer somewhere else and retire in the mid to high levels, raise a family and let the rest of the world figure it out. After all, this is D&D. If you're not going to be the hero, somebody else will, otherwise their is no point to the existence of the world.
e) Escape and level up, follow minor to mid to high level plots lines to get lots of gears and levels in, then come back and take on the super powerful dictator. By the time you succeed, you might just have hit epic. Bonus : You also get a nicer that usual afterlife in which you get to adventure again for the lulz after you die.

[Callista]

a) Rebel against him as a wealking - you dieNot necessarily. Rebel against him as a weakling and get caught, and you'll die. Careful individuals might be able to get some things done; and in oppressive places like this, resistance movements made up of "weaklings" do tend to be pretty persistent, no matter how many people they burn to death. This may be the realm of a cold-blooded, ruthless, and very efficient dictator, but it's not 1984--resistance is still possible, even for Joe Commoner 1, and quite possibly easier for him because he's so obviously unremarkable.

[Felixc-91]

Considering what their work would involve , they wouldn't really be Neutralno, they would be lawful stupid, unless they did something like take pleasure in what they did, or went above and beyond the call of duty in executing their evil orders. then an underling would earn the evil designation. simply following orders, (evil or not) is a lawful trait.

[Burner28]

no, they would be lawful stupid, unless they did something like take pleasure in what they did, or went above and beyond the call of duty in executing their evil orders. then an underling would earn the evil designation. simply following orders, (evil or not) is a lawful trait.

No lawful stupid would be jumping off a cliff because the law says so whereas lawful evil is pushing someone else off a cliff because the law told you to. Also, you don't have to do evil for the sake of doing evil to be Lawful Evil. Besides, taking orders to do evil things makes you evil by Dnd definmition regardless of your reasons.

[SadisticFishing]

One thing to mention - someone who's naturally inclined to do Evil and... doesn't... Is not Evil.

At all. No matter how badly you want to strangle kittens and eat babies, if you live your life as a Neutral person would, you're Neutral, and a VERY commendable Neutral, too. I'd be impressed.

Urges and desires have almost nothing to do with alignment. Acting on them does. Your motives for doing what you do does as well. But your thoughts themselves? Absolutely not.

[hamishspence]

One thing to mention - someone who's naturally inclined to do Evil and... doesn't... Is not Evil.

At all. No matter how badly you want to strangle kittens and eat babies, if you live your life as a Neutral person would, you're Neutral, and a VERY commendable Neutral, too. I'd be impressed.

PHB does suggest alignment is "general moral and personal attitudes"

It's the splatbooks that tend to place weight on acts- with even a naturally kindhearted and compassionate person being in danger of going to the Lower Planes if they commit Evil acts enough- regardless of their personality traits.

Conversely, a character whose "moral and personal attitudes" are consistant with Evil- might be Evil- even if they "keep up the masquerade" and almost never do overtly Evil acts.

[Felixc-91]

No lawful stupid would be jumping off a cliff because the law says so whereas lawful evil is pushing someone else off a cliff because the law told you to. Also, you don't have to do evil for the sake of doing evil to be Lawful Evil. Besides, taking orders to do evil things makes you evil by Dnd definmition regardless of your reasons.lawful stupid (to me) means a lawful person who follows law or another system of order mindlessly. while yes, in the extreme, that might mean jumping off a cliff because your ordered to, it could, and more usually dose mean doing things like killing without thinking, or helping without thinking. all they are doing is following orders. you can follow an evil order without being evil. its a version of pure lawful. every alignment has a potential problematic side. i quote from the players handbook:
"neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others"
if a lawful neutral person were ordered by a legitimate superior to kill some one, and they knew they could lose their job or life if they refused, some would do it. and doing so would not make them evil.

[hamishspence]

you can follow an evil order without being evil. its a version of pure lawful.

But (assuming you have some level of freedom of thought, and aren't something along the lines of an Inevitable) while a nonevil person can follow an evil order, continuing to follow Evil Orders will eventually move the character to Evil Aligned.

Lawful Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid) is a slightly different thing from "following immoral orders for Lawful reasons".

Those tend to be closer to Punch Clock Villain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PunchClockVillain), My Country Right or Wrong (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyCountryRightOrWrong), My Master Right or Wrong (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyMasterRightOrWrong) and so on.

And, of course Just Following Orders (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JustFollowingOrders).

[Burner28]

lawful stupid (to me) means a lawful person who follows law or another system of order mindlessly. while yes, in the extreme, that might mean jumping off a cliff because your ordered to, it could, and more usually dose mean doing things like killing without thinking, or helping without thinking.

Yes you can do that by that isn't what it means otherwise it would have been called Lawful Indifferent. It is called Lawful Stupid for a reason.


all they are doing is following orders. you can follow an evil order without being evil. its a version of pure lawful. every alignment has a potential problematic side. i quote from the players handbook

If you argued that pure lawful was unwillingness to do evil as well as good then I might agree with you. Following evil orders without a regret and making up for makes you Evil aligned. What you seem to ignore is:


"neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others"



if a lawful neutral person were ordered by a legitimate superior to kill some one, and they knew they could lose their job or life if they refused, some would do it. and doing so would not make them evil
If that person is innocent then yeah, the soldier's evil-aligned.

What I'm trying to say is that every single Evil-aligned being has a motivation for doing what they do. The sadistic character is burning villages not for "no reason" but out of hedonism, the greedy merchant is kidnapping people and holding them for ransom not for "no reason" but out of greed, the mugger is endangering the health of innocents not for "no reason" but to feed his children,etc. And as I repeatedly said in previous posts, even using evil means for the "greater good" makes you evil aligned under DnD terms. And when you can't turn Neutral even for that do you really think anything lesser than that, namey following orders, won't turn you Evil aligned?

Evil characters don't have to do evil things for the sake of doing evil and have many possible reasons for doing what they are doing. They are not less capable of experiencing love, alienated, misunderstood, sad,fear, joy, sufferring or other stuff like that, nor do they have to be complete scumbag. In an extreme, they might even be able to come across as a (relatively) normal person, if it wasn't for the fact that they,well, do evil things. Evil characters do have some traits common: their actions are certanly not necessarily nor simply misunderstood, annoying, mischievious, rude, or plain old mean. Their actions are necessarily cruel and malicious, not only demonstrating a lack of respect for the dignity and the rights of other life but also causing actual pain and suffering whether it is physicallly, mentally or emotionally. That is what Evil aligned people do. So You don't have to be Evil hearted to be evil under DnD definition but if you are generally willing to do evil acts then yeah, you will end up as an Evil alignment regardless of your reasons.

[Felixc-91]

Yes you can do that by that isn't what it means otherwise it would have been called Lawful Indifferent. It is called Lawful Stupid for a reason.


If you argued that pure lawful was unwillingness to do evil as well as good then I might agree with you. Following evil orders without a regret and making up for makes you Evil aligned. What you seem to ignore is:


If that person is innocent then yeah, the soldier's evil-aligned.

What I'm trying to say is that every single Evil-aligned being has a motivation for doing what they do. The sadistic character is burning villages not for "no reason" but out of hedonism, the greedy merchant is kidnapping people and holding them for ransom not for "no reason" but out of greed, the mugger is endangering the health of innocents not for "no reason" but to feed his children,etc. And as I repeatedly said in previous posts, even using evil means for the "greater good" makes you evil aligned under DnD terms. And when you can't turn Neutral even for that do you really think anything lesser than that, namey following orders, won't turn you Evil aligned?

Evil characters don't have to do evil things for the sake of doing evil and have many possible reasons for doing what they are doing. They are not less capable of experiencing love, alienated, misunderstood, sad,fear, joy, sufferring or other stuff like that, nor do they have to be complete scumbag. In an extreme, they might even be able to come across as a (relatively) normal person, if it wasn't for the fact that they,well, do evil things. Evil characters do have some traits common: their actions are certanly not necessarily nor simply misunderstood, annoying, mischievious, rude, or plain old mean. Their actions are necessarily cruel and malicious, not only demonstrating a lack of respect for the dignity and the rights of other life but also causing actual pain and suffering whether it is physicallly, mentally or emotionally. That is what Evil aligned people do. So You don't have to be Evil hearted to be evil under DnD definition but if you are generally willing to do evil acts then yeah, you will end up as an Evil alignment regardless of your reasons.
part 1: so, your issue isn't with the description and its possibility of existing under the banner of lawful neutral, just with what i call it?
part 2: i never said without regret, lawful stupid (when they bother to think about what they are ordered at all) would feel guilt and regret and would probably do their best to put the blaim (in their mind) on their commanding officer.
part 3:look, the point is they are not evil because of why they do what they do and how far they go. Some of your own examples are not evil: the mugger isn't evil; he's just choosing his family over you. Starvation kills you just as dead as bleeding to death. And if the person isn't skilled enough to hold a job or pick pockets then they are left with the options of let their loved ones starve or mug people. not evil. same situation might apply to a soldier, but what he is doing is sanctioned by law. say he has a family, and his only real usable skill set runs along the lines of being big strong and knowledgeable in the ways of killing with weapons. So he joins the army and his superiors are evil, hell the government in his country of birth is evil, what’s he to do? Quit, and hope he can find work? What if the economy's in a rut and this is his only option? Maybe he lives in an unstable part of the world and traveling to find work is a good way to get killed. So he stays in the army and dose his best to not get fired, and not do anything morally wrong. But oh look, most of what the army (you could substitute police and it would make no difference) dose around here is morally wrong, or at least morally questionable. So the day comes when he is ordered to kill innocent or whatever and he has a choice: either do something wrong, maybe even horrible or despicable, or face the chance of getting fired or executed for disobeying orders. Remember this person has a family, might even be their primary or sole provider (given the harsh times). So he chooses his family over the life of the person he was ordered to kill. Given that this scenario is based on the Empire of Blood, he would probably be called to make that choice often. There, he is regularly committing what you have deemed evil acts, would you condemn him as evil? I wouldn't, lawful neutral, or maybe just neutral. The point of this whole thing is that one can be neutral and commit evil acts. Why matters.

[Burner28]

part 3:look, the point is they are not evil because of why they do what they do and how far they go. Some of your own examples are not evil: the mugger isn't evil; he's just choosing his family over you. Starvation kills you just as dead as bleeding to death. And if the person isn't skilled enough to hold a job or pick pockets then they are left with the options of let their loved ones starve or mug people. not evil. same situation might apply to a soldier, but what he is doing is sanctioned by law. say he has a family, and his only real usable skill set runs along the lines of being big strong and knowledgeable in the ways of killing with weapons. So he joins the army and his superiors are evil, hell the government in his country of birth is evil, what’s he to do? Quit, and hope he can find work? What if the economy's in a rut and this is his only option? Maybe he lives in an unstable part of the world and traveling to find work is a good way to get killed. So he stays in the army and dose his best to not get fired, and not do anything morally wrong. But oh look, most of what the army (you could substitute police and it would make no difference) dose around here is morally wrong, or at least morally questionable. So the day comes when he is ordered to kill innocent or whatever and he has a choice: either do something wrong, maybe even horrible or despicable, or face the chance of getting fired or executed for disobeying orders. Remember this person has a family, might even be their primary or sole provider (given the harsh times). So he chooses his family over the life of the person he was ordered to kill. Given that this scenario is based on the Empire of Blood, he would probably be called to make that choice often. There, he is regularly committing what you have deemed evil acts, would you condemn him as evil? I wouldn't, lawful neutral, or maybe just neutral. The point of this whole thing is that one can be neutral and commit evil acts. Why matters.

Agin you missed the point of what I am saying-everyone has a reason for doing what they are doing but that isn't the same as having an excuse(beinmg 3 years old, being an animal,etc.), and under DnD definition, yes that mugger and that soldier is evil because of what they are willing to do.

[Felixc-91]

Agin you missed the point of what I am saying-everyone has a reason for doing what they are doing but that isn't the same as having an excuse(beinmg 3 years old, being an animal,etc.), and under DnD definition, yes that mugger and that soldier is evil because of what they are willing to do.no, i got your point just fine, what happened is i decided that you are wrong, and you have yet to change my opinion. look, don't try and tell me that the rules back you up, i have the player handbook open in front of me. violence for the purpose of self preservation and especially for the preservation of one's family is not evil. and innocence is never mentioned in the description of good.

" good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. good characters make personal sacrifices to help others" among other supporting evidence, good aligned adventures would be impossible otherwise. and something you need to think about is this:

"neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compunction)against killing the innocent but lack commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. a neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him"
read the definition in the link, compunction is not the same as compulsion. and look at the last part, the bit in italics
the belief that violence for any reason is evil isn't an inherently good perspective. the world of D&D is a violent one. pacifism gets you killed there... hell, the only people who reliably die of old age are adventurers.

[hamishspence]

There, he is regularly committing what you have deemed evil acts, would you condemn him as evil? I wouldn't, lawful neutral, or maybe just neutral. The point of this whole thing is that one can be neutral and commit evil acts. Why matters.

In the short term, maybe (if the acts are only mildly Evil and the Ends are sufficiently Good).

In the long term, evil acts normally move characters to Evil-aligned. That's simply the way D&D alignment works.

The only evil acts that are not likely to move a character to Evil aligned fairly soon, are mild evil acts toward a Good end.

A necromancer or summoner who casts [Evil] spells toward a Good end might stay Neutral.
But a person who commits murder or torture repeatedly, even if it's "for the greater good" is likely to gravitate to Evil.

[Felixc-91]

In the short term, maybe (if the acts are only mildly Evil and the Ends are sufficiently Good).

In the long term, evil acts normally move characters to Evil-aligned. That's simply the way D&D alignment works.

The only evil acts that are not likely to move a character to Evil aligned fairly soon, are mild evil acts toward a Good end.

A necromancer or summoner who casts [Evil] spells toward a Good end might stay Neutral.
But a person who commits murder or torture repeatedly, even if it's "for the greater good" is likely to gravitate to Evil.ok, but is it evil to kill someone because your commanding officer ordered you to and failing to follow that order could endanger you and threw you your family? yes, regular evil acts, that arent in any way for the greater good would classify one as evil. but is the action i described to you evil? I'm talking about people who would be nameless mooks to PCs, if that matters.

[hamishspence]

BoED answers this pretty simply- it discusses the question of is it evil to commit a normally Evil act to avert a minor, major, or world-shattering catastrophe.

The answer was- Yes. Whether or not the ends justify the means, they certainly cannot make evil acts any less evil.

So, if someone orders you to commit murder, and you do it because if you don't, they'll murder you and all your family- you've still committed an evil act.

In the Atonement spell description, it mentions that the caster does not lose XP, if the evil act committed by the person the spell is being cast on, was committed "unknowingly" or "unwillingly".

So such a person has unwillingly committed an evil act- but it still counts, and if they keep committing such acts, they're still in danger of changing alignment from Neutral to Evil.

[Felixc-91]

well that sucks like a kick to the nuts. on a side note, if we talk real world for a sec, would you consider a person who took the actions i described a despicable, horrible, or otherwise bad person?

[hamishspence]

Not at first.

But then, it's quite possible for Evil characters in D&D to be quite nice people, when their Evil deeds are not taken into account.

That's one of the reasons why BoED puts a heavy emphasis on not attacking Evil beings unless it's necessary- and trying to redeem them if it is necessary to attack them to stop their Evil deeds or to apprehend them- but also possible to capture them alive.

Champions of Ruin discussed the various Evil archetypes, and "Driven to Evil" is one.

"Evil" in D&D does not always mean entirely "despicable" or "horrible".

Depending on how you interpret "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" in the PHB, as much as a third of the human population in a D&D world might be of Evil alignment.

[Burner28]

violence for the purpose of self preservation and especially for the preservation of one's family is not evil. and innocence is never mentioned in the description of good.

You missed my point.I wasn't talking about violence as that can be done in self defense. Mugging people however wouldn't be this.

PS. Evil characters being victims... now that is an oxymoron

[hamishspence]

PS. Evil characters being victims... now that is an oxymoron

Not entirely. An Evil character can be a victim of someone else who'se even worse. They could become evil via being victimized, in fact, and coerced into doing evil deeds.

Alternatively, after being victimized, they might go overboard in taking revenge on those who victimize them.

The many paths to Evil can be pretty convoluted.

[Callista]

So such a person has unwillingly committed an evil act- but it still counts, and if they keep committing such acts, they're still in danger of changing alignment from Neutral to Evil.I would say that, yes, they've committed an evil act; but I would also argue that their alignment does not change. Someone who is non-Evil and forced to commit an evil act may react in many different ways, and turning to Evil is only one of many. It is just as likely that he will become more strongly Good because of what they experienced.

My conclusion would be: Unwilling evil acts are possible; but they do not change your alignment unless you let them.


Depending on how you interpret "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" in the PHB, as much as a third of the human population in a D&D world might be of Evil alignment.I would say that humans have equal tendencies toward all alignments; this is the only way that statement about "tend toward no alignment" can ever be mathematically sound. So, yes, one-third of the human population in a D&D world is Evil.

[hamishspence]

I would say that, yes, they've committed an evil act; but I would also argue that their alignment does not change. Someone who is non-Evil and forced to commit an evil act may react in many different ways, and turning to Evil is only one of many. It is just as likely that he will become more strongly Good because of what they experienced.

My conclusion would be: Unwilling evil acts are possible; but they do not change your alignment unless you let them.

Would continuing to "cave" and commit evil acts, on and on, for years, qualify as "letting them"?

One act (going by DMG) doesn't change alignment- but a lot of acts, might.



I would say that humans have equal tendencies toward all alignments; this is the only way that statement about "tend toward no alignment" can ever be mathematically sound. So, yes, one-third of the human population in a D&D world is Evil.

PHB does place Humans in the Neutral slot on the alignment table which lists races with a "most common alignment".

This may simply mean that True Neutral humans are slightly (very slightly) more common than the others. Perhaps 12% compared to 11% for all the others.

Most communities will have different proportions though- these will just be the averages across the whole species.

Some people interpret it as "they have no natural tendency toward True Neutral- but 90% are True Neutral anyway"- but this seems a bit iffy to me.

[Callista]

Would continuing to "cave" and commit evil acts, on and on, for years, qualify as "letting them"?

One act (going by DMG) doesn't change alignment- but a lot of acts, might.It does depend on the circumstances, doesn't it? Magical compulsion might do very little; whereas being forced to do evil things, say, because the BBEG has a knife to your significant other's jugular... that might be a little bit different. It's not morally different; you're being forced either way and you can technically get out of either one (by making your save or choosing not to go along with the guy's demands); but psychologically, you feel more in control of a choice made due to threats than one due to magical compulsion. I think if you have a character in this position, whether you choose to have him drift Evil or not would depend heavily on how he reacts to being forced to do horrible things, how he's being forced, and what he does the second he has his free will back again.

[Duke of URL]

On the other hand, the work can involve torturing people to death, sending them through kangaroo courts, enslaving people

Is this supposed to be a positive or a negative for the job description?

[hamishspence]

It does depend on the circumstances, doesn't it? Magical compulsion might do very little; whereas being forced to do evil things, say, because the BBEG has a knife to your significant other's jugular... that might be a little bit different. It's not morally different; you're being forced either way and you can technically get out of either one (by making your save or choosing not to go along with the guy's demands); but psychologically, you feel more in control of a choice made due to threats than one due to magical compulsion.

Mechanically, there is a difference. Especially for a PC. You can control whether or not you go along in order to avoid your PC's loved ones being hurt.

You can't choose to pass a save when you roll low.

So, I'd say players, in particular, would see a distinct moral difference between the acts they could choose not to do, and the acts they couldn't (because they're under someone else's control). In the former, they still have free will. In the latter, they don't.

Indeed, a character might not accrue Corruption points at all while under the influence of powerful mind-effecting magic. It seems like a reasonable ruling for a DM to make.


I think if you have a character in this position, whether you choose to have him drift Evil or not would depend heavily on how he reacts to being forced to do horrible things, how he's being forced, and what he does the second he has his free will back again.

Yup. Another tricky issue is- if you have been magically changed to Evil (say, by a Helm of Opposite alignment)- and you commit a whole lot of Evil (corrupt) acts while Evil-
and then the Big Bad changes you back just before you die- in order to gloat over you having by your acts (he thinks) condemned yourself-

does your corruption automatically get wiped, or are you still liable for all those evil acts committed while not, technically, under magical compulsion like a Dominate spell?

If the corruption score counts, would the character be a candidate for the Hellbred Transformation? Since they die genuinely repentant, and Good-aligned, but having a Corruption of 9+. If they were LE while under the influence, they might have an Obesiance of 9+ as well, despite being CG now.

[TreesOfDeath]

Huh didn't expect this thread to still be kicking.


Thinkign about thier is ONE condition I'd work for Tarquin. If I could end up like one of his patsy rulers (Empeoress of Blood), where I'd be fairly safe and wouldn't really have to do anything except lie around in luxury while Tarquin or Malack or w/e does the real ruling that would be a pretty good deal. Providing I got to escape with my life when I was overthrown.....

[Draz74]

I'd work for O-chul.

Gods help Tarquin if he ever comes up against the awesome that is O-chul.

[Felixc-91]

You missed my point.I wasn't talking about violence as that can be done in self defense. Mugging people however wouldn't be this.

what about defence of one's self and/or others from the threat of starvation?

[Felixc-91]

Yup. Another tricky issue is- if you have been magically changed to Evil (say, by a Helm of Opposite alignment)- and you commit a whole lot of Evil (corrupt) acts while Evil-
and then the Big Bad changes you back just before you die- in order to gloat over you having by your acts (he thinks) condemned yourself-

does your corruption automatically get wiped, or are you still liable for all those evil acts committed while not, technically, under magical compulsion like a Dominate spell?

If the corruption score counts, would the character be a candidate for the Hellbred Transformation? Since they die genuinely repentant, and Good-aligned, but having a Corruption of 9+. If they were LE while under the influence, they might have an Obesiance of 9+ as well, despite being CG now.hmmm, if i were the DM for a game involving that situation, i would say, that mind control is mind control and that the character would be free of guilt, assuming they attempted any/all will saves they were allowed. saying other wise would be like shocking someone and saying that if they hit someone as part of the resulting spasm it was their fault.

[hamishspence]

what about defence of one's self and/or others from the threat of starvation?

Does not count as "self defense" for the purposes of "justified homicide".

If you murder someone to save yourself or your kin from starvation- it's still murder. It might be possible to claim desperation as a mitigating factor- but never an excusing factor.


hmmm, if i were the DM for a game involving that situation, i would say, that mind control is mind control and that the character would be free of guilt, assuming they attempted any/all will saves they were allowed.

I'd say it should probably qualify as "no corruption points" for items like the Helm as well- because even though you're not technically mind controlled, it's not you, but your CE equivalent, that's doing it. That is, if you were changed back before dying.
If you weren't, it might be harder to resolve.

[Felixc-91]

Does not count as "self defense" for the purposes of "justified homicide".

If you murder someone to save yourself or your kin from starvation- it's still murder. It might be possible to claim desperation as a mitigating factor- but never an excusing factor.
mugging dose not necessarily mean killing. it also encompasses threats of violence and non-lethal violence while thieving. and yes, it is hard if not impossible to justify murder. i was referring to the non lethal applications of the word.



I'd say it should probably qualify as "no corruption points" for items like the Helm as well- because even though you're not technically mind controlled, it's not you, but your CE equivalent, that's doing it. That is, if you were changed back before dying.
If you weren't, it might be harder to resolve.
yeah, i guess so, would the effects of the helm follow the person into the after life? if so, then they get damned, if not... that is where things definitely get tricky. "there is a lot to be said for learning your lesson before you die"

[hamishspence]

mugging dose not necessarily mean killing. it also encompasses threats of violence and non-lethal violence while thieving. and yes, it is hard if not impossible to justify murder. i was referring to the non lethal applications of the word.

Probably falls into "causing unnecessary suffering"- much less evil, but still enough that a paladin or similar class/PRC, would Fall for doing so.

Might not be enough to change a character's alignment from Good though.

The afterlife of a person who's artificially had their alignment changed, and had it changed back before death, might depend on how the DM handles it. If the character automatically counts as remorseful (even for actions their CE "alter ego" did, then they might be eligable for the Hellbred Transformation.

A more generous DM might rule that their corruption rating is wiped the moment any artificial alignment change, is reversed- so they go straight to the appropriate afterlife.

[Callista]

yeah, i guess so, would the effects of the helm follow the person into the after life? if so, then they get damned, if not... that is where things definitely get tricky. "there is a lot to be said for learning your lesson before you die"Yes, they would go to an Evil-aligned afterlife. But look at that Helm of Opposite Alignment; it's worth 4000 gp and it's unlikely that a party of less than 5th or 6th level should be getting their hands on it. You're probably not going to be encountering it before you have enough connections to pull in a Raise Dead from someone, or possibly even cast it yourself. Changing the alignment back is another story entirely and probably has to be done either magically or through long-term mundane Diplomacy. Atonement won't work because the character won't be willing--he likes his new alignment. This is one of the few times that spells like Sanctify the Wicked aren't evil (but are still very high-level and cost a character level, so Wish and Miracle are preferable). But the character who puts on unidentified magic items really deserves what he gets, don't you think?

A Helm of Opposite Alignment can make a great plot twist. Imagine, for example, that a high-level force for Good has been captured and had a Helm put on him repeatedly until the magic took effect. You now have a BBEG who isn't supposed to be E at all--and who, if the party kills him, will end up in a very bad afterlife that his Good self doesn't deserve. Sure, they can kill him; his Good-aligned self would probably even ask them to do so, if he had the choice. But it's going to feel pretty horrible to them.

Alternatively, instead of using the BBEG, send them into the Abyss to retrieve the soul of the aforementioned Good-aligned guy who is now Evil, has since been killed (likely by the same people who forced the Helm onto his head), and is stuck in the Abyss refusing to come back for Resurrection because the Evil guys were the ones who killed him and the Good guys are... well, Good. So his spirit has to be dragged back in person by a bunch of people willing to venture into infinite chaos...

Why DMs are so uncreative as to simply put the Helm into a pile of treasure and hope hilarity ensues is really beyond me.

[TheMeMan]

You can't backstab him.
Drama rules state that he has to personally make the life miserable before your chances of success even gets above 0%.
He knows this and will kill you shortly after making you life a living hell.

Drama rules dictate that after being crowned king by the impassioned masses, he will be killed by a few dozen officials while giving a speech. The final strike would be given by one of his most trusted friends, possibly a bodyguard.

[Jay R]

Based on Tarquin's business model, his management skills and his life philosophy, I'd work for him. If I lived in the OOTS world, I mean.

Would you?

This can't be a serious question.

No, I don't want to guard slaves.
No, I don't want to re-capture slaves.
No, I don't want to set slaves on fire.
No, I don't want to kill somebody so the boss can marry his widow.
No, I don't want to torture somebody to make her marry the boss.
No, I don't want to feed prisoners to a red dragon.
No, I don't want to make prisoners kill each other for the amusement of the boss.

No, there is no way I could work for Tarquin.

[Felixc-91]

This can't be a serious question.

No, I don't want to guard slaves.
No, I don't want to re-capture slaves.
No, I don't want to set slaves on fire.
No, I don't want to kill somebody so the boss can marry his widow.
No, I don't want to torture somebody to make her marry the boss.
No, I don't want to feed prisoners to a red dragon.
No, I don't want to make prisoners kill each other for the amusement of the boss.

No, there is no way I could work for Tarquin. someone pointed out earlier that the empress of blood is sort of working for him... so, would you be his face to the world for a few years? how about is you got to live and were simply banished?

[Felixc-91]

Yes, they would go to an Evil-aligned afterlife. But look at that Helm of Opposite Alignment; it's worth 4000 gp and it's unlikely that a party of less than 5th or 6th level should be getting their hands on it. You're probably not going to be encountering it before you have enough connections to pull in a Raise Dead from someone, or possibly even cast it yourself. Changing the alignment back is another story entirely and probably has to be done either magically or through long-term mundane Diplomacy. Atonement won't work because the character won't be willing--he likes his new alignment. This is one of the few times that spells like Sanctify the Wicked aren't evil (but are still very high-level and cost a character level, so Wish and Miracle are preferable). But the character who puts on unidentified magic items really deserves what he gets, don't you think?

A Helm of Opposite Alignment can make a great plot twist. Imagine, for example, that a high-level force for Good has been captured and had a Helm put on him repeatedly until the magic took effect. You now have a BBEG who isn't supposed to be E at all--and who, if the party kills him, will end up in a very bad afterlife that his Good self doesn't deserve. Sure, they can kill him; his Good-aligned self would probably even ask them to do so, if he had the choice. But it's going to feel pretty horrible to them.

Alternatively, instead of using the BBEG, send them into the Abyss to retrieve the soul of the aforementioned Good-aligned guy who is now Evil, has since been killed (likely by the same people who forced the Helm onto his head), and is stuck in the Abyss refusing to come back for Resurrection because the Evil guys were the ones who killed him and the Good guys are... well, Good. So his spirit has to be dragged back in person by a bunch of people willing to venture into infinite chaos...

Why DMs are so uncreative as to simply put the Helm into a pile of treasure and hope hilarity ensues is really beyond me.:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: for the awesome ideas :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Roderick_BR]

Um, no. People are liking what Tarquin said because he is persuasive and eloquent. But really he has just bought into his own delusion about what really matters in life. All he cares about is being a legend, no matter what he is known for. That may constitute a "victory" for Tarquin, but it is no victory in my eyes, and I wouldn't want to be a part of it.

Tarquin is a great villain, the kind I love to hate. Don't get me wrong, he's a brilliant character. But work for him? Like Elan, I think I'd run away, or fight him.
Agreed. I'm confortable in staying anonimous, and alive.

[Jay R]

someone pointed out earlier that the empress of blood is sort of working for him... so, would you be his face to the world for a few years? how about is you got to live and were simply banished?

So all the killing, torture and slavery would be done in my name?

No.

That's all.

Just no.