Alignment this - Plague Druid

[Silus]

So I'm finally getting this Pathfinder Society character hammered out and I'd like some advice on setting the Alignment and general...personality of this character.

He's going to be a Human Druid with the Decay subdomain, specializing mostly in Necromancy and a minor in Conjuration. Patron deity is gonna be Urgathoa with paying homage to the Horseman of Pestilence (Not allowed to worship him under the PFS rules however).

His reason for turning to disease and plagues is pretty simple: Eventual genocide. When he was younger, he was present at a Society mission that uncovered an Aboleth pulling the strings of a politician. Cat got out of the bag and he learned that the Aboleths had manipulated humanity right from the get-go. Infuriated that they were little more than puppets to these alien monstrosities, he searched for ways to wipe them off the face of the planet, along with any other otherworldy monsters with ideas of machinations towards the mortal races. Then a thought occurred, somewhere between "massive war" and "Get a Deck of Many Things". A plague. A super plague. One engineered to wipe out not only the Aboleths, but almost all of the Darklands, before consuming itself in an orgy of biological destruction and decay. And thus he set on his path, learning the way of viruses, plagues, disease and decay.

TL;DR: Learned Aboleths are puppetmasters, wants to conduct Exterminus on Underdark.

Personality-wise, he's grim, a little paranoid (due to the whole "Aboleths control everything from behind the scenes" thing), and for the most part, quiet. For him, most of the Society missions are tests for new strains of diseases and viruses or how decay and sickness affects differing creatures. He does it with a sort of medical curiosity. Latest virus causes the subject to cough up blood and their eyes to scab over? That goes in the notes, might come in handy some other time. He's essentially the typical amoral scientist, conducting horrible experiments with an ultimately "good" goal down the line. Very "The ends justify the means".

So, without going Evil, what would be the alignment ballpark for this guy? And if he's just screaming "I'm evil!", what ought I do to get him more in like with the "top" 6 alignments?

[Madara]

It sounds like this Druid is pushing for freedom from Aboleth slavery. He is working outside of what society would consider legal, but is trying to do it for a noble cause. Depending on how willing the druid is on destroying those that get in his way, its somewhere between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral. If you put the goal before everthing else(Which the mad scientist sounds like), I'd go with CN. If you are willing to cut others slack for not knowing what they do, that'd be CG.

[Togath]

probably lawful neutral, or chaotic good would be good for his alignment

[The Redwolf]

Chaotic neutral is what it sounds like to me.

[Silus]

It sounds like this Druid is pushing for freedom from Aboleth slavery. He is working outside of what society would consider legal, but is trying to do it for a noble cause. Depending on how willing the druid is on destroying those that get in his way, its somewhere between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral. If you put the goal before everthing else(Which the mad scientist sounds like), I'd go with CN. If you are willing to cut others slack for not knowing what they do, that'd be CG.

Well the only thing is, he's not just targeting the Aboleth. He's targeting just about all Darkland/Underdark creatures. Drow, Derro, Skum, Trogs, Mongrelmen, Grimlocks, Dark Folk, Duergar, Drider and everything in between.

If he was a Paladin, he'd be the kind that would judge a city as corrupt and put the whole thing to the torch.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sorry fella, where I'm from genocide against mortal creatures is evil, so is the deliberate spread of disease. Maybe, with some strong RP (we're talking day-time emmy's here) you could swing CN, but I'd probably peg you as one or another flavor of evil by default. Seriously, not all underdark creatures are evil. By the shining fist, svirfneblin and mongrelfolk aren't even "usually evil."

[zimmerwald1915]

Sorry fella, where I'm from genocide against mortal creatures is evil, so is the deliberate spread of disease. Maybe, with some strong RP (we're talking day-time emmy's here) you could swing CN, but I'd probably peg you as one or another flavor of evil by default. Seriously, not all underdark creatures are evil. By the shining fist, svirfneblin and mongrelfolk aren't even "usually evil."
It's a Pathfinder Society character. Unless they've changed the rules this season, player characters aren't allowed to be evil. That said, these objections are valid (except the argument that some Underdark creatures aren't predominantly evil, which is true, but tangential to the overall point that genocide is evil), so it seems there are two options. Either slap a non-evil alignment on the character as it stands, and trust that almost no PFS session will focus on situations that will tickle the character's passions, or rework the concept.

[Silus]

It's a Pathfinder Society character. Unless they've changed the rules this season, player characters aren't allowed to be evil. That said, these objections are valid (except the argument that some Underdark creatures aren't predominantly evil, which is true, but tangential to the overall point that genocide is evil), so it seems there are two options. Either slap a non-evil alignment on the character as it stands, and trust that almost no PFS session will focus on situations that will tickle the character's passions, or rework the concept.

*Shakes fist at the Society rules*

Maybe rework the concept to him wanting the plague to only kill Aberrations, but non-fatally infect the other races. Maybe a low mortality rate for non-Aberrations, but like a 99% kill rate for anything that's not..."normal". As long as it gets the job done and cripples or outright kills the Aboleths.

[Kelb_Panthera]

*Shakes fist at the Society rules*

Maybe rework the concept to him wanting the plague to only kill Aberrations, but non-fatally infect the other races. Maybe a low mortality rate for non-Aberrations, but like a 99% kill rate for anything that's not..."normal". As long as it gets the job done and cripples or outright kills the Aboleths.

So...... slightly less evil? It's still evil. The problem you're running into is that I highly doubt that anyone would consider the deliberate spread of disease anything but evil. Genocide can be rationalized, but plague? I just don't see it.

[Madara]

*Shakes fist at the Society rules*

Maybe rework the concept to him wanting the plague to only kill Aberrations, but non-fatally infect the other races. Maybe a low mortality rate for non-Aberrations, but like a 99% kill rate for anything that's not..."normal". As long as it gets the job done and cripples or outright kills the Aboleths.

In the end, the evil they're worried about is Chaotic Stupid, or the kind that will conflict with the party, or wouldn't be a hero.

They wouldn't normally object to a Paladin focused on a campaign of vengence towards those who slaughtered his village/ did something bad.

And that's a standard background in fantasy.

This is almost the same background, but on a different scale. The character uses what they have to reach their goals. So I don't think the alignment is a problem.

[Silus]

So...... slightly less evil? It's still evil. The problem you're running into is that I highly doubt that anyone would consider the deliberate spread of disease anything but evil. Genocide can be rationalized, but plague? I just don't see it.

Well it's genocide via engineered plague, specifically targeting a type of creature.

Aboleths live, mostly, in the underground seas. There's really no way to get all the way down into what is considered the "Lowerdark" (Orv) and wage a long war with the underground, underwater enemies. A plague that can lay mostly dormant in other mortal races that will decimate the target race is, IMO, far and above less evil than a totally genocidal plague as was my previous idea.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well it's genocide via engineered plague, specifically targeting a type of creature.

Aboleths live, mostly, in the underground seas. There's really no way to get all the way down into what is considered the "Lowerdark" (Orv) and wage a long war with the underground, underwater enemies. A plague that can lay mostly dormant in other mortal races that will decimate the target race is, IMO, far and above less evil than a totally genocidal plague as was my previous idea.

You can describe it as less evil. It's still evil though. You even said so yourself.
IMO far and above less evil than a totally genocidal plague Doing it the hard way wouldn't be evil, but plague of any sort is causing all kinds of suffering before it kills. Even the most heartless and alien enemy deserves a quick, clean death. Anything else is torture.

[zimmerwald1915]

Genocide can be rationalized
I had such high hopes for you.

[Water_Bear]

If you want to avoid labeling the character as Evil (which they are, obviously) what you need to do is stop using the words "plague" and "genocide." Do what real world genocide apologists do and redefine the argument through language.

In D&D nature is pure. Aberrations are impure. As a servant of nature you are obligated to purify the Underdark of it's contamination. And what better way is there to treat a disease than by inoculating against it? Obviously your Druid, as someone selflessly devoted to the health of the world, should settle for no less a title than NG.

Or for another; Aboleths are the antithesis of freedom. Their very nature is to enslave others, either through their natural illusions or their slime which forces innocent humanoids to live dreary lives of passionless servitude. The Aboleths look only to the past, obsessing over millenia of ancestral memory because they hate the liberty which comes with living in the now. It is better that their slaves find freedom in death than to continue on as they are, and your character is the one to bring true freedom to the Underdark. Obviously such a champion of liberty is CN.

It's all about rhetoric; if you can get peoples focus away from the obvious evil acts, you can redirect it to whatever excuses your character has cooked up for themselves.

[Silus]

You can describe it as less evil. It's still evil though. You even said so yourself. Doing it the hard way wouldn't be evil, but plague of any sort is causing all kinds of suffering before it kills. Even the most heartless and alien enemy deserves a quick, clean death. Anything else is torture.

Yes, I agree that a plague vs mortal creatures is excessively evil, but these are monsters to the Nth degree. They elevated humanity up to glorious heights then pulled a Colony Drop when the humans got too powerful, thus leading to the Age of Darkness (http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Age_of_Darkness).

Source (http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Aboleth)

To top it off, they (the Aboleths) consort with things from beyond the Dark Tapestry that go beyond the Black, Grey and White morality to Polkadot and Plaid morality.


If you want to avoid labeling the character as Evil (which they are, obviously) what you need to do is stop using the words "plague" and "genocide." Do what real world genocide apologists do and redefine the argument through language.

In D&D nature is pure. Aberrations are impure. As a servant of nature you are obligated to purify the Underdark of it's contamination. And what better way is there to treat a disease than by inoculating against it? Obviously your Druid, as someone selflessly devoted to the health of the world, should settle for no less a title than NG.

Or for another; Aboleths are the antithesis of freedom. Their very nature is to enslave others, either through their natural illusions or their slime which forces innocent humanoids to live dreary lives of passionless servitude. The Aboleths look only to the past, obsessing over millenia of ancestral memory because they hate the liberty which comes with living in the now. It is better that their slaves find freedom in death than to continue on as they are, and your character is the one to bring true freedom to the Underdark. Obviously such a champion of liberty is CN.

It's all about rhetoric; if you can get peoples focus away from the obvious evil acts, you can redirect it to whatever excuses your character has cooked up for themselves.

I think the second one is more in line with his mentality, though less of the "poor slaves" and more with the "vengeance for a millennia of enslavement".

Here's what I don't get.

Using a Wish spell to wish all Aboleths wiped from reality =/= evil.
Waging a long, bloody and protracted war against them =/= evil.
Devising a plague that kills mostly only Aboleths = evil.

[Slipperychicken]

From my List of Evil Acts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13484087#post13484087), it looks like our Druid is definitely hitting the following:

Using Others for Personal Gain/Sacrificing Others for a Boon (BoVD pg. 9)- He's intentionally slaughtering innocents, pursuing his single-minded vendetta at the expense of others.

Animating or Creating Undead (BoVD pg 8) -Even if the undead are commanded to do good, it's still Evil because it lets negative energy into the world.

Bringing Despair (BoVD pg 9)- It calls out spreading disease as unnecessarily-painful and thus immoral.


As you have him, this guy is Neutral Evil. He qualifies for the Druid class, but that's about all I can say for him. You just can't justify genocide. Seriously, imagine someone doing this kind of **** in real life; it's unforgivable.

To make him less-evil... actually, genocide-by-disease is just plain evil. His intentions don't change the fact that he's slaughtering innocents by making their eyes scab over. You can't justify that. Maybe he could skip the whole "genocide" thing, and try to remove Aboleth influence in some other way. Maybe he could just be Evil, and wear a Ring of Mind Shielding so Paladins don't bother him so much.




Here's what I don't get.

Using a Wish spell to wish all Aboleths wiped from reality =/= evil.
Waging a long, bloody and protracted war against them =/= evil.
Devising a plague that kills mostly only Aboleths = evil.

Devising a plague that only kills Aboleths, when every one is responsible for humanity's problems = palatable

Devising a plague that kills not only Aboleths, but countless innocents too, without even trying to save the innocents = Evil

The difference is that the Plague's intentionally killing innocents and noncombatants. That is, people who didn't choose to be part of this fight. A war might wind up with peasants dead, sure, but you can still save them, and a lot more than if you wipe out whole cities.

[Silus]

From my List of Evil Acts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13484087#post13484087), it looks like our Druid is definitely hitting the following:

Using Others for Personal Gain/Sacrificing Others for a Boon (BoVD pg. 9)- He's intentionally slaughtering innocents, pursuing his single-minded vendetta at the expense of others.

Animating or Creating Undead (BoVD pg 8) -Even if the undead are commanded to do good, it's still Evil because it lets negative energy into the world.

Bringing Despair (BoVD pg 9)- It calls out spreading disease as unnecessarily-painful and thus immoral.


As you have him, this guy is Neutral Evil. He qualifies for the Druid class, but that's about all I can say for him. You just can't justify genocide. Seriously, imagine someone doing this kind of **** in real life; it's unforgivable.

To make him less-evil... actually, genocide-by-disease is just plain evil. His intentions don't change the fact that he's slaughtering innocents by making their eyes scab over. You can't justify that. Maybe he could skip the whole "genocide" thing, and try to remove Aboleth influence in some other way. Maybe he could just be Evil, and wear a Ring of Mind Shielding so Paladins don't bother him so much.

The last point I'll agree with, but he has no capability to raise the dead or animate them, and as for the first point, it's more apathy than intentionally targeting civilians. Infect bad guys (bandit, BBEG henchman) with fast acting disease (Say, the Contagion spell), and if they somehow spread it to an innocent, then it's just further study.

The point of the plague genocide is that it's probably the most bloodless way of eradicating the species that is still viable. Compared to all out war or being lucky enough to get a Wish, a specialized disease that self-destroys itself at the end is probably the most humane way.

Or we could just go the whole Genophage route and use a virus/disease/whatever to permanently sterilize the species.



Devising a plague that only kills Aboleths, when every one is responsible for humanity's problems = palatable

Devising a plague that kills not only Aboleths, but countless innocents too, without even trying to save the innocents = Evil

The difference is that the Plague's intentionally killing innocents and noncombatants. That is, people who didn't choose to be part of this fight. A war might wind up with peasants dead, sure, but you can still save them, and a lot more than if you wipe out whole cities.

I know it's just fluff, but it I had the opportunity to enact this in-game, it would likely involve dropping a time-delay magic item into the ocean where the underground sea connects to the aboveground sea. Timer goes off, massive plague bomb permeates both oceans with the virus and begins the rapid decline of the Aboleth species. No random plague running rampant through the slums of cities, no plague zombies shambling about. What point is there to destroy an enslaving species only to throw your own people under the oppression of a virus of your own devising?

[Mari01]

Should we really be using the BoED or the BoVD for what constitutes good and evil? Cmon now, I respected you guys.

[Silus]

It's kinda funny. All this came from my picking this Bonus trait for my Druid.

Slayer of the Deep ([QUOTE=Slipperychicken;13673282])

Benefit: You gain a +1 trait bonus on damage rolls made against creatures of the aberration type.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I had such high hopes for you.
Don't give up hope. I only said it could be rationalized, I never said that made it right. I didn't even say that that made it less evil. It doesn't.

Should we really be using the BoED or the BoVD for what constitutes good and evil? Cmon now, I respected you guys.

If this were a D&D 3.5 discussion I'd've been quoting them both already, but this is a pathfinder discussion, so I'm going with my own outlook on what's good or evil. It does happen to coincide with those sources on a fair number of issues though.

[Slipperychicken]

The point of the plague genocide is that it's probably the most bloodless way of eradicating the species that is still viable. Compared to all out war or being lucky enough to get a Wish, a specialized disease that self-destroys itself at the end is probably the most humane way.

You don't have to agree with the rules, and I actually encourage you and your group to have different ideas. Here's an example: This is how evil BoVD thinks genocide is. (Spoilered for extreme length)


BoVD page 36; Darkness Like The World Has Never Seen Before




Generally unique in all the world, such an event scars the
nature of reality. Such a scar will probably never heal. The
worst of all fell events might include the following.

• An act of genocide.
• The birth of an evil god.
• The murder of a god, demigod, or legendary hero of light.

[...]

Locations: The site of an evil this horrific is forever
marred. Such a vortex of evil might demonstrate some of the
following properties.
• An unhallow spell spreads throughout the area. Dispelling
the unhallow effect only suppresses it for 1d4
rounds.
• A befoul or despoil spell spreads throughout the area.
• The landscape changes significantly, often forming a
huge rift or crater or draining a large body of water.
• Weather patterns change forever; overcast skies, cold
winds, and rain dominate.

[I omitted the "creature" section, most of it isn't relevant]

Objects: An object exposed to such evil may have one of
the following taints.
• Touching the object causes pain, dealing 1 point of
damage.
• Object becomes an evil artifact.
Detect Evil: Detect evil always indicates a strong evil aura
surrounding a place where a dread event happened or an
object was exposed to it. Creatures involved have a slight
evil aura clinging to them for 1d10×10 days afterward.
Tl;dr: Genocide is the same level of Evil as creating an Evil God, or killing a Good God.


EDIT: Whoops, thought this was 3.5. Yeah, I guess you'll have to go with your gut on this one.

[roguemetal]

I think this follow the question: is evil determined by what the character believes, or the extent of their actions. As most Wizards of the Coast games will inform you, thinking on the side of good is not enough. Hence why in most systems developed there are alignment changes for committing evil ACTS, versus evil thoughts. Even if the nature of the act is good, this is an evil character. But don't let that be a hamper on a good concept, run with it. You can easily argue for Neutral Evil.

[Silus]

I think this follow the question: is evil determined by what the character believes, or the extent of their actions. As most Wizards of the Coast games will inform you, thinking on the side of good is not enough. Hence why in most systems developed there are alignment changes for committing evil ACTS, versus evil thoughts. Even if the nature of the act is good, this is an evil character. But don't let that be a hamper on a good concept, run with it. You can easily argue for Neutral Evil.

Problem is, due to the rules of the Pathfinder Society (the gaming group, not the in game Society), evil characters are, sadly, banned. It's either because the in-game Society is supposed to be a force of good, or because the out-of-game Society does not want Chaotic Stupid/Evil characters murdering people or other Evil aligned characters backstabbing their buddies.

[Fouredged Sword]

What I would do is throw in a good bit of self doubt and second thoughts, call it TN. Have your character doubt the mission, worry about collateral damage, but in the end still think it's the right thing to do.

Ideally the best solution to aboleths wouldn't be an aboleth plague. They are too solitary and would create the spreed you need to kill them all. No, the best answer would be the aboleth version of swine flue.

Swine flue doesn't kill pigs. It doesn't transmit between humans. Thus it only is deadly in a particular circumstance. Swine flue kills when humans are in close contact with infected pigs.

What you want is a disease that is highly infectious between humanoids, but has little or no effect. Then, when it comes in contact with aboleth mucus it turns deadly for the aboleth.

Now all aboleth are forced to see every mortal as a possible land mine. Even the human doesn't know if they are infected. Even if 1 in 1000 humans is infected, the risk would make aboleths hold back and not mind control humans.

Now you avoid the genocide. You still are spreading a disease, and there may be collateral damage, but you are attempting to mitigate it and feel bad about it. Ends justifies the means, but the means are not lost completely. Thus, TN.

[Kish]

...And if he's just screaming "I'm evil!", what ought I do to get him more in like with the "top" 6 alignments?
Cut the genocide.

I gather that it's central and not really optional to the character concept, but...you need to decide which alternative you dislike the least: Officially making him evil, or making him not-genocidal. There's no such thing as a genocidal non-evil character. How you plan on carrying out the genocide, whether excess suffering is to be embraced or avoided, acceptability of collateral damage, all of those are details. If the character is genocidal the character is profoundly evil, full stop.

[Analytica]

Maybe just acknowledge the character is walking a fine line? They are so far TN or CN. They will face temptation towards evil as they progress ("This strategy would bring us so much closer to ridding the world of the slavers... but there is that tiny chance that someone undeserving of the Rotting Plague would still be infested by the carrier worms. Do I heed that little voice of caution, or silence it? Urgathoa, Lady of the Pleasure in Festering, help your servant decide..."), which is just a bonus. If the DM eventually does decide your actions turn you evil, maybe you can atone and return to a more moderate stance - for a time - with the appropriate angst and soul-searching. Etc.

[Madara]

Problem is, due to the rules of the Pathfinder Society (the gaming group, not the in game Society), evil characters are, sadly, banned. It's either because the in-game Society is supposed to be a force of good, or because the out-of-game Society does not want Chaotic Stupid/Evil characters murdering people or other Evil aligned characters backstabbing their buddies.

In this case, you might want to contact the Pathfinder Society itself, or talk to the DM ahead of time. Tell him the concept, but that you're willing to cut out the genocide if needed.

Do realize that there are many 3.5 classes dedicated to hunting and destroying Aberrations. I mean, even the name of the creature type tells you the official view on the creatures. A druid dedicated to fighting Aberrations follows the official outlook given to the average druid.

[The Redwolf]

(Cut out for length's sake)

This, is probably the best idea/solution presented so far.

[Silus]

This, is probably the best idea/solution presented so far.

Gonna have to agree on this >.>