How evil would you rate this character?

[druid91]

This is a character who.

Repeatedly and unashamedly animates skeletons.

Has gone on a murderous rampage of revenge. (His teacher, Effectively his father, was killed. And he wasn't strong enough to fight the mob and inquisitor with them. He ran and returned years later to kill every member of the mob.)

Is more than willing to consort with horrible spirits if they restrain themselves.

Is generally non-hostile towards people. He tries to believe in people however since he lives in a land of "burn the witches" and just so happens to be a witch it tends to get him down.

Wants everyone to live happily ever after. Except the inquisition and their supporters.

And finally He truely and honestly believes that wiping out the Church inquisition and establishing a new arcane friendly order in it's place is best for everyone.

So how would you rate their evil-ness?

[Worira]

Neutral, leaning to good.

[Lord Ruby34]

I'd say that his methods of killing his enemies matter. But I would say that he's a dark, but well-intentioned, neutral.

[druid91]

I'd say that his methods of killing his enemies matter. But I would say that he's a dark, but well-intentioned, neutral.

A quick sword thrust to the gut from a skeletal hand has been the main method thus far.

One who actually dealt the killing strike to his teacher was nailed to a noticeboard after death but otherwise it was the same as the rest.

[Sarco_Phage]

Only a little bit evil. I mean, the massacre thing skews him towards it a little bit. So Neutral, leaning to evil.

[Seffbasilisk]

Lawful Neutral with potential good leanings.

Once his purge is complete, could be Good.

Necromancy is generally seen as Evil, but he's not torturing them (like most characters in a similar situation would) and he's trying to make the best.

I guess it depends on his ideals.

Is he raising skeletons not to put other lives in danger for his personal quest? Just because they're convenient? Because he doesn't know another way? Because of the terror they inspire? What?

[druid91]

Lawful Neutral with potential good leanings.

Once his purge is complete, could be Good.

Necromancy is generally seen as Evil, but he's not torturing them (like most characters in a similar situation would) and he's trying to make the best.

I guess it depends on his ideals.

Is he raising skeletons not to put other lives in danger for his personal quest? Just because they're convenient? Because he doesn't know another way? Because of the terror they inspire? What?

He's a necromancer his teacher was a necromancer, they were sort of an odd family of non-malicious necromancers. It doesn't seem wrong to him and he can do it, so why not? Raiding cemetaries or old battlefields is a lot easier than convincing the living to help.

[TriForce]

definatly evil, probably lawful, but id believe neutral evil too.

basically, none of all the other things matter after you read he animates skeletons. creating undead is one of the more evil things you can do, and regardless of what you do with them, the act of creating them (repeatedly) means your evil. the spell doesnt have a [evil] tag for nothing you know

[druid91]

definatly evil, probably lawful, but id believe neutral evil too.

basically, none of all the other things matter after you read he animates skeletons. creating undead is one of the more evil things you can do, and regardless of what you do with them, the act of creating them (repeatedly) means your evil. the spell doesnt have a [evil] tag for nothing you know

Well if you want to get technical he has yet to reach the point where an undead horde would be useful, and thus sticks to using his skeletal minion class feature.

So he has yet to cast an animate dead spell.:smalltongue:

[137beth]

Necromancy is not necessarily evil. I'd say he's true neutral (avenging his mentor is lawful, randomly killing is chaotic).

[druid91]

Necromancy is not necessarily evil. I'd say he's true neutral (avenging his mentor is lawful, randomly killing is chaotic).

It wasn't random. In nearly any sense. He specifically singled out those who had taken part in the raid causing his teachers death, this massacre meant to do three things, One send a message, two as part of the revenge, and three draw out church forces into an area where he would no longer be. Weakening them in other areas.

[Tetrasodium]

This is a character who.

Repeatedly and unashamedly animates skeletons.

Has gone on a murderous rampage of revenge. (His teacher, Effectively his father, was killed. And he wasn't strong enough to fight the mob and inquisitor with them. He ran and returned years later to kill every member of the mob.)

Is more than willing to consort with horrible spirits if they restrain themselves.

Is generally non-hostile towards people. He tries to believe in people however since he lives in a land of "burn the witches" and just so happens to be a witch it tends to get him down.

Wants everyone to live happily ever after. Except the inquisition and their supporters.

And finally He truely and honestly believes that wiping out the Church inquisition and establishing a new arcane friendly order in it's place is best for everyone.

So how would you rate their evil-ness?

Neutral not-Good

[Sactheminions]

The D&D Necromancy is Evil thing has always been nonsense. Preventing souls from reaching the outer planes isn't Evil or Good until you know what sort of soul you're effectively imprisoning, and the practical effect of controlled necromancy is rather smelly golems.

So I'd say just about dead neutral, with chaotic tendencies since he is opposed to the lawful order of his own society.

[druid91]

The D&D Necromancy is Evil thing has always been nonsense. Preventing souls from reaching the outer planes isn't Evil or Good until you know what sort of soul you're effectively imprisoning, and the practical effect of controlled necromancy is rather smelly golems.

So I'd say just about dead neutral, with chaotic tendencies since he is opposed to the lawful order of his own society.

Actually My DM actually explained this one, In his world necromancy has no effect on the original departed soul but instead takes a willing evil soul and chains it to the corpse.

From there you can control it however you normally would.

[Armand]

Neutral Good if you ask me... Or i could also say 'good' and 'neutral'
Well yes, some spell may be Evil... Some may strongly evil. Even a summon monster spell could be evil if you use it to call an devil or demon. But evil acts doesnt make people instantly evil, or non good as make paladins instantly fall (which personally i'm not fallowing that rule that much either)

Of course, good or evil is also an elemental power in dnd, and it may corrupt you, it may seduce you. So yes, this character stereotype definitely not appropriate for an neutral good outsider. But it is right now appropriate for a mortal beign. He is still holding a good intent inside of himself. And thats the matter if you ask me. Characters cant fool dms like they can fool npcs, since you have to know all about them because of a part of your job. Plus, your informations showing that he doesnt have a plan like that.

Yet... If you still in a dilemma, give this guy a chance to choose an alignement for his character in good-neutral axis if he didint allready choose one, and if he did that allready accept his choice as it is, at least for now. And if he lose this 'good intent' or his actions starting to shown signs that he forgetting this good intent, start to push his alignement score to evil.

Thats my idea anyway.

ps: And... i answered that while thinking that you're the dm, but i'm not sure about after your last post. Still, there isnt that much thing to change in any case for me.

[Show]

Neutral, with both good and evil tendencies.
His utopian dreams and concern for others is a sign of good, but a strong desire for revenge against a certain group, I would call evil.

I have a similar concept, but without the revenge element. I think of him as TN with good tendencies.

[Drachasor]

Sounds evil to me. "Supporters of the Inquisition" include people that have essentially done nothing wrong, as I read it. Killing people for their political views? Yeah, that's evil.

Killing every member of that mob might well be evil too. It's more than a little unclear.

The guy definitely isn't good. Happy goals does not make someone good. Wishing for a nice world of peace does not make someone good. It means NOTHING in terms of alignment. It certainly doesn't "balance out" doing evil.

Sounds a bit like Lawful Evil. That's "evil with scruples."

I'm completely ignoring the undead thing, btw. Though in this world it sounds pretty reckless if you lose control of them (and there are tons of ways that could happen).

[druid91]

Sounds evil to me. "Supporters of the Inquisition" include people that have essentially done nothing wrong, as I read it. Killing people for their political views? Yeah, that's evil.

Killing every member of that mob might well be evil too. It's more than a little unclear.

The guy definitely isn't good. Happy goals does not make someone good. Wishing for a nice world of peace does not make someone good. It means NOTHING in terms of alignment. It certainly doesn't "balance out" doing evil.

Sounds a bit like Lawful Evil. That's "evil with scruples."

I'm completely ignoring the undead thing, btw. Though in this world it sounds pretty reckless if you lose control of them (and there are tons of ways that could happen).

No supporters of the inquisition mean people who aren't technically inquisitors but work with them. Church soldiers and the like.

How is it unclear? Personally I thought it as a medium to mild evil act myself.

No but actively striving towards a goal of that world, while avoiding unnecessary deaths. Really the most evil thing he does is manufacture undead.

Though Evil with Scruples is pretty much what I'm aiming for, but I'm wondering if I perhaps gave him too many scruples.

[Drachasor]

No supporters of the inquisition mean people who aren't technically inquisitors but work with them. Church soldiers and the like.

So not an inn keeper who thinks they are doing a good job and might give them free room and board? What about a slightly batty old lady who'd rat people out to the inquisition if given a chance? Seems like with the mob thing he'd be against vocal supporters who take little action on their own or might only take action if presented with a chance. Might kill such people just to be safe.


How is it unclear? Personally I thought it as a medium to mild evil act myself.

It's a bit unclear because we don't know the time lapse, what exactly the individual members did, whether they were going to do more evil, and a bunch of other questions like that. I thought it very probably evil, but there was a gray area.


No but actively striving towards a goal of that world, while avoiding unnecessary deaths. Really the most evil thing he does is manufacture undead.

I think that's mostly reckless....depending on how he handles the undead. If he sets any free to go about on their own, that's very, very likely evil.

That said, you really can't depend on casting [Evil] spells, imho, not if they don't actually DO evil. That's a very unsatisfactory sort of evil...mostly evil by label.


Though Evil with Scruples is pretty much what I'm aiming for, but I'm wondering if I perhaps gave him too many scruples.

In D&D as long as you consistently do evil, you CAN'T have too many scruples. Evil is explicitly allowed to have scruples and such while still being evil. Good and Neutral don't get "yeah, you can do evil on a semi-regular basis and still be good/neutral."

Part of what helps is his goal is "kill a whole bunch of people, and everyone else can be happy." It isn't "get everyone to be happy." That's actually a big difference. Kill them without remorse of forgiveness, kill them without mercy, and enjoy inflicting pain and anguish on them without regard for their dignity and you'll be evil just fine.

[Jayh]

Im going with neutral.

[Ravens_cry]

Yeah, his running amok and rampage of revenge is definitely evil. People connected with the Inquisition could include people who do things like build their buildings and even the Church soldiers could be innocent of any direct evil. Someone has to guard the doors after all, sweep the floors, do the accounting. If you include parishioners you get really, really evil. One can support a religions core values without supporting atrocities.
The necromancy does not bother me, though the designers of D&D felt differently, so either Evil or Neutral. His use of them is as it was definitely disproportionate retribution.
Lawful Evil that wants to be Neutral or Good, but his acts have seriously tilted the balance.

[dkist]

This is a character who.

Repeatedly and unashamedly animates skeletons.

Has gone on a murderous rampage of revenge. (His teacher, Effectively his father, was killed. And he wasn't strong enough to fight the mob and inquisitor with them. He ran and returned years later to kill every member of the mob.)

Is more than willing to consort with horrible spirits if they restrain themselves.

Is generally non-hostile towards people. He tries to believe in people however since he lives in a land of "burn the witches" and just so happens to be a witch it tends to get him down.

Wants everyone to live happily ever after. Except the inquisition and their supporters.

And finally He truely and honestly believes that wiping out the Church inquisition and establishing a new arcane friendly order in it's place is best for everyone.

So how would you rate their evil-ness?

Neutral EVIL

[DeAnno]

Despite the fact that most people would like to him dead, he wants them to live happily ever after. He wants to avenge the wrongful slaying of his father and establish a new order in the land for the benefit of all.

Lawful Good. He could take Paladin levels.

[AzazelSephiroth]

Actually My DM actually explained this one, In his world necromancy has no effect on the original departed soul but instead takes a willing evil soul and chains it to the corpse.

From there you can control it however you normally would.

This part is what I think would cause the most concern about this character`s future. If you intend for your character to continue to be an evil person with a few morals on the side then it is fine, granting he does not let a lot or potentialy any of these willing evil souls free later in their new undead bodies. However, if you intended him to be slightly evil or dark and work on a redemption type of storyline then you will have an issue as using necromancy calls forth and uses evil souls... granted you command them and I am a firm believer that actions are more important than intentions but the fact that your creations are powered by the willing use of evil is something that def. lends itself to calling him Neutral Evil with maybe some feelings of justice on the side.:smallsmile:

[Sarco_Phage]

Despite the fact that most people would like to him dead, he wants them to live happily ever after. He wants to avenge the wrongful slaying of his father and establish a new order in the land for the benefit of all.

Lawful Good. He could take Paladin levels.

Maybe not paladin per se, I wouldn't call him Lawful.

[TurkeyBlizzard]

Maybe not paladin per se, I wouldn't call him Lawful.

I'd absolutely call him Lawful. He's got a clear code of ethics.

The Inquisitors (his enemies)- let's establish their alignment. What have they done to earn his hatred? Are they Evil because they hunt down other witches? Are the witches they hunt Evil?

I feel like if the Inquisitors are Evil, then destroying them is a Good act.

[Sarco_Phage]

I'd absolutely call him Lawful. He's got a clear code of ethics.

The Inquisitors (his enemies)- let's establish their alignment. What have they done to earn his hatred? Are they Evil because they hunt down other witches? Are the witches they hunt Evil?

I feel like if the Inquisitors are Evil, then destroying them is a Good act.

You've got me there with the ethical code.

At any rate, we shouldn't ask the question of whether or not the Inquisition is Evil, but rather if it does Evil Things. Their acts, and the gravity of their acts, should be the point of determination as regards whether or not their organization should be dismantled.

[blackjack217]

.05 kiloNazis

[druid91]

Oddly enough the inquisition is almost The Necromancers mirror image, very similar but at the same time opposite.


Basically they are your stereotypical church of light, only they hunt down any arcanist, and quite a few kinds of divine magic user you could be the best wizard in the world, petting puppies, giving small children candy, helping to fight burglars and bandits... and they'd still arrest/kill you.
There is party member who is a bard he actually took the trouble to hide his small uses of magic to enhance his performances and he was still about to be arrested. Other than that they for the most part are pretty good.

[Sarco_Phage]

Basically they are your stereotypical church of light, only they hunt down any arcanist, and quite a few kinds of divine magic user you could be the best wizard in the world, petting puppies, giving small children candy, helping to fight burglars and bandits... and they'd still arrest/kill you.
There is party member who is a bard he actually took the trouble to hide his small uses of magic to enhance his performances and he was still about to be arrested. Other than that they for the most part are pretty good.

Okay, see, this sounds like the Inquisition is a sort of rotten apple. Of course the main tenets of your big church would be skewed towards hating all arcane magic, and I'm willing to bet that a big part of their scripture calls arcane magic anathema...

Seems familiar.

Anyway, the big question: is the wanton arcanist murder thing core to the church itself or something primarily carried out and promoted by the Inquisition faction?

Or is the church itself the Inquisition? What I mean is, is the Inquisition and its members the sole official representative of that church, with no clerics or other ministers?

[Drachasor]

I'd absolutely call him Lawful. He's got a clear code of ethics.

The Inquisitors (his enemies)- let's establish their alignment. What have they done to earn his hatred? Are they Evil because they hunt down other witches? Are the witches they hunt Evil?

I feel like if the Inquisitors are Evil, then destroying them is a Good act.

When Demons kill Devils, there aren't necessarily any good acts.

Stopping people from doing evil is certainly good. Wanting to kill everyone in an organization that does evil at times, and wanting any survivors to never be happy is decidedly NOT good.

Going on a murderous rampage against people who were in a mob at some point in the past is evil as well.

Good doesn't give you the license to go around killing people because they did something bad in the past or because their alignment is evil today or because they joined an organization that does some evil things. The restrictions on behavior are more arduous than that.

The OP's has done evil and plans to do more evil. Just because he wants a happy world with puppies afterwards doesn't make him a good guy.

[Sarco_Phage]

When Demons kill Devils, there aren't necessarily any good acts.

Plus, depending on the setting, Demons killing Devils is a Bad Thing(tm). Considering that one of the only forces holding Demons in check is the forces of the Nine, well...

[druid91]

Okay, see, this sounds like the Inquisition is a sort of rotten apple. Of course the main tenets of your big church would be skewed towards hating all arcane magic, and I'm willing to bet that a big part of their scripture calls arcane magic anathema...

Seems familiar.

Anyway, the big question: is the wanton arcanist murder thing core to the church itself or something primarily carried out and promoted by the Inquisition faction?

Or is the church itself the Inquisition? What I mean is, is the Inquisition and its members the sole official representative of that church, with no clerics or other ministers?

It's a core tenet of the church, see a really long time ago when the church was still forming an evil guy with tons of arcane power nearly toppled the kingdom. Which started the whole Arcane magic is inherently evil thing.

[Drachasor]

I'll add that he could do a bit more to make this clear, since Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil is what he's going for. That said, I do think he's evil already. Some people like to gloss over evil acts when done to evil people.

Funny thing is, if you go around killing bad guys, there are always people willing to root for you. There are plenty of books, comics, etc where the author made a "hero" do terribly evil things and was meant to be reviled, but because they were done to bad guys people rooted for them. It's depressingly common.

[Abrexa]

Neutral-to-(strongly) evil. And I don't take necromancy into account at all, rather, his other deeds.

Fighting evil with evil does not make you good.

[Sarco_Phage]

It's a core tenet of the church, see a really long time ago when the church was still forming an evil guy with tons of arcane power nearly toppled the kingdom. Which started the whole Arcane magic is inherently evil thing.

Okay, see, that makes the church itself a pretty big problem, especially since its witch-hating tenets have been ingrained in the social milieu on a generational basis. This is kind of a case of lesser evil-versus-social evil.

[B!shop]

I would say Neutral, or Lawful if you consider his morality.

About the fact that he is a necromancer, I think it depends mostly on the campaign setting if this is an evidence of evilness or not: in ancient Rome for example slavery was legal and ethically accepted (slaves weren't even considered humans), so being a slaver wasn't necessarily an evil fact.

[hamishspence]

Just because it's "ethically accepted by the culture" doesn't mean it's "not evil in a D&D game."

Making people slaves certainly fits into "hurting, oppressing (and possibly "debasing" depending on the view) others."

[Sarco_Phage]

About the fact that he is a necromancer, I think it depends mostly on the campaign setting if this is an evidence of evilness or not: in ancient Rome for example slavery was legal and ethically accepted (slaves weren't even considered humans), so being a slaver wasn't necessarily an evil fact.

You're confusing Rome with more recent slaveowning countries. In reality, the "humanity" of a slave varied from province to province.