PDA

View Full Version : Pragmatic Villains



Morithias
2013-09-16, 12:40 PM
This is going to take a while, cause this is a LONG story.

In a land call Zeth there lived an Empress, raised by a harvester devil, and blessed by an elder evil with the fire souled template. Given a grand education, and born with intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores to rival Roy.

One day she was looking over history books and came to a conclusion.

The hero only ever arrives when people are in trouble.

She looks over her desires...her wants...and she goes over them.

Does she want money? To her most luxury items are pointless and meaningless. Someone who buys a diamond ring is a primitive caveman who is too stupid to realize they just blew 3000 gold pieces on a non-magical rock. She also already lives in the castle, and her harvester devil nanny has +34 to cooking. She doesn't need home or food.

Does she want power? She goes over her plans some more. Power doesn't mean she has to abuse people. She realizes. When you blackmail someone, eventually you push them too far and they turn on you. It's the most common murder mystery story ever written. On the other hand, politeness judo, magic words, and diplomacy, can get you everything you need without anyone hating you. Why kidnap a boy to be your sex slave, when your so well loved most of the men in the Empire will lick your feet given the chance?

Ultimately she decides she wants something almost no other villain has.

Peace of mind.

She realizes that since she lives in a monarchy dictatorship, in a world where you can raise the dead, the only way for her to be thrown out of power is to have a violent revolt. She also realizes that people who are content and happy with their lives do NOT take up armed resistance against the empire.

One poster commented "If I was a paladin walking through her 'evil empire' I would go to the nearest temple to see if my evil-dar was wonky".

And that is the point.

The Paladin arrives in the Empire of blood. Sees the horror, and rallies the people. And ends up killing Tarquin, who ends up in the Nine Hells to be tortured.

The same Paladin goes to Zeth and looks around Alexis's empire. His evil-dar goes off on the empress, and then he looks around. Government housing, create food traps, state-funded healthcare, freedom of speech.

And he leaves her alone, questioning what is going on.

The fact is that Alexis due to the devil's and the elder evil's influence is insane. She doesn't think like a normal person, but what every forgets is that "insane" does not equal "violent" and it does not equal "Stupid".

People ask questions like. "Does she punch bunnies?"

I reply. "What does she get out of that?"

You might as well ask someone "Do you stab yourself in the leg?"

Because as far as she concerns she does not PROFIT from punching bunnies.

Would she do it? In theory yes. In theory she would kick a baby into a woodchipper if it was the most profitable option.

But the fact is...most of the time...it isn't.

Take a look at the most basic story concept in all existence. "Villains Act, heroes react." the villain commits a dark deed, the hero shows up, defeats the villain.

The villain never has peace of mind. That dictator may think he is invincible, but the endless guards and security measures shows otherwise. He is scared. He knows the rebels are coming to get him.

Alexis can walk down the main street of Zeth singing a merry tune, and have the bards on the street join in, because everyone loves her. She has absolute power in her country and she knows it, and because she isn't a moronic mustache twirling villain, there is not a single rebel coming for her head.

There is no point in ruling a country where you have to face an assassination attempt every other week. There is no point in ruling a country where there are endless rebel bombings and terrorist attacks. There is no point in ruling a country where you have to sleep with a shotgun because your guards might be bribed and let an assassin slip by.

Endless dictators all fall the same way. They abuse their powers, and the rebels overthrow them. And Alexis knows this. She is playing the citizens of her country like a fiddle. They worship her like a god, they see her as a person they wouldn't dare question. She can walk into a tavern and ask a boy if he's single, then follow up by asking him to lick her feet.

She has power over her people. A power called respect. A power that is WAY more dangerous than intimidation and fear.

And slowly, she is harvesting their worship. Harvesting their worship to give herself godhood, making her immortal.

Tarquin will be overthrown, Tarquin will die of old age, Tarquin will eventually go to hell and suffer.

Alexis will not. So long as her people worship her, she is immortal, and so long as her people worship her, she will remain in power forever as no one will overthrow her. Tarquin gets to "live like a god" for 30 years.

Alexis gets to live like a god forever. Drinking freshly brewed custom wine in the castle distillery. Given daily gifts by the people, and eating the best food, while sleeping on a grand bed.

She's willing to commit the darkest, most vile, most corrupt evil acts. She would murder a man and devour his soul if the price was right.

But she doesn't need to....she has everything she could ever want, and on top of that, the power to Alter Reality.

She is a villain...who has won, because she never even let the heroes get a start on her.

She is the ultimate evil. An evil who isn't stupid. An evil who isn't petty. and an evil, that when the Paladin comes and challenges the Empress, finds himself attacked by an enraged mob, rather than having said mob join him.

But...people keep endlessly saying she is not evil. Solely because she's not a moron who commits evil acts for the sake of commiting evil acts.

Poster: "Does she sacrifice virgins?"
Alexis: "Sacrificing a virgin gives you like +1 to the check. We sacrifice serial killers who have disrupted public order."
Poster: "Does she eat baby hearts?"
Alexis: "You do realize those would taste horrible right? If I wanted to eat hearts, I'll have some haggis."
Poster: "Does she punch bunnies?"
Alexis: "I. Am. A. God. Bunnies are so below me in CR I wouldn't even get XP for it."

She's not stupid. She's not petty. She is so dangerously genre savvy, that she makes Tarquin look genre blind. She basically WROTE the evil overlord list.

So is, this woman evil?

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 12:50 PM
Evil deeds done "because it's profitable" aren't really that different from evil deeds done "because its pleasurable" - both are Evil.


Would she do it? In theory yes. In theory she would kick a baby into a woodchipper if it was the most profitable option.

But the fact is...most of the time...it isn't.
As long as it happens some of the time- that may be enough.

Grinner
2013-09-16, 12:59 PM
You know, you could have just written "bread and circuses".

But yes, she is. I think evil is more about the motivation than the action, and that line about her being willing to screw others over (and presumably cheerfully so) makes her evil. She doesn't really care about the people; she cares about what they can give her. Fundamentally, this is the basis of most relationships of many sorts. The difference is that she won't draw a line. She has no taboos save loss.

The paladin isn't exactly good, either.

Unless this is Fantasy-land we're talking about. Ethics there are always a bit weird.

Pseudo_Nym
2013-09-16, 01:03 PM
The only world in which this would be a question, let alone a question with an answer worth caring about, is a world with a reliable Detect Evil spell.

We have been blessed with such a world.

It sounds like she doesn't actually do much, if anything, evil. No killing virgins, eating babies, or kicking bunnies. But she would, if it were to her advantage. If there were anything worthwhile she'd get out of it. If it were practical.

I'd say she's evil, yes, as much as anyone is.

I'd also say any paladin that attacked her for it would be commiting an evil act, too. It'd be like attacking the farmer who dreams of killing his neighbor for not returning some borrowed tools, but is too afraid of law enforcement to try it. No mortal authority can judge someone for what they might do in another time, another place. No mortal authority can, or should.

As for immortal authority? I'm in no place to judge them. My understanding of D&D afterlives is that you go to the realms of the good gods if they'll take you, the realms of the evil gods if they choose to protect you, and some sort of torment in the Nine Hells/Abyss if no one wants you at all. And become a Vestige if those guys won't take you either, I suppose. But they'll take just about anybody.


EDIT:

As long as it happens some of the time- that may be enough.
And if it never happens? She'd do all sorts of terrible, unspeakable things, but they're just not worth the time and effort? That's still good?

LastOblivion
2013-09-16, 01:13 PM
Interesting, mainly because i came across the same issue in one of my own campaigns. I set the players into a country i had been dropping references in previous campaigns for as long i have been DMing, the desert empire of Sindaras.

Darius Horoddin IV killed his older brother in a battle for the throne centuries ago. Using any means necessary he hunted down every other member of his family leaving him the only heir. A master of the dark arts he forged a counsel of undead lords and demons to rule is realm. he took in all the poor and staring children of the country, those created the the civil war and he raised them. He became a god to the children and they became his eyes and ears. With well trained master assassins in every tavern and ever street he wiped out any attempt to take back the throne. In the end he cemented his rule with lichdom.

But what then? he ruled fairly. The country was his, any thing that would threaten it would have to go through him. He created a fair laws giving power to people. he abolished the noble houses and created a clan systems allow clans to fight only amongst themselves in government approved battle. this new system allowed for a strong upper class, cutting away the fat, while also keeping the commoners safe from the battles. He mummified massive armies and hid them in compounds beneath the sands so as to keep his country safe without ever costing him his people. His assassins would open posts in every town and village allowing for easier movement of information.

But! He is a lich. He did take the throne though evil deeds. He will kill any who oppose him. He hides away in a necropolis hidden in the sands. He is evil.

But being evil does not make your a poor ruler. Some might say it takes a villain to do whats right for a country. If those nice kings were all that great, why do they need the heroes to fix the mess they made of their country?

AKA_Bait
2013-09-16, 01:17 PM
You left out the bit about how she became Empress. I, for one, had assumed that she committed some evil acts to get there.

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 01:19 PM
And if it never happens? She'd do all sorts of terrible, unspeakable things, but they're just not worth the time and effort? That's still good?

Certainly not Good (the PHB states that Good people "make personal sacrifices to help others" and by definition none of this character's deeds can be a "personal sacrifice" since they're all done in the hope of profiting long-term) - but some DMs might rule Neutral if the character never does Evil or Good deeds.

The BoED also states that "benevolent acts" are Neutral not Good if there's no element of personal sacrifice to them.

zlefin
2013-09-16, 01:24 PM
depends on her exact actions and the rules of the setting.
By deontological ethics, it could go either way, depending on how many truly evil acts she does, by which I mean things that have an [evil] tag. Likely to end up neutral on a deontological setting, which d&d is by default, unless there's enough specifically [evil] actions.
Consequentialist, the result would be good.
Virtue ethics (which iirc is more about intent) she'd be evil.

Amaril
2013-09-16, 01:25 PM
Certainly not Good (the PHB states that Good people "make personal sacrifices to help others" and by definition none of this character's deeds can be a "personal sacrifice" since they're all done in the hope of profiting long-term) - but some DMs might rule Neutral if the character never does Evil or Good deeds.

I agree with this. Yes, the motivations behind a person's actions are extremely important in determining their alignment--a person who performs good deeds for selfish reasons is still Neutral at best, and if they mix those with evil actions, that puts them pretty firmly into the deep end. But I don't think someone who never actually commits evil acts can ever be Evil, even if they might do so in the right situation. Until she actually follows through on the "kicking babies into a woodchipper" thing, or something comparable, I'd put her pretty firmly in the Neutral camp, since she's doing good deeds to benefit herself.

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 01:29 PM
In this context I'd probably use the term "benevolent deeds" or possibly "beneficial deeds" rather than "Good deeds" since the alignment of the deeds themselves is changed by the motivation.

A class or PRC that loses their powers if they ever commit a "Good deed" would be able to commit these "selfishly motivated benevolent deeds" without Falling.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 01:35 PM
You left out the bit about how she became Empress. I, for one, had assumed that she committed some evil acts to get there.

Heir Apparent. She's the eldest (and only) daughter, and is the rightful heir the throne.

Brookshw
2013-09-16, 01:42 PM
Sounds pretty neutral to me, the devil & elder evil seem to have gone somewhere wrong.

That aside consider The Prince, loved =/= power as it leaves an impression of vulnerability, better to temper fear with respect.

It's an interesting ethical question outside of D&D. You've told us how she doesn't define power, but how does she define it and what would be the upper levels?

Hyena
2013-09-16, 01:43 PM
I don't know if she's evil, but she is definetely terrible mary sue.

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 01:44 PM
I'm wondering how the harvester devil ended up raising her in the first place- and what devilish childraising techniques tend to do to a personality.

"Peace of mind" is all very well- but what harvester devils are sent out to do- is to corrupt.

That is- to turn the people they're working with- into the kind of people who hurt, oppress, etc. And, ideally, the kind of people who enjoy it- Murder for Pleasure, for example, is considered a bit more evil than just Murder- in Fiendish Codex 2, which is the book that introduces harvester devils.

JHShadon
2013-09-16, 01:46 PM
What happens when she gets bored of her current luxuries? Does she search for other, darker things for amusement?

Morithias
2013-09-16, 01:46 PM
Sounds pretty neutral to me, the devil & elder evil seem to have gone somewhere wrong.

That aside consider The Prince, loved =/= power as it leaves an impression of vulnerability, better to temper fear with respect.

It's an interesting ethical question outside of D&D. You've told us how she doesn't define power, but how does she define it and what would be the upper levels?

Power is to be blunt "the ability to get whatever you want".

Similar to in D&D. The DMG says that you get XP whether you beat the minotaur in a fight, or sneak past it, since you got past it either way.

To her if she wants someone to give her something, like a free meal in the tavern.

She can either a. Ask nicely (she is the empress) or b. Use mind control.

But then you realize something, if she uses mind control, that might create some bad PR, which makes it harder for her to get stuff in the future.

It's like if you're playing a business videogame, and an NPC tells you "I will give you $30,000 if you lower your prices by 10%".

Sounds great, until you finally ship $300,000 worth of goods, and now everything past here is a loss.


I don't know if she's evil, but she is definetely terrible mary sue.

I fail to see this, how is she "Mary Sue?" Being intelligent and having the power to see the bigger picture is now mary sue?


I'm wondering how the harvester devil ended up raising her in the first place- and what devilish childraising techniques tend to do to a personality.

"Peace of mind" is all very well- but what harvester devils are sent out to do- is to corrupt.

That is- to turn the people they're working with- into the kind of people who hurt, oppress, etc. And, ideally, the kind of people who enjoy it- Murder for Pleasure, for example, is considered a bit more evil than just Murder- in Fiendish Codex 2, which is the book that introduces harvester devils.

Long story short. The harvest devil works for the Elder Evil, and they are using Alexis to create a new evil god to upset the balance of good and evil, so that when the ends of days comes evil can overwhelm good even with neutral's help.


What happens when she gets bored of her current luxuries? Does she search for other, darker things for amusement?

Hard to say. Really depends on how long they can keep her entertained, and even then Jebel (the devil) and the Elder Evil might have work for her on other material planes.

AKA_Bait
2013-09-16, 01:54 PM
Heir Apparent. She's the eldest (and only) daughter, and is the rightful heir the throne.

Ok, so my next question is how does she deal with international relations? Does she need to expand her kingdom to gain more worshipers at some stage of power? How does she go about that? How does she deal with neighboring states that want to land grab from her? Also, how does she deal with those within her own nation that want to topple her from power for their own selfish reasons? All of these are good places for some evil, but non-stupid, actions.

Hyena
2013-09-16, 01:55 PM
Having enough power to create an utopia, which no one have managed to create in real life (and for a very good reason), is not itself a trait of lame character.
Being so intelligent and charismatic, the entire nation is going to love and worship her? Is not a trait of a lame character by itself.
Being evil, but "acceptably" evil, stylishly evil, is already alarming.
Being loved by author so much, the author constantly favourably compares her with every other villain, spelling out how awesome her brainchild is a trait of a typical Mary Sue.

Together, all those traits combine into ridiculously uniteresting, all-powerful, beloved by author Mary, and I am not going to rant about how awesome she is, because she is not.

Narren
2013-09-16, 01:57 PM
No ruler can possibly please everyone. Just look at RL for examples (that we can't discuss on the forums) of issues that have no right or wrong answer but still manage to completely polarize large groups of people.

So what happens when a group of people get together to change things up? I'm not talking about violent revolt, most would agree that it's use harsh tactics to deal with violent people. But what happens if a sizable majority begin to lobby for some kind of change in government that isn't beneficial to her, and she can't schmooze her way out of it?

That's not the greatest example, but my point is that sooner or later there will be a situation where being nice isn't going to be to her advantage.

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-16, 01:59 PM
So is, this woman evil?

No, not according to D&D rules.

She's as Evil as Dr. Hix, Head of the Department of Post-Mortem Communications at Unseen Academy, which is to say not at all. Dr. Hix may wear a ring with a skull on it, dress all in black, play practical jokes, and laugh ominously, but he's not Evil.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 02:00 PM
Ok, so my next question is how does she deal with international relations? Does she need to expand her kingdom to gain more worshipers at some stage of power? How does she go about that? How does she deal with neighboring states that want to land grab from her? Also, how does she deal with those within her own nation that want to topple her from power for their own selfish reasons? All of these are good places for some evil, but non-stupid, actions.

At the beginning of the game, Zeth was caught in a Sengoku Era 18-country war.

Her deal with "international relations" is usually "turn the population against their rulers." For example she deals with the drow by using propaganda, underground railroads, and other such techniques to escort their male population and slaves away from their city. When the drow protest she points out to the other kingdoms "I'm just freeing slaves and giving them better lives." And when the Drow declare war on her, her army takes them on.

Does she need to expand her kingdom? Well the campaign was a war campaign, so yes. Neighboring states that want land from her? Most other states leave her Empire alone. Each empire has it's defining trait, and hers is technology. They have guns, and engineers. Not very easy to break into their lands due to expert engineering and turtle techniques. It also doesn't help that most of the other countries have little reason to be hostile. The empires that start adjacent to her are the drow, dwarfs, ninja, and fey, and only the drow are really hostile, and they're usually too busy fighting the high elves to the west.

People who want to topple her for her own reasons? Usually takes them to the debate hall, if they have a good point, give them a chance to prove themselves, if they don't. Demolish the opponent in political debate, Courtier levels from Rokugan and all.

If they actually rebel "just cause" execution. Public execution.

Narren
2013-09-16, 02:01 PM
To her if she wants someone to give her something, like a free meal in the tavern.

She can either a. Ask nicely (she is the empress) or b. Use mind control.

But then you realize something, if she uses mind control, that might create some bad PR, which makes it harder for her to get stuff in the future.


But what if she asks nicely and the tavern owner says no? And what if it's not a tavern owner, but a political dissident?

Unless everyone loves her so much that no one would ever disagree with her, but that's either unrealistic or mind control. If she can use non-evil means to always get what she wants no matter what the circumstances are, things will get a little boring.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 02:04 PM
Having enough power to create an utopia, which no one have managed to create in real life (and for a very good reason), is not itself a trait of lame character.
Being so intelligent and charismatic, the entire nation is going to love and worship her? Is not a trait of a lame character by itself.
Being evil, but "acceptably" evil, stylishly evil, is already alarming.
Being loved by author so much, the author constantly favourably compares her with every other villain, spelling out how awesome her brainchild is a trait of a typical Mary Sue.

Together, all those traits combine into ridiculously uniteresting, all-powerful, beloved by author Mary, and I am not going to rant about how awesome she is, because she is not.

1. Utopia is metaphor. It's like in Tropico 4 where you have a happiness rating of 86%. It's not perfect, but you're still winning the election 954 to 17.

2. Fire souled gives +4 to charisma, and the free leadership feat. Her entire build (yes I can actually give you her sheet) revolves around leadership.

3. Loved by the author? Nah. Not really. She's just a character who was created to explore a question. Namely the question of why most villains do what they do.

Most villain's plans, when you get right down to it, make no sense, and only work because of the media.

Take the weather wizard in Superman the animated series. You have a weather control machine and you're threatening to destroy a city if you don't get paid.

Hey here's an idea. When Hurricane Katrina shows up. Contact the government and go "Hey, if you give me 1% of the estimated damages in money, I will get rid of the storm."

Is THAT mary sue? Cause that is basically literally what she is doing.

Or the Hunger Games.

"Okay, so these people have rebelled against us. We're going to force them to watch their children kill each other in stealth style combat where everyone can watch (and therefore learn via tangential learning) and give everyone a legit reason to train in this. Because Lord knows there was never a single time in ALL OF HISTORY where a technological and arrogant empire was humiliated by a technologically inferior force using better tactics and fighting to the death because they have nothing to lose."

Surprise surprise, another rebellion happens.

The simple fact is that most "Evil geniuses" although they may be book smart/intelligent, have no wisdom and no ability to see the bigger picture.

Deffers
2013-09-16, 02:06 PM
The problem is that sounds pretty neutral. I mean, she's not sadistic. She just takes what she wants which, since it isn't suffering, mostly consists of... well, since it isn't material goods or power it mostly appears to be, yeah, peace of mind. Nanny Harvester sounds like she'd get a nasty shock if Alexis decided that a reality consisting only of cruelty and oppression probably isn't all that much fun to be in for job security OR aesthetics.

Narren
2013-09-16, 02:11 PM
Her deal with "international relations" is usually "turn the population against their rulers." For example she deals with the drow by using propaganda, underground railroads, and other such techniques to escort their male population and slaves away from their city. When the drow protest she points out to the other kingdoms "I'm just freeing slaves and giving them better lives." And when the Drow declare war on her, her army takes them on.

What does she do with these displaced Drow refugees? Most people won't want a large population of male Drow in their backyard. They're known to be pretty evil most of the time.


People who want to topple her for her own reasons? Usually takes them to the debate hall, if they have a good point, give them a chance to prove themselves, if they don't. Demolish the opponent in political debate, Courtier levels from Rokugan and all.

If they actually rebel "just cause" execution. Public execution.

But it won't always be so cut and dry. Take the Drow example...some will feel that the slaves should be liberated and the Drow kingdom wiped out. Others will be angry that their leader has involved them in internal issues and started a needless war. Now their family members are being sent off to die fighting the Drow that weren't even at war with them until the Empress started meddling in their domestic issues. They brought their grievances to to her, and she just talked circles around them. Not necessarily the beginning of a revolution, but definitely making some people begin to doubt her.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 02:16 PM
1. What does she do with these displaced Drow refugees? Most people won't want a large population of male Drow in their backyard. They're known to be pretty evil most of the time.

2. But it won't always be so cut and dry. Take the Drow example...some will feel that the slaves should be liberated and the Drow kingdom wiped out. Others will be angry that their leader has involved them in internal issues and started a needless war. Now their family members are being sent off to die fighting the Drow that weren't even at war with them until the Empress started meddling in their domestic issues. They brought their grievances to to her, and she just talked circles around them. Not necessarily the beginning of a revolution, but definitely making some people begin to doubt her.

1. Puts them to work. With a very basic promise. "You can act within the rules here and have a chance to actually gain positions of influence and power, or you can act chaotic stupid, or stupid evil and do drow society style stuff and have your souls turned into magical items used to support my empire. Because when idiot murderers get executed in my kingdom, they don't go to their gods. They go to the Royal artificer Sabrina, and are. wiped. from. existence."

2. Considering the war in Zeth has been going on for over 100 years, the mere fact that her Empire is actually winning active conquest fights is a step up. Remember. Sengoku Japan.

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-16, 02:18 PM
Most villain's plans, when you get right down to it, make no sense, and only work because of the media.

Take the weather wizard in Superman the animated series. You have a weather control machine and you're threatening to destroy a city if you don't get paid.

Hey here's an idea. When Hurricane Katrina shows up. Contact the government and go "Hey, if you give me 1% of the estimated damages in money, I will get rid of the storm."

Is THAT mary sue? Cause that is basically literally what she is doing.

A better idea would be to patent the machine and then sell it to the National Weather Service for hundreds of millions of dollars. The problem is that the Weather Wizard is a psychopath. So are the Green Goblin, Mirror Master, and most of the villains who build gadgets and decide to rob banks with them, or become crime lords or whatever. Occasionally you get someone like Abner Jenkins, aka the Beetle, aka M.A.C.H. 1 (and 2 through 5), who realized he sucked at being a criminal and turned his life around (after spending some time in jail for manslaughter).

You also have Doctor Doom, who was destined to become a world conqueror, but that's whole other kettle of fish. Dr. Doom is a villain whose plans for world domination run as follows:


Build a working time machine.
Kidnap the Fantastic Four.
Send 3/4 of the Fantastic Four back in time to recover Blackbeard's pirate chest (which has Merlin's wand inside!), while holding Invisible Girl hostage.
?????
Free my mother's soul from Hell.


You've got to love a villain who invents a Time Machine as step one of a convoluted plan to beat Mephisto. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: I just realized who she reminds me of: Heinz Doofenschmirtz! She's about as Evil as he is, albeit more effective. I guess she has a better backstory and doesn't have to worry about anthropomorphic platypuses.

Arbane
2013-09-16, 02:23 PM
The problem is that sounds pretty neutral. I mean, she's not sadistic.

Yep. "Any sufficiently pragmatic evil is indistinguishable from neutrality."

As long as our girl has what she wants and needs, she's going to be a benevolent ruler to everyone who does as they're told.

The obvious thing that should happen is that this will, inevitably, change.

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 02:25 PM
The OP did make it clear just how sociopathic she was- "in theory she would kick a baby into a woodchipper if it was sufficiently profitable".

As to whether her backstory includes comparable acts being committed and kept secret from the populace- that's left unclear.

Brookshw
2013-09-16, 02:28 PM
Power is to be blunt "the ability to get whatever you want".

Similar to in D&D. The DMG says that you get XP whether you beat the minotaur in a fight, or sneak past it, since you got past it either way.

To her if she wants someone to give her something, like a free meal in the tavern.

She can either a. Ask nicely (she is the empress) or b. Use mind control.

But then you realize something, if she uses mind control, that might create some bad PR, which makes it harder for her to get stuff in the future.



So I'm not sure that you've really told us what the long term objectives are. I doubt she's after free meals as being the heights of power. Can you expand upon this? Is she out to conquer the world or just maintain her empire?

International relations are certainly interesting aspects. Another that I'd be curious about would be the judicial process if any inside the country.

Seconding the significance of power groups inside of the country that would attempt to shift power structures to achieve ends that the greater populace may desire but she herself does not.

Well now, destroying peoples souls is blatantly evil and there are no "conditional" scenarios that would make it okay so we've at least established that she is indeed evil.

Deffers
2013-09-16, 02:32 PM
Well, if she's done even actions then she's clearly Evil from what she's done. The paladin only needs to go so far as the post-processed infant to find out what's pinging his evildar. This is some Omelas crap at that juncture and Good can easily bring the hammer down by exposing her wrongdoings. If she WOULD do it but never has, it becomes harder.

Even if she HAS done this, she still probably wouldn't side with Evil in the end, because Evil winning completely would mean that her people are suddenly unhappy and opressed-- there's one constant through all the Evil spheres and it's backstabbing, front-stabbing and/or sidestabbing. There's no way she'd enjoy that, and from the sounds of it she's not deluded enough to actually believe she can stay on the top of the pile if the equation she's used for her success no longer exists.

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 02:33 PM
One of the easiest ways for a Lawful Evil D&D society to continuously commit acts of Evil- and yet thrive- is for it to commit those acts solely against "criminals".

Same probably applies to a society led by an Evil character- the more horrible the public executions and the more witnessed the soul-destructions are- the more comfortable the general public becomes with them- and the more people aspire to be able to do the same.

Trickquestion
2013-09-16, 02:35 PM
I had a villain like this in my campaign once... and it was my player character. He was a neutral evil wizard who wanted power and wealth, but realized if he went around robbing people from a castle made out of bones, some chucklehead with a sword would come along and decapitate him. So he became an adventurer. He was the Belkar of the team, encouraging the party to use violence as a solution, stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, but only murdered people when he was certain he could dispose of the body properly (disintegrate was his favorite spell). And in the end, he was a functional member of the team. When his plan to use the priests as meat shields was shot down, he didn't press the matter. When a demon offered him wealth and power in exchange for the souls of his team, he turned him down, because he was smart enough to know that the devil will screw you over. And in the end? He lived happily ever after.

Deffers
2013-09-16, 02:37 PM
And yet the more comfortable the general public becomes with them, the less security Alexis has, because all it takes is a few idiots with knives to band together and think "I want what she's got. I wanna live like a god. I'm gonna lead a revolution to do this" before she can no longer walk the streets in safety. If she's explicitly walking the streets in safety then that trend has to be arrested through some mechanism.

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 02:45 PM
Idiots with knives probably just aren't good enough at banding together- leading to them being subjected to horrible torments, to the applause of the crowd.

Especially when she's vastly more powerful than any would-be revolutionary.

A bigger threat would be people on her power level, maybe.

Brookshw
2013-09-16, 02:48 PM
And yet the more comfortable the general public becomes with them, the less security Alexis has, because all it takes is a few idiots with knives to band together and think "I want what she's got. I wanna live like a god. I'm gonna lead a revolution to do this" before she can no longer walk the streets in safety. If she's explicitly walking the streets in safety then that trend has to be arrested through some mechanism.

Again, The Prince does a great job outlining why the original "I want to be loved" position is a really REALLY bad idea.

maxriderules
2013-09-16, 02:50 PM
Seems to me that sooner or later someone is going to challenge someone like that politically. If there's one person with the charisma to rule an empire like that, it's at least possible that there's someone else who can do the same. Such a person would be a threat, not through any fault of Alexis, but rather through ambition (I have the means to possibly take control, so why not try it?) or a disagreement (I disapprove of the usage of souls in crafting even if they are criminals). Something doesn't go just as planned (the Drow slave railroads got destroyed due to betrayal without being effective) and people begin to wonder if there's someone else who could do the job better.

Not to say that such an empire isn't possible, just that the person in charge probably wouldn't be entirely secure. It seems to assume that nothing would go wrong.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 03:58 PM
Not to say that such an empire isn't possible, just that the person in charge probably wouldn't be entirely secure. It seems to assume that nothing would go wrong.

If you've ever played a game of kingmaker, you know how insanely easy it is to keep everything under control with a good council.

Waar
2013-09-16, 03:59 PM
This is going to take a while, cause this is a LONG story.


Ultimately she decides she wants something almost no other villain has.

Peace of mind.

So why be a villain?


Alexis can walk down the main street of Zeth singing a merry tune, and have the bards on the street join in, because everyone loves her. She has absolute power in her country and she knows it, and because she isn't a moronic mustache twirling villain, there is not a single rebel coming for her head.

Funny how that has never worked in real Life.



There is no point in ruling a country where you have to sleep with a shotgun because your guards might be bribed and let an assassin slip by.

So why does she?


Endless dictators all fall the same way.

And so will this one, no doubt (disclaimer: this depends on how easy it is to achive godhod)



She has power over her people. A power called respect. A power that is WAY more dangerous than intimidation and fear.

Respect breeds jealousy which in combination with her lacking safety measures leads to an easy assasination (disclaimer: assumes near human level of stabbing and explosive resistance)



And slowly, she is harvesting their worship. Harvesting their worship to give herself godhood, making her immortal.





Alexis will not. So long as her people worship her, she is immortal, and so long as her people worship her, she will remain in power forever as no one will overthrow her. Tarquin gets to "live like a god" for 30 years.

Alexis gets to live like a god forever. Drinking freshly brewed custom wine in the castle distillery. Given daily gifts by the people, and eating the best food, while sleeping on a grand bed.

She is a villain...who has won, because she never even let the heroes get a start on her.

And why would she need to be a villain to acomplish this?



She is the ultimate evil. An evil who isn't stupid. An evil who isn't petty. and an evil, that when the Paladin comes and challenges the Empress, finds himself attacked by an enraged mob, rather than having said mob join him.

Hardly, she gains nothing from being evil, how could gaining nothing be considered "ultimate evil"?



So is, this woman evil?

Most likely, yes, if for no other reason than the sheer level of mind control (that should be) needed to establish and sustain this situation, (additionally the enforcement of the most exessive punishment know to that world isn't doing her any favors in this regard)

She has the most base goals (excluding one :smallwink:) and there is little (I'm sure there are other ways to achive immortality in that world) her current method does to further her goals that could not otherwise easily be done with much less effort.
Final verdict: evil: yes, "ultimate evil": no, pragmatic evil: maybe. Nice take on absolutism though :smallsmile:

maxriderules
2013-09-16, 04:16 PM
If you've ever played a game of kingmaker, you know how insanely easy it is to keep everything under control with a good council.

Yes, but there's a big difference between 'under control' and 'everyone in the kingdom loves you'. That would require vast quantities of mind control, to ensure that everyone is either already convinced that she's the best thing since sliced bread or the ones who aren't mind controlled are so cut off from other opinions they think they're alone. Or possibly raising the quality of life for everyone, while fighting a war, and keeping technology advanced enough to ensure an attack by a neighboring kingdom would be repelled with minimal casualties. Sooner or later, you have the problem of producing enough without working the serfs to death; for adoration, without working the serfs particularly hard or limiting their freedom much.

I have to say I'd be interested in how it'd work, economically. Exporting technology would lead to other kingdoms having a massive leg up in R&D, producing vast quantities of a particular crop would lead to inflation. All things that could come up, depending on players.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 04:35 PM
I have to say I'd be interested in how it'd work, economically. Exporting technology would lead to other kingdoms having a massive leg up in R&D, producing vast quantities of a particular crop would lead to inflation. All things that could come up, depending on players.

It's called "having a harvester devil with an intelligence score of 30 in the magister slot for +10 to economy checks."

What? We can ignore how the D&D economy makes no bloody sense when it comes to diamonds and raise dead, but now all of a sudden the economy has to make logical real-world sense?

Kingmaker rules. Ultimate Campaign. Look them up.

Benthesquid
2013-09-16, 04:44 PM
Evil? I'm not sure. But she is unrealistically successful. How much of this is due to Morithias's presentation and how much due to the fact that D&D (? I'm assuming from a couple of classes called out by name in the OP) isn't great at, or really intended to simulate the real world is hard to gauge. Several previous posters have raised good points, but I'll just chime in to say, history is full of individuals generally agreed to be real stand up guys, dripping with charisma, and loved by many people around them, who met deaths by violence. It is, or should be impossible to please everyone in a country to the point that they love you unconditionally, without some sort of mind control.

If this is possible due to game mechanics, than I would say that what Morithias is done isn't create a pragmatic villain, but exploit an issue with the game mechanics, and that her character isn't much more useful for a debate about storytelling or the alignment system than, say, Pun-Pun.

maxriderules
2013-09-16, 04:47 PM
Feel free to ignore me, I pick apart the economics in regular play a bit to much as well (having diamonds be incredibly expensive because of the added utility, with diamond rings being the ultimate in excess because it shows you can afford to have that much tied up in jewelery).

Still, how're you planning to use this? Because if I was a player up against that kingdom, I'd be pretty peeved if crippling exports through a campaign of banditry and explosions wasn't modelled very well. But then, I'm not familiar with the kingmaker rules. May have to pick them up if they're good for that kind of thing.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 04:56 PM
Feel free to ignore me, I pick apart the economics in regular play a bit to much as well (having diamonds be incredibly expensive because of the added utility, with diamond rings being the ultimate in excess because it shows you can afford to have that much tied up in jewelery).

Still, how're you planning to use this? Because if I was a player up against that kingdom, I'd be pretty peeved if crippling exports through a campaign of banditry and explosions wasn't modelled very well. But then, I'm not familiar with the kingmaker rules. May have to pick them up if they're good for that kind of thing.

I'm not planning to use it. It's just a question that came up in another thread.

Is this woman evil? Solely based on the fact that she is WILLING to commit all kinds of horrible acts, even though she bascially never does them because let's face it. 9999 times out of 10000 doing the "evil" action is not the best one thinking long term.

Brookshw
2013-09-16, 04:58 PM
The same Paladin goes to Zeth and looks around Alexis's empire. His evil-dar goes off on the empress, and then he looks around. Government housing, create food traps, state-funded healthcare, freedom of speech.

And he leaves her alone, questioning what is going on.

In a kingdom where destroying souls, which by the BoVD is the most evil act possible, paladins just walk away from the person known to be publicly and routinely doing it. Yeah, the whole discussion, while interesting, is based on a false premise. Sorry, I just don't see "peace of mind" happening when a bunch of paladins and other champions of good should be storming the gates or at least becoming very interested in investigating it much much further.

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 05:00 PM
Given that her method of punishing severe crimes involves soul destruction:

"When idiot murderers get executed in my kingdom, they don't go to their gods. They go to the Royal artificer Sabrina, and are. wiped. from. existence."

it does seem that "committing the evil action" comes up on occasion.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 05:02 PM
In a kingdom where destroying souls, which by the BoVD is the most evil act possible, paladins just walk away from the person known to be publicly and routinely doing it. Yeah, the whole discussion, while interesting, is based on a false premise. Sorry, I just don't see "peace of mind" happening when a bunch of paladins and other champions of good should be storming the gates or at least becoming very interested in investigating it much much further.

"Look Paladins here is the thing. These unrependant Lawful Evil souls can either be turned into create food traps to feed the citizens, or they can be executed and sent to the nine hell/abyss where they will turn into demons or devils and continue the cycle of evil breeding evil. One feeds hungry orphans, one creates a devil that 50 years down the road will be a harvester devil tricking people into selling their souls."


Given that her method of punishing severe crimes involves soul destruction:

"When idiot murderers get executed in my kingdom, they don't go to their gods. They go to the Royal artificer Sabrina, and are. wiped. from. existence."

it does seem that "committing the evil action" comes up on occasion.

Is creating a create food trap out of serial killers anymore evil than letting them go to hell and serve as energy for the infernal armies? Armies that will one day end up on earth and cause even more trouble?

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 05:07 PM
Problem is- while that argument might seem valid to some of us- it may not in fact be valid in the context of a world that treats some or all of the statements made in BoVD as correct.

After all, a "great and terrible act of evil" can actually taint and warp an area on the Material Plane itself.

Deffers
2013-09-16, 05:07 PM
"Hrm. Your premise is severely weakened by the fact that your nanny is a harvester devil. Or WHY do you think we deal with having a kleptomaniacal rogue in each and every one of our parties? It's so we know these things."

Nah, but seriously. If the harvester devil's cool with it then clearly it benefits the harvester devil. Besides which, I may be misremembering the rules but you don't need to use souls in create food traps.

And if it's the most evil act possible, then it must be because it's worse than letting the lower planes have a soul that might not stop at just a harvester devil. It might become something quite potent.

Slipperychicken
2013-09-16, 05:09 PM
Sorry, but Alexis actually seems Neutral to me. I don't see how her evilness manifests in her character or ruling style.

EDIT: And yeah, she does seem like a pretty big Mary Sue to me.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 05:09 PM
"Hrm. Your premise is severely weakened by the fact that your nanny is a harvester devil. Or WHY do you think we deal with having a kleptomaniacal rogue in each and every one of our parties? It's so we know these things."

Nah, but seriously. If the harvester devil's cool with it then clearly it benefits the harvester devil. Besides which, I may be misremembering the rules but you don't need to use souls in create food traps.

And if it's the most evil act possible, then it must be because it's worse than letting the lower planes have a soul that might not stop at just a harvester devil. It might become something quite potent.

I would like to point out that harvester devils can shapeshift, and Jebel isn't so moronic to wander around in her true form.

And it's true, you don't need to use souls, but you do need XP, and souls are a good source of that.

Grinner
2013-09-16, 05:15 PM
"Look Paladins here is the thing. These unrependant Lawful Evil souls can either be turned into create food traps to feed the citizens, or they can be executed and sent to the nine hell/abyss where they will turn into demons or devils and continue the cycle of evil breeding evil. One feeds hungry orphans, one creates a devil that 50 years down the road will be a harvester devil tricking people into selling their souls."



Is creating a create food trap out of serial killers anymore evil than letting them go to hell and serve as energy for the infernal armies? Armies that will one day end up on earth and cause even more trouble?

If we weren't talking about D&D morality, there would be room for discussion. As is, we're talking about a place where morality is an objective thing. Empress Alexis is evil, because she's Evil. Sir Slaughters-a-lot is good, because he's Good.

D&D morality only cares that the action is classifiable as Evil. Nothing else matters. Consequently, this is why it makes a terrible example for discussion.

Brookshw
2013-09-16, 05:17 PM
The answer to that is "Yes", that is worse. For starters consider the option of "redemption" and that it can even happen in the afterlife. Also the goodly realms want the blood war to continue so that the demons and devils continue to balance each other out rather than one side gaining the upper hand. "Greater Good" arguments aren't going to gloss over everything when you pull back the lens and that by canon you seem to be enhancing the likelihood (by minimal degrees albeit) that the " Armies that will one day end up on earth and cause even more trouble" will come to pass.

Sorry but I just can't see it.
"You're among the most evil things ever!"
"Yes, but I helped an old woman cross the street."
"Oh, well then I'll just look the other way"

Paladin code of conduct and all.

Eh, we're not going to agree. Appreciate the thought though, still interesting discussion.

Deffers
2013-09-16, 05:17 PM
I'm sure she's not that moronic. I'm also sure that the rogue was always there. Watching. Seriously, I'm CONVINCED rogues are like, contractually obligated to be creepy kleptomaniacal stalkers in the presence of a paladin. If you want a perfect monitoring system just put a paladin near a rogue and move them towards any suspicious parties or objects.

Sure, most surveillance systems don't cause mass arson, BUT...

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 05:17 PM
D&D morality only cares that the action is classifiable as Evil. Nothing else matters.
That said- when a particular action isn't already "aligned" - context and motives do matter even in D&D.



Sorry but I just can't see it.
"You're among the most evil things ever!"
"Yes, but I helped an old woman cross the street."
"Oh, well then I'll just look the other way"

Paladin code of conduct and all.

The code demands a paladin "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" - it is kind of fuzzy on the appropriate method of dealing with those whose evil acts are directed at "non-innocents".

maxriderules
2013-09-16, 05:19 PM
Wouldn't the use of destroying souls lead to protests from the public? After all, there's a strong movement against capital punishment and the two are somewhat similar.
And if the public went against it, wouldn't it follow that so would a proportion of paladins? Killing evildoers removes the threat; destroying their souls seems like it's going overboard.

To be honest, the shift in public opinion alone seems like it would make harvesting souls unprofitable.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 05:28 PM
Wouldn't the use of destroying souls lead to protests from the public? After all, there's a strong movement against capital punishment and the two are somewhat similar.
And if the public went against it, wouldn't it follow that so would a proportion of paladins? Killing evildoers removes the threat; destroying their souls seems like it's going overboard.

To be honest, the shift in public opinion alone seems like it would make harvesting souls unprofitable.

Actually I have an answer for this too.

A little cohort named Aya.

Let me read you an ability she has from a book called "Champions of Darkness" which is a ravenloft book. Page 33.

*Ahem*

"Information Dissemination (Ex): At 5th level, by combining this talent with his other skills, a propagandist can put a "spin" on news and events to manipulate how people interpret those events. He can present a specific interpretation and make it sound plausible to the "masses" or downplay the implications of an event so that people either miss them entirely or dismiss them as not very likely. This ability also gives the propagandist a sense of timing as to when release certain news in order to achieve the desired reaction. THIS ABILITY HAS NO ROLL, but relies on the DM's ability to incorporate the information into her story plot."

So yeah, the masses don't give a care.

Narren
2013-09-16, 05:29 PM
Is this woman evil? Solely based on the fact that she is WILLING to commit all kinds of horrible acts, even though she bascially never does them

A better model for this question would be on the opposite end of the spectrum. A ruler of a nation surrounded by war is going to have to make tough choices that would cause her true colors to come out.

A better example may be a simple baker in a simple village with a simple life. Preferably a village with a strong moral code and strict law enforcement. This man may fear retribution, so he rarely/never does anything evil. He also never has much cause to commit evil acts, because he lives a simple life. Is he evil?


because let's face it. 9999 times out of 10000 doing the "evil" action is not the best one thinking long term.

That's not true. The party thief scouts ahead, finds a valuable gem, and pockets it. The rest of the group doesn't make a habit of shaking him down, so they'll never know. Evil intentioned low risk/high rewards situations are not that uncommon.

Kish
2013-09-16, 05:29 PM
Kingmaker rules. Ultimate Campaign. Look them up.
Kingmaker rules? (http://brummbar.com/brummbar/board_games/Kingmaker/_Rules/Kingmaker%20Group%20%28most%20used%29/Kingmaker%20Basic%20Exp1%20Exp2.pdf)

hamishspence
2013-09-16, 05:30 PM
"Information Dissemination (Ex): At 5th level, by combining this talent with his other skills, a propagandist can put a "spin" on news and events to manipulate how people interpret those events. He can present a specific interpretation and make it sound plausible to the "masses" or downplay the implications of an event so that people either miss them entirely or dismiss them as not very likely. This ability also gives the propagandist a sense of timing as to when release certain news in order to achieve the desired reaction. THIS ABILITY HAS NO ROLL, but relies on the DM's ability to incorporate the information into her story plot."

So yeah, the masses don't give a care.Which means it's entirely up to the DM how much it can be spun, and what the consequences of such spinning are.

Like the population becoming more evil the more accepting of soul-destruction they are.

Morithias
2013-09-16, 05:31 PM
Kingmaker rules? (http://brummbar.com/brummbar/board_games/Kingmaker/_Rules/Kingmaker%20Group%20%28most%20used%29/Kingmaker%20Basic%20Exp1%20Exp2.pdf)

Uh. Pathfinder. You know, Paizo. That kingmaker.

Doug Lampert
2013-09-16, 05:39 PM
I pretty much HAD this for the homebrew setting of the first D&D 3.0 campaign I ran, the evil overlord had ascended 5,000 years ago (her realm was still relatively small as she hasn't (yet) conquered all the other gods).

Definitely EVIL.

One of the main signs of her evil was that her realm discriminated based on alignment and race as well as based on actions, specifically there was a strong preference for LG and LN in government offices. (Does what I tell them, check; doesn't warp the rules for their own benefit; also check; what's not to like?)

There was also a set of official social classes and quite a bit of stratification, but given the use of magic and the legal structure even the lower classes had more rights, better protection, and more wealth then most people outside the Holy Deiocracy.

It was a popular setting, people have regularly asked me to run additional campaigns in it. (Last campaign Lolth destroyed the mortal realm Deiocracy, it will be back, too many survivors who remember it fondly and Lolth is now temporarily inconvienenced. Temporarily because it's so hard to KEEP a major deity dead.)

Raine_Sage
2013-09-16, 05:54 PM
I'd say routinely destroying souls probably pushes her into the evil camp if we're going by DnD alignment. Sure it's a more palatable form of evil, one that benefits her, doesn't alarm her law abiding citizens, and would probably cause a more realistic paladin to wonder if going after her for it is worth it, but it's still classified as an evil action. So there you go, problem solved, she's evil.

But the fact that you're protesting it's validity as an evil action is worrisome because then it sounds like you want her to be evil without actually doing an evil thing and that's kind of impossible. Doing evil things is what makes someone evil. Intentions only get you halfway, stuck in neutral territory.

It's ok for evil characters to be nasty. It's ok for them to do bad things. And it's perfectly realistic for a slightly nasty yet beneficial evil regime to exist.

I have my own setting with an evil vampire overlord who genuinely wants to do right by his subjects. He runs his kingdom efficiently, dotes on his wife, is personable and even tempered and tries to make sure everyone is taken care of.

The evil part comes in the fact that he is his kingdom's judge jury and executioner. There is no court, there is no jail, there is however a three strike rule. While he might let petty criminals off with a warning if they're brought before him three times then they're lunch. Murderers are lunch. Treason and conspirators to treason are lunch and then get their heads mounted on his castle gate.

His laws however aren't particularly draconian, so the majority of his subjects feel that living in a secure and stable kingdom is worth the risk, after all they aren't criminals so they've got nothing to worry about. It's a mentality you see a lot in the real world. I could probably get away with saying "He's evil because he's a vampire and has to drink blood" and leave it at that because in DnD that's all he really needs to be classed as evil. But leaving it at that would just make a boring character.

Arbane
2013-09-16, 05:56 PM
Which means it's entirely up to the DM how much it can be spun, and what the consequences of such spinning are.

Like the population becoming more evil the more accepting of soul-destruction they are.

(Harvester Devil): "All according to plan."

TuggyNE
2013-09-16, 08:24 PM
The evil part comes in the fact that he is his kingdom's judge jury and executioner. There is no court, there is no jail, there is however a three strike rule. While he might let petty criminals off with a warning if they're brought before him three times then they're lunch. Murderers are lunch. Treason and conspirators to treason are lunch and then get their heads mounted on his castle gate.

I gotta admit, this sounds less Evil and more non-Lawful. "Due process" is a pretty thoroughly Lawful concept (partly LG, but much more L than G), and throwing it out is mostly just Chaotic, since you can still accomplish justice without it (albeit with a higher chance of mistakes).

Raine_Sage
2013-09-16, 09:09 PM
I gotta admit, this sounds less Evil and more non-Lawful. "Due process" is a pretty thoroughly Lawful concept (partly LG, but much more L than G), and throwing it out is mostly just Chaotic, since you can still accomplish justice without it (albeit with a higher chance of mistakes).

Well it's a mix of the 'no due process' and the 'literally eating people and mounting their heads on pikes' that I tend to count as evil.

bguy
2013-09-17, 10:45 AM
"Information Dissemination (Ex): At 5th level, by combining this talent with his other skills, a propagandist can put a "spin" on news and events to manipulate how people interpret those events. He can present a specific interpretation and make it sound plausible to the "masses" or downplay the implications of an event so that people either miss them entirely or dismiss them as not very likely. This ability also gives the propagandist a sense of timing as to when release certain news in order to achieve the desired reaction. THIS ABILITY HAS NO ROLL, but relies on the DM's ability to incorporate the information into her story plot."

So yeah, the masses don't give a care.

Doesn't that rather undermine the whole point of this character though? As I understood it, your original point with her was to demonstrate an evil character who refrained from overtly evil actions and indeed ruled in a generally benevolent manner so as to guarantee her hold on power by preventing the masses from having any reason to rebel against her.

Now though you are basically saying that based on her PR team she can do even the most egregious evils and the masses won't care. In which case she doesn't have any need to restrain her actions. If her PR team is that incredible she could be as overtly evil as she wants and still get away with it, so what is the point of the character?

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 10:59 AM
I'm not planning to use it. It's just a question that came up in another thread.

Is this woman evil? Solely based on the fact that she is WILLING to commit all kinds of horrible acts, even though she bascially never does them because let's face it. 9999 times out of 10000 doing the "evil" action is not the best one thinking long term.

No, she's not Evil. She's a Lawful Neutral Villain Sue.

JusticeZero
2013-09-17, 11:00 AM
Arguably this is the norm. When one examines the upper echelons of power, they find mostly psychopaths; this has been explained to me (by a psychopath friend) that this is because a psychopath, among other things, doesn't understand "enough". They pick an arbitrary win condition in life and then continue to run up that score well beyond the level that they actually need - a normal multi-millionaire retires once they are financially secure, a psychopath billionaire just keeps racking up more money because they know how to, they can, and it seems like as good a goal as anything else.

Honest Tiefling
2013-09-17, 11:48 AM
I think this question is hard to answer, because...She's just not terribly realistic. She's apparently either inherited a empire with a shady religion or booted out good clerics because everyone is willing to agree to evil acts 'cause she did the Disney Princess sing-a-long in the streets.

She can't have inherited an empire with NO religion, because she needs a few clerics to raise her in case the worst happens. And I really doubt the Harvester Devil would...Else why the heck is she there??

Which brings up a good point. Why is she there? Harvester devils...Harvest. Wouldn't she get into trouble for falling on her quotas? Where is she getting the souls? I assume you mean the 3.5 version, since I don't think there is one for Pathfinder. Evil magic doesn't grow on trees, you know! Its gotta come from somewhere.

And yet, somehow, she's managed to weaken all of her enemies, without being noticed or attacked. Not ONE of her spies has been caught and no one suspects her?

Running a war and being popular can be quite tricky. And apparently, not only does she have one on multiple fronts (Even if it is not conventional warfare), she has to deal with a bunch of angry, fanatic, drow males with centuries of brainwashing and a hankering to stab anything remotely female shaped. And the kingdom is cool with her doing that. Wouldn't there be SOME racial prejudice? Also, the heck is she getting money to house those drow while making her citizens happy? Heck, where is she getting the money for her spies?

I agree with the Villian Sue comment. She might be walking the line between Neutral and Evil, but only because the world is bending to her whims. I cannot recommend actually using this villain without a lot of work. Doesn't really help that she seems to lack in flaws that don't aid her rise to power. No temptations, no rash behavior, no preferences, no emotions.

Morithias
2013-09-17, 12:42 PM
1. I think this question is hard to answer, because...She's just not terribly realistic. She's apparently either inherited a empire with a shady religion or booted out good clerics because everyone is willing to agree to evil acts 'cause she did the Disney Princess sing-a-long in the streets.

2. She can't have inherited an empire with NO religion, because she needs a few clerics to raise her in case the worst happens. And I really doubt the Harvester Devil would...Else why the heck is she there??

3. Which brings up a good point. Why is she there? Harvester devils...Harvest. Wouldn't she get into trouble for falling on her quotas? Where is she getting the souls? I assume you mean the 3.5 version, since I don't think there is one for Pathfinder. Evil magic doesn't grow on trees, you know! Its gotta come from somewhere.

4. And yet, somehow, she's managed to weaken all of her enemies, without being noticed or attacked. Not ONE of her spies has been caught and no one suspects her?

5. Running a war and being popular can be quite tricky. And apparently, not only does she have one on multiple fronts (Even if it is not conventional warfare), she has to deal with a bunch of angry, fanatic, drow males with centuries of brainwashing and a hankering to stab anything remotely female shaped. And the kingdom is cool with her doing that. Wouldn't there be SOME racial prejudice? Also, the heck is she getting money to house those drow while making her citizens happy? Heck, where is she getting the money for her spies?

6. I agree with the Villian Sue comment. She might be walking the line between Neutral and Evil, but only because the world is bending to her whims. I cannot recommend actually using this villain without a lot of work. Doesn't really help that she seems to lack in flaws that don't aid her rise to power. No temptations, no rash behavior, no preferences, no emotions.

1. Shady religion? What the hell happened to "Separation of church and state".

2,3. The harvester devil works for the Elder Evil, she doesn't care about harvesting souls. No her purpose is to create a new evil god to upset the balance between good and evil, so when her master is released he can take over. On the scale of planar war that the First evil is planning to commit, no amount of low-ranking devils is going to mean anything. You need deities, and other elites. I'm sure that Imp that the nine hells would've created with those souls would've done SO MUCH DAMAGE against Pelor.

4. Wow it's almost like the DM based the spy's successful on her hide check. Which at the start of the campaign was somewhere in the +30's (Dark template, custom magical items, rogue levels, starting at level 10).

5. Again with the "Where is she getting the money" thing. Wow it's almost like the D&D economic system doesn't make any bloody sense. And as I've stated, the Propagandist class ability DOES NOT REQUIRE A ROLL. And even if it did the rumormonger/propagandist has a diplomacy/bluff check in the low 50's.

6. No flaws. Yeah it's almost like she's a robot. Trained from birth for the very purpose of pulling off this plan, her mind warped by the First Evil, and the Harvester Devil. As I've stated, she doesn't think like an ordinary person because she. is. insane.

Also world bending to her whims? Geeze, it's almost like we're using a system of gameplay where you have a "loyalty" score. OH WAIT.

How many people here have ever actually READ the kingmaker book? Because EVERYTHING she does is 100% plausible if you know the system.

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 01:02 PM
6. No flaws. Yeah it's almost like she's a robot. Trained from birth for the very purpose of pulling off this plan, her mind warped by the First Evil, and the Harvester Devil. As I've stated, she doesn't think like an ordinary person because she. is. insane.

I've seen fictional robots with more interesting personality flaws. I've seen Rogue Modrons with more interesting personality flaws. The Joker (who is a certified Chaotic Evil psychopath, yet is highly intelligent and charismatic) has more interesting personality flaws. (The dude cut off his face just to squick out Batman!)

Your PC is, to put it plainly, an invincible, boring character. She always wins, because that's what the DM wants, apparently. There's no conflict, and lack of conflict make for boring stories and RPGS. Your PC succeeds at everything without trying. She was born with an alchemical silver spoon in her mouth, and has never needed to work hard at anything. That's practically the definition of a Mary Sue.

Does your PC have any vices? Does she smoke? Does she drink to excess? She doesn't really strike me as insane, Evil or interesting, and the latter part is the worst of the three.

Honest Tiefling
2013-09-17, 01:04 PM
Actually, she doesn't seem all that insane to me. Not terribly empathic, but she understands and follows societal norms quite well. Unless there are other ways the insanity manifests?

Also, how would you feel if the players also used the system and attempted to diplomance her into being good aligned? (Assuming they CAN do it.)

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 01:05 PM
Actually, she doesn't seem all that insane to me. Not terribly empathic, but she understands and follows societal norms quite well. Unless there are other ways the insanity manifests?

Also, how would you feel if the players also used the system and attempted to diplomance her into being good aligned? (Assuming they CAN do it.)

The character in question is actually Morithias' PC, not an NPC.

Morithias
2013-09-17, 01:06 PM
Actually, she doesn't seem all that insane to me. Not terribly empathic, but she understands and follows societal norms quite well. Unless there are other ways the insanity manifests?

Also, how would you feel if the players also used the system and attempted to diplomance her into being good aligned? (Assuming they CAN do it.)

Yeah people, you've got to remember.

Insane =/= violent. I'm actually on mental medication (paliperidone).

Going insane does not make you go "RAPE AND MURDER RAPE AND MURDER!"

And any DM who says it does needs to open a bloody psychology textbook.


The character in question is actually Morithias' PC, not an NPC.

And the DM was actually fine with her...in fact the campaign ended early because we were killing everything too easily...kind of over optimized on the Musketeer and the Blackguard characters.

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 01:08 PM
Yeah people, you've got to remember.

Insane =/= violent. I'm actually on mental medication (paliperidone).

Going insane does not make you go "RAPE AND MURDER RAPE AND MURDER!"

And any DM who says it does needs to open a bloody psychology textbook.


Insane =/= Evil.

Morithias
2013-09-17, 01:10 PM
Insane =/= Evil.

Yeah, but let's take something from an official source. The SRD.

"A character with permanent insanity may be reduced to a raving lunatic or may be outwardly indistinguishable from a normal person; either way, she is inwardly corrupted by the pursuit of knowledge and power. Some of the most dangerous cultists in the world are characters who have become permanently insane, been corrupted by forbidden knowledge, and “gone over to the other side.”"

Source:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm

Considering she was blessed with the fire souled template (yes I did pay the LA +3), by an Elder Evil. I'm pretty sure she was permanently insane once the template was applied. Having an Elder God touch your mind does that to a person.

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 01:13 PM
Yeah, but let's take something from an official source. The SRD.

"A character with permanent insanity may be reduced to a raving lunatic or may be outwardly indistinguishable from a normal person; either way, she is inwardly corrupted by the pursuit of knowledge and power. Some of the most dangerous cultists in the world are characters who have become permanently insane, been corrupted by forbidden knowledge, and “gone over to the other side.”"

Source:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm

Considering she was blessed with the fire souled template (yes I did pay the LA +3), by an Elder Evil. I'm pretty sure she was permanently insane once the template was applied. Having an Elder God touch your mind does that to a person.

So in what way did her insanity manifest? Paranoia? Manic depression? Megalomania? Jerusalem Syndrome?

Morithias
2013-09-17, 01:18 PM
So in what way did her insanity manifest? Paranoia? Manic depression? Megalomania? Jerusalem Syndrome?

"Compulsive
Perfectionist, authoritarian, indecisive from fear of making mistakes, difficulty expressing emotions."

Under "personality disorders."

It's also why after the world was under her control she could never be happy. She'd just keep going from world to world, unable to ever really stop. A compulsion to conquer, to take control, to be praised. A princess, to empress, to god, and it's still not enough.

It's basically why she went to war in the first place. Even if she had the best bed, best food, and so on. It's basically never good enough. She wants power, she's not willing to give up peace of mind to get it, but she always wants more.

Waar
2013-09-17, 01:20 PM
1. Shady religion? What the hell happened to "Separation of church and state".

Nice info, why not mention it earlier?, surely suppressing/taking over the already established unkwon religion in the region involved doing some evil stuff :smallwink:


2,3. The harvester devil works for the Elder Evil, she doesn't care about harvesting souls. No her purpose is to create a new evil god to upset the balance between good and evil, so when her master is released he can take over. On the scale of planar war that the First evil is planning to commit, no amount of low-ranking devils is going to mean anything. You need deities, and other elites. I'm sure that Imp that the nine hells would've created with those souls would've done SO MUCH DAMAGE against Pelor.


Would the act of becoming/creating an evil god perhaps require some, oh I don't know, evil acts?


6. No flaws. Yeah it's almost like she's a robot. Trained from birth for the very purpose of pulling off this plan, her mind warped by the First Evil, and the Harvester Devil. As I've stated, she doesn't think like an ordinary person because she. is. insane.

So what are her goals, what goes on in her head?


Also world bending to her whims? Geeze, it's almost like we're using a system of gameplay where you have a "loyalty" score. OH WAIT.

How many people here have ever actually READ the kingmaker book? Because EVERYTHING she does is 100% plausible if you know the system.

1 Posts in the general rolepaying games forum (for "general advice or system-independent (or multi-system) discussion")
2 Specifies system on page 3
3 Gets pissed at people not having "READ" specific system specific books before posting :smallconfused:

Morithias
2013-09-17, 01:23 PM
1. Nice info, why not mention it earlier?, surely suppressing/taking over the already established unkwon religion in the region involved doing some evil stuff :smallwink:

2. Would the act of becoming/creating an evil god perhaps require some, oh I don't know, evil acts?

3. So what are her goals, what goes on in her head?

4. 1 Posts in the general rolepaying games forum (for "general advice or system-independent (or multi-system) discussion")
2 Specifies system on page 3
3 Gets pissed at people not having "READ" specific system specific books before posting :smallconfused:

1. Because it hadn't come up. In fact the church never came up in the campaign.

2. No just enough worshippers.

3. Praise, desire, power. She's spent her whole life as a pawn, she basically has never had goals of her own.

4. In my defense this was just suppose to be a debate on "is this woman evil or not". But then people started asking economic questions and asking me how everything worked, THEN we had to bring in the crunch.

Kish
2013-09-17, 01:30 PM
4. In my defense this was just suppose to be a debate on "is this woman evil or not". But then people started asking economic questions and asking me how everything worked, THEN we had to bring in the crunch.
The answer to your question is probably no, the majority of people here haven't read the Kingmaker book. Why would they?

If you wanted replies only from people who had, you should have specified that to begin with. If you at some point changed from wanting non-system-specific posts to wanting replies only from people who had...you should have specified that when it became the case. Assuming "have the books for the unspecified system I played this character in memorized" was a default? No good.

Waar
2013-09-17, 01:32 PM
1. Because it hadn't come up. In fact the church never came up in the campaign.

2. No just enough worshippers.

3. Praise, desire, power. She's spent her whole life as a pawn, she basically has never had goals of her own.

4. In my defense this was just suppose to be a debate on "is this woman evil or not". But then people started asking economic questions and asking me how everything worked, THEN we had to bring in the crunch.

1 and 2: shouln't these be oh you know a bit related :smallconfused:

3. fair enough, but desire as a goal, how do you mean?

4. I think people come in with different expectations on the ability/competence level of characters with regards to solving comlex social problems much better than annybody has ever done on this planet (afaik), but your positon is certanly understandable :smallsmile:

Autolykos
2013-09-17, 01:34 PM
Hm, she does not seem to be "insane" by any sensible definition of the word. If a few mild-moderate personality disorders were enough to label someone (especially a high-functioning individual) "insane", half the world would be. It also has nothing to do with whether she's evil or not.
Also, what makes her Evil (capital E) is that "destroying souls" bit (especially since it's become a habit), and brainwashing/diplomancing her minions may or may not make her evil (small E), depending on whether your morality allows that for the greater good, and whether you accept order to be a greater good than freedom (or, for that matter, equality). But other than that, I see no justification to label her evil, Evil or [evil]. Being ready to do horrible things, but not actually doing them because it doesn't look like a good idea looks definitely neutral to me. Not particularly good, but common enough that it shouldn't be evil per se, much less make anyone Evil, either.

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 01:34 PM
"Compulsive Perfectionist, authoritarian, indecisive from fear of making mistakes, difficulty expressing emotions."

Under "personality disorders."

How compulsive a perfectionist is she? Would she tear down a statue, monument, castle, etc., because of a single, tiny flaw? What does she do when other people make mistakes, given her compulsive perfectionism and her authoritarian streak? How can she expect to create a utopian society if her fear of imperfection and making the wrong decision paralyze her with fear? Which emotions does she have difficulty expressing? Is she incapable of comprehending emotions? If so, what does she do when other people laugh or cry? Does she go all King Doerdon (http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/wiki/Puncheron) on them? Or does she sulk sullenly in a corner?


It's also why after the world was under her control she could never be happy. She'd just keep going from world to world, unable to ever really stop. A compulsion to conquer, to take control, to be praised. A princess, to empress, to god, and it's still not enough.

It's basically why she went to war in the first place. Even if she had the best bed, best food, and so on. It's basically never good enough. She wants power, she's not willing to give up peace of mind to get it, but she always wants more.

That's an inherent contradiction. If she is driven by her inate sense of perfectionism and authoritarian streak to constantly conquer and dominate others around her, she will never be able to find peace of mind using the methods you explicitly referred to in the OP and in this post. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16033674&postcount=57)

So which was the case: was she a perfect Villain Sue who never did anything Evil because that would lead to enemies trying to kill her, or was she a perfection seeking tyrant, who sought to conquer the world to assuage her deep seated insecurities, in the process grinding civilization beneath her heels? :smallconfused:

BRC
2013-09-17, 01:35 PM
I would say yes, because she possesses the mindset of Evil.
Evil is based on the premise "it is okay to hurt others for my own benefit", just like Good is based on "it is right to sacrifice for the benefit of others".

Evil is stealing bread from the hungry. Good is giving food to the hungry.

The ultimate expression of evil is sadistic cruelty. You hurt others for your own benefit, in this case the act of hurting itself is what you benefit from.

This lady is not sadistic, nor neccessarily cruel. If she does evil acts it is purely because she believes that is the most beneficial route for her.

Let's say a Bandit kills a merchant and takes his money. The Bandit is not evil because they killed the Merchant, they killed the merchant because they were evil. Were they not Evil, then they would not have killed the Merchant. The Bandit's alignment does not change during the attack. Before the attack he was willing to kill the merchant, after the attack he was STILL willing to kill the merchant.


So, your empress is Evil, because the only thing stopping her from doing Evil is pragmatism, rather than any moral compunction against evil. If she was offered a penny to kill an Orphan with a guarantee of absolutly no consequences, she would do it. It was the optimal action.

Alignment Dictates Actions, not the other way around.

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 01:40 PM
Alignment Dictates Actions, not the other way around.

Not necessarily. If a player declares that her PC is Lawful Evil, but never commits a single Evil act the entire campaign, I'd point out to the player that her PC seems more Lawful Neutral than Lawful Evil and recommend that she change the PC's Alignment.

BRC
2013-09-17, 01:44 PM
Not necessarily. If a player declares that her PC is Lawful Evil, but never commits a single Evil act the entire campaign, I'd point out to the player that her PC seems more Lawful Neutral than Lawful Evil and recommend that she change the PC's Alignment.

From a game perspective yes, that is the only way you can do it unless you want to strictly limit character's actions by alignment, basically turning every character into some varient on Paladin. "I'm sorry, but helping against the bandits would be a Good action, as a Neutral character you are forbidden from doing it."
In your example you're not changing the character's alignment because of the actions, you are re-assessing the alignment based on the actions. You're not saying "Your character is suddenly Lawful Neutral!", you're saying "This character has been lawful neutral for some time, and we are now changing the character sheet to reflect that".

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 01:51 PM
From a game perspective yes, that is the only way you can do it unless you want to strictly limit character's actions by alignment, basically turning every character into some varient on Paladin. "I'm sorry, but helping against the bandits would be a Good action, as a Neutral character you are forbidden from doing it."
In your example you're not changing the character's alignment because of the actions, you are re-assessing the alignment based on the actions. You're not saying "Your character is suddenly Lawful Neutral!", you're saying "This character has been lawful neutral for some time, and we are now changing the character sheet to reflect that".

It's more a case of my pointing out to the player, in my role of DM, that she isn't roleplaying her character in accordance with her selected Alignment, and giving the player the option of changing the PC's Alignment to one that matches the way the player actually roleplays the character, or rereading the description of the Lawful Evil Alignment and changing the way she roleplays the PC to conform to that description.

Waar
2013-09-17, 01:52 PM
Not necessarily. If a player declares that her PC is Lawful Evil, but never commits a single Evil act the entire campaign, I'd point out to the player that her PC seems more Lawful Neutral than Lawful Evil and recommend that she change the PC's Alignment.

It depends, having neutral as something you naturally gravitates towards unless you take conscious action away from it is certanly a valid aproach from a game.
so is starting good and deteriorating when you do something too evil (depending on how far gone you are) is also valid.
Not metion letting how "good" you are depend on which morall standards you hold yourself to, no line you are unwilling to cross, no course of action you are unwilling to take -> evil

the_david
2013-09-17, 02:12 PM
She's lawful evil, because she can silence her opposition any way she wants and make get away with it. She can indoctrinate the children of her nation so the next generation will worship her.
It might help if you look at it like a company. The employees are getting paid more than what they would get from the competition, and the customers are satisfied so they keep coming back as the competition just can't compete. And guess who's filling her pockets with the profits? Exactly.

There are, however 3 flaws.

1. Even though she is lawful evil, her followers see her as lawful neutral, or maybe even lawful good. If she's worshipped, she's worshipped as a lawful neutral deity, not an evil one.
2 However, she might not be worshipped at all. As you may or may not know, people who are doing good have less of a reason, and are less likely to worship a deity than those who have to struggle in their day to day existence. Her utopia is the reason why people don't believe in her, but in their own succes.
3. Perhaps the most important. Yes, she is evil. That doesn't make her an adversary. In fact, she's a hero. I'd be happy to live in her country and to serve her. I can't imagine any hero wanting to kill her. There's simply no story here.

Arbane
2013-09-17, 02:18 PM
1. Shady religion? What the hell happened to "Separation of church and state".

Nonexistent in RL history up until approximately the mid-18th Century.

Probably non-existent in a world with activist deities who really DO care who runs countries.

Tichrondrius
2013-09-17, 02:34 PM
Brushing off other nations because her nation is number one in everything and brushing off her own people because they all love her no matter what she does, even soul destroying, makes her Mary-Sue Evil.:smallsigh:

Autolykos
2013-09-17, 02:36 PM
Nonexistent in RL history up until approximately the mid-18th Century.

Probably non-existent in a world with activist deities who really DO care who runs countries.And lots of people still aren't happy about it, or at least vehemently oppose true secularism (French model), even in modern and enlightened countries. I don't see secularism being accepted peacefully in a world which not only has churches with massive wealth, political and military power, but on top of that has gods that can be demonstrated to exist.

Morithias
2013-09-17, 02:44 PM
And lots of people still aren't happy about it, or at least vehemently oppose true secularism (French model), even in modern and enlightened countries. I don't see secularism being accepted peacefully in a world which not only has churches with massive wealth, political and military power, but on top of that has gods that can be demonstrated to exist.

Okay. Here's the next problem though.

There are MULTIPLE churches. So does everyone get a say? Does the church of Asmodeus get a say? Does the cult that Carol the Musketeer is from (Dispater) get a say? What about Minax the royal assassin? She worships Bhaal. Then there's the propagandist who worships Malachant. In the mean time Jebel the harvester devil worships the First Evil.

Having the church and state separate is just the easiest way to do things.

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 02:53 PM
And lots of people still aren't happy about it, or at least vehemently oppose true secularism (French model), even in modern and enlightened countries. I don't see secularism being accepted peacefully in a world which not only has churches with massive wealth, political and military power, but on top of that has gods that can be demonstrated to exist.

I dunno, I could see Tritherion (god of freedom from opression in Greyhawk) being opposed to state religions. Especially the Church of Pholtus. :smalltongue:

EDIT:

Okay. Here's the next problem though.

There are MULTIPLE churches. So does everyone get a say? Does the church of Asmodeus get a say? Does the cult that Carol the Musketeer is from (Dispater) get a say? What about Minax the royal assassin? She worships Bhaal. Then there's the propagandist who worships Malachant. In the mean time Jebel the harvester devil worships the First Evil.

Having the church and state separate is just the easiest way to do things.

Out of all the gods and archdevils, Asmodeus is probably the most opposed to separation of church and state. It's his way, or the highway (to the Nine Hells). The same goes for Hextor, Bane, Iyachtu Xvim (prior to Bane's revival), Demogorgon, and many others. As for Vecna, his whole goal is to usurp the power of every other god that exists, and his cultists work in secrecy, recruiting new cultists via blackmail. Vecna envisions a time when there will be no other churches or cults, and he is the only head of state.

On the Good side, Pholtus, St. Cuthbert, and Hieronious all promote outright theocracies (the Theocracy of the Pale is governed by the Church of Pholtus) or the divine right of Kings. I'm sure there are similar gods in the Forgotten Realms. Like I said, only Tritherion would actively oppose any form of theocracy, by his clerics or any others.

RochtheCrusher
2013-09-17, 03:15 PM
Most people would kill a baby to save the world. They would hate it, but they would do it.

Fortunately, that situation never comes up.

In that respect, the Empress is no different from you. There is a price for which she would commit great evil, but it never comes up, so she doesn't.

That leaves us with, what, being friendly with some devils? Who, since they're largely dealing with her benevolent rule, aren't that actively evil either? What are we, racist over here?

So yeah, I would say she gets a clean bill of alignment unless and until something comes along that's valuable enough to make her snap. If it never does, in her eternal life of watching over her people... what's wrong with that, exactly?

Edit:

Now obviously, someone else who has an evil empire and is willing to sacrifice his people to destroy her will do 1 of 2 things... He will either destroy her or force her to commit horrible acts. If she decides that she would rather be liked than win, well... again. How evil was she, really?

Autolykos
2013-09-17, 03:45 PM
Okay. Here's the next problem though.

There are MULTIPLE churches. So does everyone get a say? Does the church of Asmodeus get a say? Does the cult that Carol the Musketeer is from (Dispater) get a say? What about Minax the royal assassin? She worships Bhaal. Then there's the propagandist who worships Malachant. In the mean time Jebel the harvester devil worships the First Evil.

Having the church and state separate is just the easiest way to do things.Surprisingly, they rarely think that way. It does not make any sense from their premises. If you really believe it, you think you are right and all others are wrong. It is your sacred duty to convert them to your way, because only you can see. If all religions are equal in a state, it is putting their "false" teachings on the same level as our "true" ones. This is unacceptable ("We work for the salvation of the people, and they poison their minds with lies!"), and once they feel they have the power to oppose it, they will. Even if they are roughly equal, they will all think they can win, because only their church represents the one true god. Many would rather put up with religious infighting than peacefully coexist with heathens and heretics.
This is different in true polytheism where priests of each god generally see all other gods (at least of their pantheon) as justified, but quite a few D&D churches aren't exactly on speaking terms with each other.

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 03:58 PM
Surprisingly, they rarely think that way. It does not make any sense from their premises. If you really believe it, you think you are right and all others are wrong. It is your sacred duty to convert them to your way, because only you can see. If all religions are equal in a state, it is putting their "false" teachings on the same level as our "true" ones. This is unacceptable ("We work for the salvation of the people, and they poison their minds with lies!"), and once they feel they have the power to oppose it, they will. Even if they are roughly equal, they will all think they can win, because only their church represents the one true god. Many would rather put up with religious infighting than peacefully coexist with heathens and heretics.
This is different in true polytheism where priests of each god generally see all other gods (at least of their pantheon) as justified, but quite a few D&D churches aren't exactly on speaking terms with each other.

Not exactly. D&D usually conforms to henotheism, a system where each god acknowledges the existence of other gods, but instructs their worshipers to please not worship other gods. In some cases the gods form tight pantheons, where mortals are encouraged to worship several of the gods, while discouraged from worshiping others. Vecna, Asmodeus, Iuz and Pholtus are unique in that they actively discourage henotheism. Pholtus' Church denies the divinity of the other gods (though that doesn't stop Pholtus from joining Murlynd's weekly poker games, along with Al 'Akbar, Hieronious, and St. Cuthbert), Asmodeus considers himself more powerful than the gods, and Vecna and Iuz actively plot the downfall of every other god other than themselves. Essentially Vecna and Iuz would like to be in charge of a monotheistic system, and to do that they each seek to usurp the powers of the other gods. Vecna is currently making a lot more progress in this scheme than Iuz.

hamishspence
2013-09-17, 04:04 PM
In Faerun at least, the average mortal is likely to throw a prayer now and again in the direction of any of them- and even those devoted to one, won't usually outright reject or defame the others- they simply won't pray to them.

So- you'll have clergy and paladins devoted to one deity- and lay worshippers who'll focus on one but pray at appropriate times to others- even if it's something as simple as "Talos, please send no storms".

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 04:05 PM
In Faerun at least, the average mortal is likely to throw a prayer now and again in the direction of any of them- and even those devoted to one, won't usually outright reject or defame the others- they simply won't pray to them.

Forgotten Realms seems to vacillate between polytheism and henotheism. There also is no entity like Pholtus (or Takhisis during the War of Souls period) demanding exclusive worship.

hamishspence
2013-09-17, 04:07 PM
Except Cyric- but he's generally considered to be somewhat crazy, even after being acquitted of "innocence by reason of insanity".

Sir_Leorik
2013-09-17, 04:28 PM
Except Cyric- but he's generally considered to be somewhat crazy, even after being acquitted of "innocence by reason of insanity".

Oh yeah, I forgot about Cyric. :smallredface:

123456789blaaa
2013-09-17, 06:25 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about Cyric. :smallredface:
You also forgot Ghaunadaur.

JusticeZero
2013-09-17, 10:30 PM
Not exactly. D&D usually conforms to henotheism, a system where each god acknowledges the existence of other gods, but instructs their worshipers to please not worship other gods.I thought the term for that was monolatry; is there a difference?

nweismuller
2013-09-18, 04:23 AM
I thought the term for that was monolatry; is there a difference?

Monolatry is the belief that multiple gods exist, but only one is worthy of worship. Henotheism is the belief that multiple gods exist and may be worthy of worship, but nonetheless only one of them happens to be the god that you worship. My impression of most D&D worlds is that they're closer to henotheism than monolatry.

hamishspence
2013-09-18, 06:03 AM
Most people would kill a baby to save the world. They would hate it, but they would do it.

Fortunately, that situation never comes up.

The usual rationale would be:

"no matter what I do, the baby's going to die in the immediate future- I might as well make sure the world doesn't die as well"

It can be trickier if the choice is different- sacrificing someone who is not in any danger, to save a huge group.

To paraphrase an old joke:

"Would you murder an infant to save 6 billion people?"
"Of course."
"Would you murder an infant to save your pet goldfish?"
"Of course not, what kind of person do you think I am?!"
"We've established that- now we're just haggling over the price."

Waar
2013-09-18, 06:32 AM
Most people would kill a baby to save the world. They would hate it, but they would do it.

Fortunately, that situation never comes up.

In that respect, the Empress is no different from you. There is a price for which she would commit great evil, but it never comes up, so she doesn't.



Not neccesarily, there is a huge difference between being willing to sacrifice another for to greatly benefit many others, and being willing to sacrifice another for to benefit you a little bit (this empress is explicitly willing to do the later, while I sure hope most people aren't)
As in her price is anything >0 :smallwink:

Guancyto
2013-09-18, 05:02 PM
Man, why do people pull out Bread and Circuses when the Roman Emperors were subject to almost continual civil war and replacement, ran themselves ragged trying to get the resources to placate ever-increasing and ever-more-demanding masses, and eventually fell into ruin?

Okay, well done, through clever rules ab/use, your villain has created a well-fed and well-supplied society with basically a really good state TV channel. (I will refrain from calling "easy DM" on a 5th level Extraordinary ability acting as perfect mind control on your populace (and then it being used for your benefit rather than for that of the propagandist), but just know I'm thinking it real hard.)

So she doesn't have to fear a popular uprising. Well done!

A shame no one cares.

*cracks knuckles*

Let's tear it all down.

NEIGHBORS! She's at war with them? Basically all of them? War is hell, son. An ever-increasing number of wars of expansion to acquire more territory and power is basically the cornerstone of an Evil Empire(tm). This is great red meat for the homestead, but it comes with its own vast array of problems. What happens to the people in recently-conquered lands? Are they shoved off their lands to make room for her own? Popular with her own people, but creating an ever-expanding tide of refugees consisting of the majority of the population gets news of her Evil Empire(tm) spread far and wide. Are they being exterminated? Resettled? How about the old leaders?

Does she accept threats to her rule from the conquered territories, or does she decide that her people come first? Does she give rights to the conquered, or does she tell them that they can suck it?

How are her wars conducted? Disease? Poison? Sorched Earth? How about her counterinsurgency strategies? Lots of ways to be good to your own people and an Evil bastard to everyone who isn't.

Who gets to be a military leader? How does one stop being a military leader? What happens to people who get their butts kicked? Strangled to death? Soul-sucked? Given quiet retirements? Is she creating an ever-expanding number of angry, failed former military leaders and ex-soldiers? That sounds like fun, actually.

How do her people deal with the enemy? How have they done so historically, and how much of a departure is her current policy? If they've usually gotten along with their neighbors, they'll chafe like ****bunnies out of lube at slaughtering them. If they've been at war with them basically forever (this is the default) they'll chafe like ****bunnies out of lube at accepting them into the Empire and giving them the same rights and free food/healthcare to which they are entitled. People are not content, they want to have it all and then they want to have more than the other guy.

DISSIDENTS! Don't tell me there aren't any. A state that's good to the people who keep their heads down and follow its law is called 'a vaguely functional state' It does not matter how well you are doing by your people, as long as there's a person with a functioning brain left in your state there will be a person who disagrees with its government. What does she do with the people who don't like what she's doing? Be it kicking out the churches or going to war all the time or eating people's souls or resurrecting an evil god or banning mud baths in favor of hot water and soap or creating traffic laws or not fixing pot holes?

Are people who complain labeled as enemies of the state and ruthlessly resocialized? Congratulations, you're Evil.

AMBITIOUS BUMS! Delegation is the soul of leadership. Obviously she doesn't do everything herself (although the idea of her Hide skill score applying to all of her spies without some sort of supernatural power backing it is, uh, special). The bigger her Empire gets, the more she has to delegate because she only has so many hours in a day. The more she has to delegate, the more power is put in the hands of the best and brightest who, as a rule, will be jerkwads who want more than they have, unless she makes a policy of recruiting Good people to be in charge.

How much power is shared with the elites? How much power is applied to the people? How much authority does she herself enjoy?

Plenty of opportunity to be Evil depending on how you keep your subordinates in line, especially since as a perfectionist she isn't likely to take the old route of creating inefficiency and turning them against each other so they'll plot among themselves instead of plotting against her.

They don't even have to be malicious to plot against her! If her government is Good people, they might develop a problem with their Beloved Leader being a devil-pawn. Also, they might develop the idea that while immortal, their Beloved Leader is not invincible, and that there needs to be some sort of mechanic in place for succession. (If there is such a mechanic, heirs are trouble and always have been.)

(Even if she is universally beloved by means of non-supernatural populace-wide mind control, her devil nanny is not. If word of that gets out, how long is it before there's a popular uprising to free her? How would she deal with that?)

How evil are her subordinates, and how much leeway do they get? Is it pragmatic to let a general who really loves impaling and torturing his enemies and generally being an evil **** keep doing his thing if he's really good at winning battles? How about an administrator who has fun terrorizing the populace (they've got unlimited cure spells, it's a victimless crime!) if he's liked by enough of the power structure that disposing of him would be a nightmare?

This is just scratching the tip of the iceberg. You've basically told us that she drives the speed limit and pays her bills on time, and is she a bad person? Everything that would mark her and her regime as Evil (shy of, I don't know, starving the populace) is contained in things you haven't talked about!

The more threats to her power she allows, the more unstable her throne is. The more she pragmatically eliminates obstacles to her Manifest Destiny, the more she slides toward Evil because Bread and Circuses? Yeah, they don't cut it.

And if this is all a lot of micromanaging freshman-level-poli sci nonsense that I should leave you alone about... well then assume, for the sake of abstraction, that being a Pragmatic Villain your Empress is doing at least enough dastardly-pragmatic things to secure her power that she pings as Evil, and have fun running Praetoria (because **** yeah, Praetoria is awesome. ...was awesome, RIP City of Heroes.)

Brookshw
2013-09-18, 06:10 PM
Yup, that is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole concept is predicated on false and/or invalid premises where "fiat" solves everything and later posts contradict the premise. Mary Sue and Evil who's immune to repercussions by aforementioned fiats. I agree with you.

That said, how could we modify this scenario to be a) realistic/believable b) achievable and how such a state could potentially exist?

Morithias
2013-09-18, 07:25 PM
Yup, that is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole concept is predicated on false and/or invalid premises where "fiat" solves everything and later posts contradict the premise. Mary Sue and Evil who's immune to repercussions by aforementioned fiats. I agree with you.

That said, how could we modify this scenario to be a) realistic/believable b) achievable and how such a state could potentially exist?

Well for one, if you want realistic/believable. You'll probably want to change the campaign to not be a system where there is a "loyalty" score or an "economy" score. You'll probably want to run it in GURPs.

Secondly you'll need to cut basically all of the magic, considering that it's quite easy to get everyone satisfied in a world without scarcity.

Thirdly you'll need to change the way the battle system works, and make it so everyone is attacking her alone, rather than fighting their own battles. Since it's basically a free-for-all. So you'ld have to trigger "gang up on the human."

Guancyto
2013-09-18, 07:49 PM
Well, in spite of the long OP, the amount of information given isn't that much, so the best answer is, "a whole bleeding lot of ways."

time to randomly prattle on

I mean, apparently money isn't an issue and basic needs are taken care of with resetting trap cheese, so you can have full housing and your bread and circuses no problem. If money really isn't an issue, they can be great patrons of the arts and technology and run wars at the same time. With the influx of conquered people (enslaved? integrated?) and being an excellent place for the best and brightest to emigrate, it boasts a much more cosmopolitan cultural makeup than it had even a decade prior.

Even the streets are gilded, swept of filth and refuse and vagrants, and the Empire speeds forward with progress unheard-of in this part of the world; it is a place where a man with ideas can make his mark in the world, where the sky is the only limit to his success. But look beneath the gilt and lies, and it becomes clear there is a price.

Men of great intelligence and ambition are men of passions, and it is true that the best people must run the best country. But such men! They dabble in things they do not understand; they alter their people to be greater, stronger better, and often they fail. The results of their terrible experiments swept off the streets and driven down below. Below, the only place where those whose hearts are still free can live without the secret police finding them.

The spies are everywhere. A man cannot question his betters, for to do so is to question the authority of those who elevated them. One must always watch for any sign of disloyalty among his neighbors, for he knows his neighbors best and they will ask, when his neighbor is taken away, how could you not know this? One must always report any sign of dissent, for anyone could be of the secret police; any hidden overture a test.

Even the spies must watch themselves that they do not transgress their boundaries. There are dark places where only those of the highest power may go. The muted screams from these places warn away the ignorant. The rumors of initiation or death warn away the knowledgeable.

A man of great learning - or of the correct initiations - will begin to notice patterns on the gilded streets. It is clean, sterile, organized but there is a pattern. To walk the sixty-six ways of the capital is to tread the path of devils and fiends, and the men of greatest power bear the marks. Oh, certainly there are no tattoos, no matching scars; the casual observer would be entranced by the power of their presence alone, for the highest stars of the Empire are bright indeed. Only the informed or experienced would notice the wrongness, and the Empire goes to great lengths to remove or induct those experienced in Infernalism.

How high does the corruption go? None would dare speak ill of the nigh-mythical Divine Empress, and surely she must be innocent of such crimes. Surely one so pure and bright, the symbol and heart of their nation has merely been deceived by such fiends, and when she discovers them it will be a terrible vengeance! When she appears in public, they feel the stirrings of a sort of kinship, for as they have never had any choices, neither has she.

Sometimes their children ask in greater innocence, 'has it always been so,' and something else stirs, a faint notion of a time when they could see the stars amidst the golden light, a day spent tilling or making a meal with their own hands. A time when they were not always watching, and not always watched. When they were not ruled by foreigners. When they prayed to their own gods, and did not feel in that faithful corner of their minds the heavy and oppressive pressure of something terrible being birthed beneath them. Then the memory fades.

It is so hard to remember.

Fake edit: @OP, Okay. It's a lot of micromanaging freshman poli sci nonsense I shouldn't be bothering you with. That's fine!

In that case, "yes, she is Evil, for you have decided that she is Evil and thus her Empire will be run in ways that maintain her as Evil until you decide she ought to change things to be different."

Nothing at all wrong with not being realistic in an RPG system, although I do have a certain fondness for believability. xD
And I will posit you can fluff your obscene Loyalty score however you want.

Kioras
2013-09-18, 09:40 PM
Is the character evil?

Yes, the soul destroying taints her completely.

In the rules of the system and as stated and then exploited it is a post scarcity Utopia.

The kingdom is well run, the character is seen as a demigoddess who walks among men and women and leads them to their salvation.

But there is something far far worse then anything else. The character and kingdom are boring. Though abusing the rules, the kingdom is not an interesting place to adventure in, and is a card board cut out, it is a flat Mary Sue-Topia.

There are very few adventure hooks, there are no challenges for your character left, and this means that the setting should be shelved, forgotten and never mentioned in a game again.

Morithias
2013-09-18, 10:42 PM
Is the character evil?

Yes, the soul destroying taints her completely.

In the rules of the system and as stated and then exploited it is a post scarcity Utopia.

The kingdom is well run, the character is seen as a demigoddess who walks among men and women and leads them to their salvation.

But there is something far far worse then anything else. The character and kingdom are boring. Though abusing the rules, the kingdom is not an interesting place to adventure in, and is a card board cut out, it is a flat Mary Sue-Topia.

There are very few adventure hooks, there are no challenges for your character left, and this means that the setting should be shelved, forgotten and never mentioned in a game again.

Well to be fair, she doesn't become a demi-god until around 4 years after uniting the continent, and after that Jebel drags her into another world where she can't use her god powers outside of opening the rifts, because the other gods will step in, and she's stuck with a force of 400 units against 7 million in a world where evil has all but been defeated.

So yeah, I agree. Once the war is over and the continent united, there is no more real adventure in Zeth, but the material plane in this setting is infinite, so there's always another world to go to!

The Fury
2013-09-18, 10:47 PM
Is she evil? Yeah, probably. I guess.
Though, the question I found myself asking while skimming this thread was more along the lines of: "Why do heroes oppose villains?" or "Why is opposing the villain the right thing to do?"
As best as I can figure, it's because villains are destructive and dangerous. That's generally what a villain is. So this lady destroys souls of people like serial killers and generally awful people but is able to placate her people and she apparently doesn't endorse any sort of expansionist policy, my mistake, I guess she does. So while she's evil she's not really a serious threat to anyone on a grand scale.
The biggest criticism I could really level at an idea like this is the heroes likely wouldn't oppose her because there's little point. Even if the heroes did decide to try and stop her what's at stake if they fail? Well, some criminals will certainly meet an awful fate. Other than that, her subjects would continue to live in relative prosperity. In the context of RPGs, villains like her just aren't all that fun to fight.

Morithias
2013-09-18, 10:49 PM
In the context of RPGs, villains like her just aren't all that fun to fight.

Which is why she was the protagonist.

Yeah this villain wouldn't work at all for an actual NPC villain, but for my skype group that runs a LOT of evil campaigns. It's nice to see some non-card carrying style playing.

Not fun to fight. Fun as hell to run.

The Fury
2013-09-18, 10:58 PM
Which is why she was the protagonist.

Yeah this villain wouldn't work at all for an actual NPC villain, but for my skype group that runs a LOT of evil campaigns. It's nice to see some non-card carrying style playing.

Not fun to fight. Fun as hell to run.

Oh. I guess I misunderstood. Maybe I just read "villain" as a type of NPC antagonist. Well, very good then. I think it's safe to say we probably don't like the same kinds of games. I guess if playing villain protagonists is fun for you, far be it from me to say you're wrong.

Morithias
2013-09-18, 11:09 PM
Oh. I guess I misunderstood. Maybe I just read "villain" as a type of NPC antagonist. Well, very good then. I think it's safe to say we probably don't like the same kinds of games. I guess if playing villain protagonists is fun for you, far be it from me to say you're wrong.

Right back at you. If my group enjoys one type of game, and your group enjoys another. Until our groups are playing with each other, no one should give a care.

My group has just been debating this "Is she lawful neutral, lawful evil, or LN with evil tenancies." for a long time. Then the debate came up on the forum, and well...thread derailing moved to a new thread...etc.

Guancyto
2013-09-19, 10:10 AM
Really, I figure it's like Rome: Total War. If you're good at managing your settlements there basically won't be internal strife except as the result of external sabotage. Because where the game is about managing an empire it's to get more money to get more troops to conquer more territory or to get more training buildings to get better troops to conquer more territory.

It's not vaguely realistic, but that's not the point.

So a question of "is this ruler Evil" has two answers eternally swallowing each other's tails. "Who really knows," and "who really cares." The difficult and morally sticky choices involved in running an empire Just Don't Happen so it's a pretty pointless question.

Except that she annihilates the souls of assimilated peoples who screw up on the (monumentally difficult) integration process and is helping birth an Evil god. Ahahaha wow, not card-carrying but pings so red a Paladin's head will spin.

I'll just leave this here for you. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainWithGoodPublicity)