how does love between two evil people work?

[Deca4531]

so I have been playing around with a sorcerer build that dips into paladin of tyranny for a couple levels. I planned to play a kobold with an imp familiar who is also his wife. however one thing confuses me, part of the code for paladin of tyranny says that I cannot commit any good deeds. Does this mean I would have to treat my wife like crap?

[Killer Angel]

Think about a dark version of Bonnie e Clyde.

[Tvtyrant]

I hardly think being in love can be considered a good deed... There is way too much reciprocity implied with a relationship for it to be altruistic in my mind. Especially if seeing the other person being happy makes you happy; now everything you do for them pings on the selfish radar.

So treat the spousal unit as you think the character would and ignore alignment qualifications. Love is neutral.

[Alent]

For starters, I don't think how you treat your family firmly affects your alignment. Treating your family different than everyone else is a classic staple of evil- no, make that human- behavior in the real world, let alone fiction. In Tropery, "Even evil has family", "Even evil has standards", etc. Think of how many true monsters in history there have been who deeply loved their spouse and children.

Secondly, you could be underthinking their motivations. If they're both Kobolds, they should be more focused on the warren than themselves. I'd play it as a marriage of convenience- they're together because they can breed and kill Lawful Goods better as a team. No extreme feelings, it's more about familiarity, teamwork, and home stability than any real feeling of love.

[pwykersotz]

Asmodeus had a wife. You might want to check out Afrokuma's Planar Questions thread to read up on what he posted about them. It's quite interesting.

[Xefas]

Obviously, evil has no nuance, so the only reason you would have a wife is because a single human baby is too large a meal for a lone kobold, and you need the extra mouth to make sure none goes to waste. After all, you wouldn't want to be forsaken by your evil gods because some leftover baby parts accidentally fed some carrion scavengers, and feeding woodland creatures is too good of an act for a champion of evil.

Then again, not wasting baby meats might be a violation of your gluttony protocols. Geez, guys, upholding the strict standards of evil is a tricky business. I see why so many Paladins of Tyranny fall to good.

[Eldonauran]

You can be evil and love someone. You can be entirely selfless and devoted to one person and be completely horrible and wretched to everyone else. The reason you are not so horrible to the one (or several, your family perhaps?) is because you love them.

Evil does not value life, unless it is useful to themselves. A being that evokes particular emotions and is otherwise pleasant for you to be around can fulfill a useful role.

[Duke of Urrel]

A Lawful-Evil mentality fits very nicely with the institution of marriage, if it's understood in the bad-old way. There may occasionally be some passion involved in Lawful-Evil marriage, but it's all for the offspring, it's all strictly regulated, and it's highly likely to have been carefully arranged beforehand by the in-laws. Basically, a Lawful-Evil marriage is about mutual political and economic advantage, pure and simple. I marry you because I get something out of it, and you marry me because you get something out of it. It's all written up in the pre-nuptial contract, and if you double-cross me, you can expect a very, very ugly divorce. At the same time, a Lawful-Evil marriage may outwardly display what seems like genuine affection – to those who don't understand sarcasm. In short, a Lawful-Evil marriage should be just what this alignment would lead you to expect: a marriage from Hell.

[Talya]

Many of the most monstrous examples of human atrocities were committed by people who had families and friends to whom they were loyal, and truly loved.


Evil is not 2-dimensional.

[MrNobody]

I suggest checking "Book of Erotic fantasy": it gives an intersting view on love, marriage and any other kind of romantic relation describing how it works for different alignement, races... even for non-humanoid creatures.
You can find it online pretty easily.

For your case, personally i don't think your dark paladin would treat his wife that bad... it's an option, but not the only one. Love is Neutral, like Tvtyrant just said.
LE characters seek control and loyalty above all, and do everything is in their power to keep it once it's gained. So your paladin could be, in first place, extremely jealous, overreacting at the smallest sign of interest for his wife: he could try to intimidate/envenom/curse/kill everyone that looks to much at his wife, and menacing or beating his wife for being a "minx".
In second place, however, he can be truely in love with the girl. Wanting her to love him, he would do anything for her: spending money, killing people, calling her "sweety" and do everything she asks, being her lackey in order to see her happy.

[jedipotter]

the code for paladin of tyranny says that I cannot commit any good deeds. Does this mean I would have to treat my wife like crap?

No. Not doing good deeds does not equal crap.

If you have two evil people married, they would not expect good things done. Ever. They are both evil. They expect evil things to be done. And more so they would like evil or bad things to be done.

But then it depends what is an evil thing, and what is a good thing? It depends. They could have a competitive marriage where they one up each other. Even better they could express their love by doing nice things to get stuff in return. They could, in effect, buy each others love....all the time.


You might want to check out shows like The Sopranos or Sons of Anarchy for some examples of evil folks in love.

[Deca4531]

Obviously, evil has no nuance, so the only reason you would have a wife is because a single human baby is too large a meal for a lone kobold, and you need the extra mouth to make sure none goes to waste. After all, you wouldn't want to be forsaken by your evil gods because some leftover baby parts accidentally fed some carrion scavengers, and feeding woodland creatures is too good of an act for a champion of evil.

Then again, not wasting baby meats might be a violation of your gluttony protocols. Geez, guys, upholding the strict standards of evil is a tricky business. I see why so many Paladins of Tyranny fall to good.

Wow, I love that post.

But as for my kobold and his imp lover. My character will be very old and senile, and his wife will be his care giver as well as helping him focus enough to incinerate all who oppose me. But it was planned to be a tender and loving relationship.

[Friv]

An Evil person will be able to treat their loved ones however they want.

A Paladin of Tyranny, however, is a little bit different, as noted. You can't do Good things. That means no being nice without hope of reward. You don't just buy your wife flowers because you love her. You buy her gifts that will engender reciprocity, and you probably get upset if she doesn't seem to be returning the favor in kind. The big thing is that your character will likely assume that she "owes" you for the nice things that you do for her. She may feel the same way about anything nice that she does for you, and I would expect to see both of you keeping count and bringing up failings in marital squabbles.

I would expect an Evil Relationship to be marked by jealousy and fights, but it doesn't have to become actually cruel or abusive.

[Kid Jake]

Think about a dark version of Bonnie e Clyde.


So these (http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/447/261/447261013_640.jpg) lovebirds. :smallwink:

[KillianHawkeye]

Let's just say......... it's kinky. :smallwink::smallamused::smallbiggrin:

[Valwyn]

Nale and Sabine come to mind.

There's info on even Drow falling in love (usually in lower classes, I think, where there isn't as much social pressure), but I can't remember which book.

You may also want to look up Unholy Matrimony in TvTropes for examples of evilly happy couples.

[Dalebert]

You can be evil and love someone. You can be entirely selfless and devoted to one person and be completely horrible and wretched to everyone else. The reason you are not so horrible to the one (or several, your family perhaps?) is because you love them.


Many of the most monstrous examples of human atrocities were committed by people who had families and friends to whom they were loyal, and truly loved.

Evil is not 2-dimensional.

Wait... Are you folks implying that evil people might not only have family they care about, or spouses, but maybe even... FRIENDS?


Obviously, evil has no nuance...

Oh. Whew! You guys had me going there for a while. :smallwink:

There's an old saying--"don't poop where you eat". A friend of mine says that an evil PC will inevitably betray the party. Why? What if he just... likes them, or at the very least finds them useful when they're actually voluntarily cooperative. A smart person picks her battles wisely and I see no reason why that would not also be the case for evil characters. I hate it when people equate evil with stupidity just because that's what they do in movies when they're dumbing the story down to the least common denominator of viewer. It hearkens back to the days of black hats and white hats in Westerns. Maybe they could just flash a subtitle on the screen when she first appears that says "This is the villain, in case you haven't figured it out yet."

[Sam K]

The general topic of evil and love have already been covered, so I wont bother repeating anything. Alignment doesn't dictate what you do, what you do dictates your alignment. You may have to eat an extra human baby every now and then if you're nice to your spouse and wants to stay evil, but it's a small sacrifice to make (pun intended).

For the specific case of a paladin of tyrany (or anyone who has a requirement to act in a LE way), keep in mind that a simplified LE worldview is that you should treat your superiors with defrence and your equals with respect. So if your characters wife was of equal station they should have a relationship based on, at the very least, politeness. Respect and love would be possible.

Ofcourse, the paladin of tyrany could face a crisis of faith if his wife was found weak, lost her position, or for some other reason would cease to be seen as an equal. Just like a paladin of honor (LG paladin) could have a crisis if a loved one turned out to be evil.

[Eldonauran]

Wait... Are you folks implying that evil people might not only have family they care about, or spouses, but maybe even... FRIENDS?

Golly! That means that anybody could be evil! Paranioa will hit new and unimaginable heights!


Oh. Whew! You guys had me going there for a while. :smallwink:
:smallamused:

[Phelix-Mu]

A few points:

1.) Good has way more rules than evil. Good should aspire to never do evil, but the opposite isn't generally true. Paladin of Tyranny clearly complicates things, but I think many of the same allowances made to paladins that are treading the fine line can be made in reverse (i.e., a "good-faith" effort to be evil is more important than strictly never doing good..."atonement" is always possible).

2.) Love, while generally touted as being a principle espoused by good, is one of those universal offenders that swings both ways. It is often mixed with feelings of desire, devotion, self-interest, and a need to be wanted by another, which makes the whole matter very complicated. In general, though, love exists as an impulse and force that can infect anyone. This is what makes it a useful tool to for goodness (because it has a tendency to make people act in ways they often aren't used to).

3.) Love as a force should be distinguished from the kind of behavior that makes a long-term and stable relationship viable. While evil people can have such relationships (see #1), they often are less successful with relationships in general, as excessive self-interest is one of the most common symptoms of being evil. Over a long-term relationship, there will usually be plenty of instances where it is not in one's own interest to sustain the relationship or continue trying hard.

4.) There are plenty of unhealthy impulses and habits, however, that can create an "evil partnership" dynamic, and love may even flourish amid such people. This kind of synergy, where both members somehow find commitment to the other to be so titillating and beneficial that they really don't care about small differences in opinion or other small disputes that crop up. Or, maybe it's all about the "afterglow" of the relationship violence. Or they have a dominant/submissive or sadist/masochist relationship.

Clearly #4 can lead to some solid gold role play, either used for characters or for evil npcs/BBEGs.

[Talya]

I consider the Paladins of Tyranny/slaughter one of the more ridiculous concepts WotC ever came up with. A code never to commit a single "good" act is impossible. 99% of what everyone does most of the time is Good. Even evil people.

Evil is like a deadly toxin, good is like fresh water. 2 nanograms of botulinum toxin in a 300ml glass of water is lethal.

Evil corrupts, you can't cover it over that well just by doing more good.

[Squark]

As people have said, unless an entity is literally a personification of evil or a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out villain like the paladin of tyranny, there's nothing stopping them from being in love. Human(oid)s are complex creatures. And even those personifications can be "infected*" by humanity (i.e. Sabine).

Actually, another example from Order of the Stick is a great example of this. Look at Laurin. She's doing what she does for her daughter. What she does (maintaining a highly oppressive system of power for her own gain) is unquestionably evil, but she does it because she (at least in part) sees it as the best way to care for her daughter.


*I know I've heard the term used somewhere outside tvtropes. I think I want to say DEATH of Discworld, but I could be wrong.

[Duke of Urrel]

I consider the Paladins of Tyranny/slaughter one of the more ridiculous concepts WotC ever came up with. A code never to commit a single "good" act is impossible. 99% of what everyone does most of the time is Good. Even evil people.

Evil is like a deadly toxin, good is like fresh water. 2 nanograms of botulinum toxin in a 300ml glass of water is lethal.

Evil corrupts, you can't cover it over that well just by doing more good.

I agree that it's utterly impossible never to commit a single Good act. After all, you have to be good to yourself, or you won't survive to accomplish any Evil.

If paladins of tyranny are to exist, we should understand them not as absolutely prohibited from doing Good, but as required to fulfill a quota of Evil that always far and away outweighs whatever Good one may unavoidably have to arrange in order to make one's Evil schemes succeed. That's not impossible to do, but it should definitely be challenging, just like being any other kind of paladin.

[Phelix-Mu]

I consider the Paladins of Tyranny/slaughter one of the more ridiculous concepts WotC ever came up with. A code never to commit a single "good" act is impossible. 99% of what everyone does most of the time is Good. Even evil people.

Evil is like a deadly toxin, good is like fresh water. 2 nanograms of botulinum toxin in a 300ml glass of water is lethal.

Evil corrupts, you can't cover it over that well just by doing more good.

I generally agree, but think that the core concept, someone with a diehard commitment to being evil in every situation (and lawful or chaotic to boot), is kind of an archetypal idea.

I run a variant of Green Ronin's Holy/Unholy Warriors in my game, though, so I usually advise my irl players who want paladin/un-paladin to look at that stuff first (none of them ever seem to want to do that kind of thing, though). The specific vows of each sect are tied to whatever religious tenets/principles drive that sect, which is as it should be. Having there be some kind of totally flavorless vanilla paladin of randomly-devoted-to-LG is stupid, in my mind, as that kind of devotion almost always comes into being alongside a specific set of fluff-based elements that will vary wildly from campaign to campaign. The domains used in the Green Ronin system are much better emulators of the way that the un/holy warrior archetype should work, in my mind.

Any DM that is enforcing zealous observance of the letter of the RAW of the un/paladin code is really asking for dysfunction/lack of fun, as far as I'm concerned.

[Slipperychicken]

I consider the Paladins of Tyranny/slaughter one of the more ridiculous concepts WotC ever came up with. A code never to commit a single "good" act is impossible. 99% of what everyone does most of the time is Good. Even evil people.


Maybe most Antipaladins find that the code is way too hard, then fall and become Paladins.

[Duke of Urrel]

*I know I've heard the term used somewhere outside tvtropes. I think I want to say DEATH of Discworld, but I could be wrong.

I don't know whether Terry Pratchett ever describes Death as "infected" in the Discworld series, but as a "father" and a "grandfather" to some recently adopted "family," Death has definitely acquired some loyalty and even sympathy that is entirely foreign to his essential nature. Otherwise, it would be absolutely correct to say that Death is a simplistic figure; he even proudly identifies himself as an "anthropomorphic representation."

[Dalebert]

I consider the Paladins of Tyranny/slaughter one of the more ridiculous concepts WotC ever came up with. A code never to commit a single "good" act is impossible. 99% of what everyone does most of the time is Good. Even evil people.

Evil is like a deadly toxin, good is like fresh water. 2 nanograms of botulinum toxin in a 300ml glass of water is lethal.

Evil corrupts, you can't cover it over that well just by doing more good.

Good points. It also just seems silly to me. As was said a moment ago, good is defined by restrictions and requirements that take into account the needs and well-being of others. Evil is the lack thereof. If you want something, you don't care about the consequences to others. You just take the simplest path to achieving your goals. They're not just two opposite but equal sides.

It just doesn't make sense for an evil person to be required to do evil in the same way a paladin would be required to do good. It defies the very nature of evil which is to be self-serving. Now, if the evil paladin were being rewarded by some evil god for serving that god's purposes, whatever they are, that would make some sense, but arbitrary "evil" might not do that.

Whatever you do, don't read much Mark Twain, especially The Mysterious Stranger or you'll be right back to square one trying to figure out these whole good and evil concepts that mankind has invented. :smallbiggrin:

[Slipperychicken]

It just doesn't make sense for an evil person to be required to do evil in the same way a paladin would be required to do good. It defies the very nature of evil which is to be self-serving. Now, if the evil paladin were being rewarded by some evil god for serving that god's purposes, whatever they are, that would make some sense, but arbitrary "evil" might not do that.

Honestly, I would almost want to get a complete list of Good acts, then run a party of Antipaladins, just to see how long they could go before falling.

[Drachasor]

I agree that it's utterly impossible never to commit a single Good act. After all, you have to be good to yourself, or you won't survive to accomplish any Evil.

If paladins of tyranny are to exist, we should understand them not as absolutely prohibited from doing Good, but as required to fulfill a quota of Evil that always far and away outweighs whatever Good one may unavoidably have to arrange in order to make one's Evil schemes succeed. That's not impossible to do, but it should definitely be challenging, just like being any other kind of paladin.

D&D has a more strict definition of good. You can be nice to yourself and to family without ever doing a Good deed. It's how you treat strangers and the like that you have to watch out for.

[Phelix-Mu]

I think we might be mildly conflating the "accidental good" that some evil people often get involved in, and actual good that does require self-sacrifice and yields little or no benefit to the self. The first category happens all of the time.

Example: Victor the Vicious loves apples. They help him regulate his bowel movements, and this pleases him. So he regularly buys apples from the little girl on the corner who sells them, and once or twice he may have even forgotten to give her exact change (though this does bother him...exactitude is another one of his hangups, but apples rank above that in his hierarchy of preferences). That he has single-handedly raised a street urchin selling apples out of poverty and provided her with the means to better herself is of little consequence to Victor. He might not even be aware of it.

The second category is rather more rare, and might be an issue for a devoted un-paladin to worry about.

Example: Victor loves apples, as above. The little girl has opened her own stall, and he continues to patronize her, partially out of habit, and partially out of the gratifying sense that she probably owes everything she has to his patronage (even if this is a somewhat inaccurate belief on his part). One day, he observes some thugs, members of the local gang, extorting the new apple-stall owner. Victor knows that the thugs are a powerful force in the town, but he is miffed that they are threatening his sense of stability, and so he sticks his neck out, beats the **** out of the thugs (killing one and inflicting undue injury on two others), and warns them that they have to go through him before setting foot on this street again.

So, I think we can see that Victor is approaching that line that many paladins find themselves coming into proximity with. He saved a little girl (and potentially others on the street) from suffering at the hands of an evil gang of extortionist thugs. His personal gain was...apples? Apples he could have easily acquired elsewhere. He's probably still evil, but has he violated a code preventing him from "doing intentional good?"

This can easily be extrapolated into a loving relationship example. Just caring about someone else ahead of oneself can open an otherwise dyed-in-the-wool bastard up to the kind of selfless behavior that normally is the province of the virtuous.

Indeed, this is why love is often in the arsenal of the good, because it is such a strong force that it often leads one away from one's own habits and self-interest (but not always, as per my first post). While love may also blind the good, evil has many tools to corrupt. Tools that can whittle away at the stone heart of an evil person, though, are much rarer.

[Maginomicon]

*sigh*

Every time something like this comes up, I feel compelled to bring up Real Alignments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341).

A "Lawful Evil" person in a real alignment system values the aspects of Power and Security and tangentially values the aspects of Achievement and Conformity/Tradition. One of the core values of Security is "ensuring family security". Another is "having a sense of belonging".

A paladin of Tyranny explicitly "acts with discipline" and "helps only those who help him maintain or improve his status".

His wife could easily help him maintain and improve his status and retain a disciplined relationship (and not necessarily in the kinky way). "Good Acts" don't have to come into that at all.

Ignoring Real Alignments, the BoEF section on Lawful Evil may provide additional insight on how love is possible for a Lawful Evil person.

[Talya]

*sigh*

Every time something like this comes up, I feel compelled to bring up Real Alignments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341).


Your "Real Alignments" loses me for labelling Chaotic Evil "Hedonism." I generally consider hedonism closer to a virtue...

(And Sharess in the forgotten realms is the Chaotic Good goddess of Hedonism.)

[Dalebert]

Your "Real Alignments" loses me for labelling Chaotic Evil "Hedonism." I generally consider hedonism closer to a virtue...


Glory, glory, hallelujah!

That said, "good" and "evil" are man-made definitions of notions that don't necessarily make sense, or at least not consistently. Being strongly devoted to a certain code of behavior would often compel people to do something that doesn't necessarily seem like the most rational response.

[Talya]

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

That said, "good" and "evil" are man-made definitions of notions that don't necessarily make sense, or at least not consistently. Being strongly devoted to a certain code of behavior would often compel people to do something that doesn't necessarily seem like the most rational response.

Oh, absolutely. One of the reasons nobody can agree on alignment in D&D, is nobody can agree on definitions of Good and Evil in real life, either. They aren't a real tangible thing - we make them up, and redefine them as we see fit, all the time.

One must be careful, though, not to confuse real life with D&D... in D&D, alignment IS absolute, they're a fundamental and essential part of the building blocks of the multiverse. Of course, that doesn't mean that "Good" is proper and "Evil" is improper, either. Even in D&D, whether Good or Evil is in the right is just a matter of perspective. D&D just labels them definitively, so now, that villain can happily admit to being evil, rather than justify his case. It does not say, however, that Good is superior to Evil. Good does not get some reward for being good that Evil cannot also get for being Evil. They are just two opposing sides.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it but I immediately thought of Harley Quinn and the Joker. Both chaotic evil to the core and madly (:smalltongue:) in love.

[Maginomicon]

Your "Real Alignments" loses me for labelling Chaotic Evil "Hedonism." I generally consider hedonism closer to a virtue...

(And Sharess in the forgotten realms is the Chaotic Good goddess of Hedonism.)
Then you completely missed the point, just like half the people in that first page of replies.

Something I should point out:

This was a rewrite of the alignments system based on an article on Real Alignment theory. The motives involved in each aspect are present in every creature at one time or another, and that's fine.

Those that are "CE" in the traditional alignment system would often not be "CE" with Real Alignments. That isn't even the right terminology here. "CE" is largely-coincidentally associated with the "Path of Luxury" for the sake of convenience. The Path of Luxury is tangentially-related to the very broad concepts of "evil" and "chaos" because unfortunately that path is the closest Real Alignment analogue to those two types of caricatures.

The Path of Luxury could be for anyone that most values hedonism overall as their ultimate priority "at the end of the day" (so to speak). Anyone from the street thug to guard captain to the king's advisor could conceivably be following the Path of Luxury. This is because the Path of Luxury represents that you value the hedonism aspect most (not necessarily to exclusion of other aspects, just that you value it "most") compared to the other aspects.

A Paladin of Honor (and thus a follower of the Path of Integrity or an adjacent half-step alignment) can enjoy pleasures of the body fine with a clear conscience, but when lives are on the line he'd be bending his alignment unless he acts as would be expected of the Path of Integrity (and associated aspects) because that's what he values most. His Paladin of Honor code of conduct then further provides more specific behavior demands.

In the same way, a Ranger can follow the Path of Luxury but still welcome a sense of belonging (as seen in the Security aspect), have mature love for others and true friendships (as seen in the Benevolence aspect), and enjoy having wealth (as seen in the Power aspect). When the chips are down however, he'd value Hedonism more than any of those if he can't see a gain of pleasure on the horizon as a result of non-hedonistic motives right now. To put it another way, in the comic if The Snarl unmakes everything, Belkar won't be able to have any more pleasures of the body, and he won't stand for that (not to say that Belkar specifically wants any of the things mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph).

Just because someone's following the Path of Luxury does not mean they're a caricature of chaos and evil. That's just coincidental baggage from the traditional alignments system. Real Alignments just determine what you value most when the chips are down. Your classes and prestige classes however have specific fluff that demands a more specific kind of behavior and have a prerequisite range of general mindsets. The Real Alignments system just provides descriptions of what those general mindsets entail.

[Phelix-Mu]

And, while this may stray a little further off-topic, I am also endlessly fascinated by how poorly the neutral aspect to D&D alignment actually translates into real life. Which is a little disappointing, with me being all druidy irl and all. Most of my druids in-game correspond to TN or NG, focusing on maintaining the existing balance that continues to make life (and nature) possible on the Prime. This works out on a pragmatic basis, but looking at it from a moralistic perspective, feels strongly arbitrary.

Good= Rules. Evil = My rules. Neutral = Go with the flow?

Seems kind of unsatisfying.

[Eldonauran]

99% of what everyone does most of the time is Good. Even evil people.

I would have to disagree with that. Using D&D terminology, Good implies altruism and self-sacrifice for the good of other. Most of what I see people doing (both in game and outside of it) is persuing their own agendas and taking care of themselves before others. I'd argue that most people are neutral on the Good/Evil scale and 99% of the time, people are pursuing/commiting Neutral acts. It takes intent (will) to seperate an act from Neutral and make it Good/Evil.

[Crake]

I only perused the first few posts of the first page because I'm lazy, but I ran a campaign where a succubus fell in love with a mortal (player), transformed him into an incubus and they ran around the material plane committing acts of horrific evil in the name of love for each other, soooo yeah, love can totally be evil (for the record, they were genuinely in love with each other, and had no intentions on either side to take advantage of the other. They even eventually rose to the status of demon lords together in my setting). I'd stick with the sentiment of love itself being neutral, because it can cause people to commit acts of pure good, but likewise terrible evil.

[Drachasor]

I think we might be mildly conflating the "accidental good" that some evil people often get involved in, and actual good that does require self-sacrifice and yields little or no benefit to the self. The first category happens all of the time.

Example: Victor the Vicious loves apples. They help him regulate his bowel movements, and this pleases him. So he regularly buys apples from the little girl on the corner who sells them, and once or twice he may have even forgotten to give her exact change (though this does bother him...exactitude is another one of his hangups, but apples rank above that in his hierarchy of preferences). That he has single-handedly raised a street urchin selling apples out of poverty and provided her with the means to better herself is of little consequence to Victor. He might not even be aware of it.

The second category is rather more rare, and might be an issue for a devoted un-paladin to worry about.

Example: Victor loves apples, as above. The little girl has opened her own stall, and he continues to patronize her, partially out of habit, and partially out of the gratifying sense that she probably owes everything she has to his patronage (even if this is a somewhat inaccurate belief on his part). One day, he observes some thugs, members of the local gang, extorting the new apple-stall owner. Victor knows that the thugs are a powerful force in the town, but he is miffed that they are threatening his sense of stability, and so he sticks his neck out, beats the **** out of the thugs (killing one and inflicting undue injury on two others), and warns them that they have to go through him before setting foot on this street again.

So, I think we can see that Victor is approaching that line that many paladins find themselves coming into proximity with. He saved a little girl (and potentially others on the street) from suffering at the hands of an evil gang of extortionist thugs. His personal gain was...apples? Apples he could have easily acquired elsewhere. He's probably still evil, but has he violated a code preventing him from "doing intentional good?"

This can easily be extrapolated into a loving relationship example. Just caring about someone else ahead of oneself can open an otherwise dyed-in-the-wool bastard up to the kind of selfless behavior that normally is the province of the virtuous.

Indeed, this is why love is often in the arsenal of the good, because it is such a strong force that it often leads one away from one's own habits and self-interest (but not always, as per my first post). While love may also blind the good, evil has many tools to corrupt. Tools that can whittle away at the stone heart of an evil person, though, are much rarer.

Decidedly neutral behavior. If it was a girl he never met...then it would be good. Neutral behavior is defined by PERSONAL relationships. He is perfectly within bounds to aid the little girl. He can even buy her presents just to make her smile. He can even track halfway around the world to rescue her from a dragon with an army of minions.

We all need to remember there's a massive difference between not being able to commit a Good act and only being able to commit Evil acts.

[Phelix-Mu]

Once had an ancestor succubus of this one female CN warlock come into the storyline, originally trapped inside a statue wielding a really nice sword. In order to get the sword, they had to release a powerful famine spirit (a spurned lover of the succubus that had reanimated after starving while stuck in a chamber with the statue). Hehe.

Anyway, the succubus went on to be a really great character, as she was a bit of a rebel (CN succubus) herself, and linked to another bit of the storyline. The party interacted with her a fair bit, and became one of the more memorable npcs in the campaign. She herself eventually fell in love with a rebel grey slaad mutant.

[Phelix-Mu]

Decidedly neutral behavior. If it was a girl he never met...then it would be good. Neutral behavior is defined by PERSONAL relationships. He is perfectly within bounds to aid the little girl. He can even buy her presents just to make her smile. He can even track halfway around the world to rescue her from a dragon with an army of minions.

We all need to remember there's a massive difference between not being able to commit a Good act and only being able to commit Evil acts.

That's a pretty permissive take on "relationship." What if he'd only bought apples from her once, but they were really good apples? Is it good now? His benefit from the second scenario (stable apple supply and ego-tripping) is pretty near negligible, and he could wind up in real trouble if he has an entire gang to contend with. Large personal risk for negligible gain is clearly not evil, especially if he's alleviating the suffering of strangers in the process (the other vendors on the same street). If Victor keeps his promise to protect the whole street from the gang (which he should, since he's Lawful), then he sets himself for accepting personal risk in a matter in which he holds no stake. Usually seen as folk hero-type behavior.

I see your argument for "neutral," I'm just not sure how far one can extend that kind of view before inconsistent stuff starts cropping up.

[Raven777]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it but I immediately thought of Harley Quinn and the Joker. Both chaotic evil to the core and madly (:smalltongue:) in love.

Woah woah woah woah woah... woah. The Joker does not love Harley. He doesn't care at all about Harley. That's the whole point of their dynamic.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it but I immediately thought of Harley Quinn and the Joker. Both chaotic evil to the core and madly (:smalltongue:) in love.


Woah woah woah woah woah... woah. The Joker does not love Harley. He doesn't care at all about Harley. That's the whole point of their dynamic.

*gets out the popcorn*

[Drachasor]

That's a pretty permissive take on "relationship." What if he'd only bought apples from her once, but they were really good apples? Is it good now? His benefit from the second scenario (stable apple supply and ego-tripping) is pretty near negligible, and he could wind up in real trouble if he has an entire gang to contend with. Large personal risk for negligible gain is clearly not evil, especially if he's alleviating the suffering of strangers in the process (the other vendors on the same street). If Victor keeps his promise to protect the whole street from the gang (which he should, since he's Lawful), then he sets himself for accepting personal risk in a matter in which he holds no stake. Usually seen as folk hero-type behavior.

I see your argument for "neutral," I'm just not sure how far one can extend that kind of view before inconsistent stuff starts cropping up.

Of course it isn't evil behavior. It doesn't need to be.

Neutral behavior is pretty clear in D&D. Sure there are gray areas between neutral and good. There are also gray areas between neutral and law, neutral and chaos, and neutral and evil. That doesn't mean they aren't distinct concepts....just that there are situations that can be tough to call.

Evil people do not have to be solely motivated by their own gain. It's just that their own gain is one of the most common motivations for evil. You could also enjoy killing, in which case saving Miss Apple presents and excellent opportunity for a killing spree. You could also be very controlling and view things as *yours* in which case the kidnapping of Miss Apple is a crime against you. There are many possible motivations for an evil character here. Granted, some evil characters might not care at all (they certainly aren't obligated to).

While aspects might resemble what a good character would do, there are also a lot of difference. Methods, how well they need to know the person, among other things will demonstrate alignment more likely than not.

And a storekeeper you see every day is somehow you have a relationship with. Sure, it isn't deep and super special, but it is a personal relationship with another being. Perhaps a decent rule of thumb might be that you have some level of relationship if, upon seeing them crying, you might ask "what's wrong?" rather than give them space and privacy. Though there are certainly other guidelines one could use to ballpark it (since such things depend on a personality).

[Eldonauran]

Woah woah woah woah woah... woah. The Joker does not love Harley. He doesn't care at all about Harley. That's the whole point of their dynamic.

... Yeah, I have to agree with you on this one. Joker only sees worth in Harley for the amusement she gives him and to serve as an adequate scapegoat whenever needed. It doesn't stop him from saving her when the timing of the event is beneficial to him. He is stringing her along.

[Phelix-Mu]

... Yeah, I have to agree with you on this one. Joker only sees worth in Harley for the amusement she gives him and to serve as an adequate scapegoat whenever needed. It doesn't stop him from saving her when the timing of the event is beneficial to him. He is stringing her along.

I think this is the insidious thing about love, though. Sure, for now the Joker is purely using her when she's useful or amusing. But there comes a time when this level of attachment to a person becomes something more than can necessarily be hand-waved away. I'm not saying that point will come for the Joker, the point at which he can no longer just cast her away and not feel anything, but there often are no warning flags accompanying said point. It's not inescapable, to be sure, but, at least in lots of fiction, it surprises many unlikely victims who had thought themselves truly heartless.

Love gets inside your head and alters your view of yourself and others without you even realizing it. Yes, kids, love is the poor man's mindrape.

[Eldonauran]

I think this is the insidious thing about love, though. Sure, for now the Joker is purely using her when she's useful or amusing. But there comes a time when this level of attachment to a person becomes something more than can necessarily be hand-waved away. I'm not saying that point will come for the Joker, the point at which he can no longer just cast her away and not feel anything, but there often are no warning flags accompanying said point. It's not inescapable, to be sure, but, at least in lots of fiction, it surprises many unlikely victims who had thought themselves truly heartless.

Normally, I'd agree with you. But this is the Joker we are talking about. Whatever feelings he might have for Harley are strictly limited to "What a hoot!", "What an adequate tool when good help is so hard to find" and maybe "She had a great laugh. Oh well!"

[Togo]

All you need is a relationship where you're getting more out of it than you're putting in. So have a relationship where you may not like the other person, or particularly respect the other person, but they're extremely beneficial to have around. Great sex, an intelligent person to bounce ideas off, someone who goads you to do more evil than you otherwise would, companionship, inspiration, a second head to do the evil planning, and to enjoy and savour the rewards, the suffering of others. Someone to watch and see just how great you are. All these things are well worth the effort of keeping them around and not trying to have them killed. You don't have to have fine feelings for them, you don't have to get on well with, you don't even have to agree with them, but you'd really really really miss them if they were gone because they complete something in you, and make you a far greater and more evil person than you could ever manage on your own.

Evil love - mutual emotional co-dependence for mutual gain and the better mistreatment of others. And if you treat them badly, well that's just one more reason for them to admire your ruthlessness and pure selfishnes, and vice versa.

[Raven777]

I think Togo nailed it.

[Eldest]

I'm agreeing that love is neutral, or rather non-aligned. It's what you do for that love that matters.


Let's just say......... it's kinky. :smallwink::smallamused::smallbiggrin:

Taking this seriously for a minute, kinky-/->evil and evil-/->kinky.

[Drachasor]

Eh, sacrificing your life for a loved one is still neutral, not good. Sacrificing your life for strangers is definitely a good act.

I think a Paladin of Tyranny could die for a loved one without falling or coming close to falling. And he could do so knowing he would die in the act of protection. Protected someone you have a personal relationship is fairly solidly indicated to be neutral by the rules. Granted, from a Lawful Evil Paladin standpoint, this is an ignoble way to die.

Well, I suppose it might be treading a thin line on the "help only those who help him maintain or improve his status". But probably not a gross violation so long as the loved one did serve in this regard.

[Zweisteine]

An evil character an fall in love just like anyone else. Caring, while a good trait, is not necessarily evil. Perhaps they follow love for selfish reasons, but evil does not necessarily mean extremely cruel, or completely heartless.

A Paladin of Tyranny, however, has a code he must follow. As an exemplar of evil, he would likely not be allowed to fall in love. He could take a wife, but only for his own pleasure. He would not be able to truly love, lest he take even the slightest step towards good.

[Drachasor]

An evil character an fall in love just like anyone else. Caring, while a good trait, is not necessarily evil. Perhaps they follow love for selfish reasons, but evil does not necessarily mean extremely cruel, or completely heartless.

A Paladin of Tyranny, however, has a code he must follow. As an exemplar of evil, he would likely not be allowed to fall in love. He could take a wife, but only for his own pleasure. He would not be able to truly love, lest he take even the slightest step towards good.

Falling in love is something we (often) call "good" in the real world. But it doesn't fit the D&D definition of Good; it's neutral. Falling in love is a very distinct thing from caring about people in general.

[Slipperychicken]

Taking this seriously for a minute, kinky-/->evil and evil-/->kinky.

Yeah, even the BoVD doesn't list kinkiness as evil.

[Tvtyrant]

Yeah, even the BoVD doesn't list kinkiness as evil.

Except the nipple clamp of DOOOOOOM!!!!

This is an odd thread where others agree with me...