Alignment - Evil character with good intentions.

[mistformsquirrl]

As some folks here may know - one thing I've never been especially keen on is the Evil alignments. I don't allow them in my games, and I don't play them myself.. however this irks some folks and to broaden my horizons*, I've been kind of thinking about precisely why this is the case.

I think I've figured it out:

I'm a nice person by default. My goals are usually in line with what D&D would consider a "Good" alignment. I like helping people, I like being the hero, I like saving the day. I really don't 'get' the typical evil character mindset of "Me first"; and I doubly don't get the "Kill everything" mentality of some evil characters.

However something else that occurred to me is an old truism:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

And it dawned on me at that moment that all the villains I'd ever actually sympathized with are the ones who are really, really trying to do the right thing. They just, for one reason or another, resorted to some really questionable means to do it.

This leads me to the point of all of this: In D&D terms, where's the line between a Neutral character who balances evil means and good deeds, and an evil character who's means are to horrible for his/her good deeds to counteract?

For instance, one of the rare Neutral characters I ever ran was a Pathfinder Oracle focused on raising the undead and channeling negative energy, she even had Leadership and a skeleton for a cohort... but she was genuinely nice and only really used her undead summoning powers for good. I felt the two sides of things balanced out well.

How do I take a similar concept and tilt it toward the deep end of the alignment pool, without making a character who's impossible for a party to reasonably travel with? Any ideas? Evil is well... not my forte.


*I have aspirations to being a writer. Whether I like them or not, I need to understand and be able to create interesting villains and evil characters. Right now, I have a really hard time doing that. < . .> So it's more complicated than just "Don't do it if you don't like it."

[Zanos]

You should keep in mine that "me first" isn't an Evil mindset, it's Neutral. A Neutral character puts their own concerns first, an Evil character intentionally oppresses or hurts others to accomplish their goals. I personally don't get a lot of enjoyment from the typical "good" campaign of saving the day, as I find characters with motivations beyond "it was the right thing to do" more interesting. Not to say good characters are boring, but they need to have more involved goals of their own.

The tilting point between Neutral/Evil for me is when a character is willing to sacrifice innocent or otherwise uninvolved people to further their goals, regardless of what the goal itself actually is. An acceptable Evil character might be someone the party turns to in order to take care of unsavory but necessary acts. You could be willing to torture prisoners for information, execute the unarmed, and strike first and ask questions later. Evil characters can be very interesting to roleplay or write because you can explore the motivations behind what has made someone so depraved, and why they'll go to the lengths that they do.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's a tough one. I don't have any trouble grasping motivations and methods from either end of the moral alignment axis so explaining is not so simple when I don't understand where your grasp is breaking down but here goes.

Instead of "me first" reframe it as "my idea first." When a villain is acting for what he -perceives- as the greater good and is willing to do -whatever- it takes, without limits, to achieve it then you can get some of the darkest of villains. Bonus points if you can have him frame it in a way that almost makes sense to those who're willing to hear him out.

A classic example is the conqueror. A prince grows up observing his father's kingdom but his father is too distant to teach him the ways of ruling correctly. Consequently the prince forms his own ideas about how things should be run and, upon his ascension (perhaps as a usurper if he strongly disagrees with his father's methods), he incorporates those ideas and gets good results, at least initially. Seeing what he has wrought, he concludes that the people of neighboring lands would be better off if they were under his rule and, so, launches a campaign of conquest at those neighboring lands.

The important point here is that the prince genuinely believes, with all his heart, that what he's doing is for the good of all. If you go with the usurper suggestion it would be something that haunts him as something that was necessary but terrible. He may even have been right in usurping his father's throne if his father was incompetent or uncaring. As long as he can justify, to himself, that whatever action he takes, be it torturing innocents, establishing a secret police, enslaving conquered populace, wholesale slaughtering noble families to cement his power over conquered kingdoms or even his own, etc, as serving his noble, higher goal he can be a very believable, even slightly sympathetic villain that, nevertheless, pings on detect evil with certainty.

While the conqueror is an obvious example the major point here is that the villain puts his idea, whatever it is, ahead of everything else and that leads him to do despicable, even disturbing things. Whether his sanity survives doing those "necessary evils" is entirely up to you.

[iceman10058]

well i have a npc blackguard thats LE that rules over a vast kingdom, he uses torture, assassins, and demons to win his wars of conquest, but in his kingdom, he is loved by his people. since he employs all the members of thieves and assassins guilds for spy work and recon, crime is low, he encorages merchants to come and trade and keeps taxes resonable and the roads well patroled so money is flowing well through the streets, bring a new era of prosperity into the kingdom. its very possible to do good things and still be a horrible person

[OldTrees1]

Realistic evil believes (incorrectly) that it is doing "the right thing" given their situation.

How incorrect does it have to be to be evil rather than neutral or neutral rather than good? This is tough and there will never be a final answer.

Two things I would look at:
1) The difference in magnitude between the good deed and the evil deed.
2) The ratio of total good vs total evil committed.

Good will reliably do good deeds that are at least an order of magnitude more severe than any evil deed they do. (Evil is vice versa)
Neutral tends to do deeds of roughly equal weight.

To use iceman's Blackguard as an example. The blackguard routinely tortures, assassinates and calls demons (some of these things by proxy). These actions are individually much more severe than the individual benevolent actions the Blackguard takes (minimize crime, encourage trade, keep taxes low). Here the Blackguard is clearly evil.

Good will be a force that causes more good than evil by a large margin. (Evil is vice versa)
Neutral will probably cause more of one than the other but not by a large margin.

Again with iceman's Blackguard as an example. The blackguard promotes prosperity in the kingdoms he rules. However he also is conquering other nations. Here the Blackguard's alignment is more uncertain. It is at the neutral - evil border depending on the scale of the devastation of the other nations.

[Nirhael]

This discussion is rapidly making me doubt my understanding of Alignments... :smallconfused:

Let's say I have a NPC that works for BBEG to "destroy the world and recreate it", but firmly believes that it's for the good of all, spends his free time helping people, donates almost everything he finds from treasures, etc.

Would he still classify as "Good" or does the fact that he works for the BBEG to destroy and recreate the world class him as "Evil"?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Realistic evil doesn't -have- to believe they're doing the right thing. They can also just not care what the right thing is. Sociopathic pragmatism is a thing.

The "right thing" is not the only driving motivation for a character. Thirst for knowledge, hedonism, greed for material wealth, envy, wrath, pride; all motivations that may well lead a character to do horrific things if they're not burdened with excessive conscience. Most people aren't willing to go beyond a certain line when acting on these motivations. Even good characters are sometimes driven by these things. Where they fall on the moral axis is a matter of where that line is and just how much of a driving force for their personality that motivation is.

[OldTrees1]

This discussion is rapidly making me doubt my understanding of Alignments... :smallconfused:

Let's say I have a NPC that works for BBEG to "destroy the world and recreate it", but firmly believes that it's for the good of all, spends his free time helping people, donates almost everything he finds from treasures, etc.

Would he still classify as "Good" or does the fact that he works for the BBEG to destroy and recreate the world class him as "Evil"?

Starts of good natured.
Deluded into thinking destroying the world is for the good of all.
By standard 1 (compare scale of individual deeds): "Annihilate" is much more severe than "Improve standard of living". So the NPC is evil.
By standard 2 (compare the total of each side): "Annihilate" * World Population is more severe than "Improve standard of living" * World Population.
Verdict: Good natured, deluded evil. Would probably seek atonement if the delusion is revealed.

[AmberVael]

Realistic evil doesn't -have- to believe they're doing the right thing. They can also just not care what the right thing is. Sociopathic pragmatism is a thing.

The Iron Sociopath approves of this message. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2666)

Enlightened Self-Interest is one of my favorite ways to play evil characters, especially ones that are meant to be highly cooperative with parties and other characters. It gives them a reason to act in a helpful manner. Plus there is a special horror in the villain that smiles and acts kindly, donates to charities, and then quietly sacrifices criminals in order to power his magic. I mean, they were going to be executed anyway- everyone ends up happy, right?

[Kelb_Panthera]

This discussion is rapidly making me doubt my understanding of Alignments... :smallconfused:

Let's say I have a NPC that works for BBEG to "destroy the world and recreate it", but firmly believes that it's for the good of all, spends his free time helping people, donates almost everything he finds from treasures, etc.

Would he still classify as "Good" or does the fact that he works for the BBEG to destroy and recreate the world class him as "Evil"?

Alignment is definitely a complex beast.

Such a character may be Good. It's a question of what you mean by "destroy, then recreate the world" and the character's understanding of that meaning.

Do you mean to literally destroy the world itself and recreate it all on the same level as the deities at the dawn of time? Do you mean simply tearing down the status quo and rebuilding the world under a leadership of your design?

It ultimately comes down to whether the BBEG intends to kill off the entire world's population and whether the NPC in question is aware of this if he does. If the answer to both is yes, then he's probably not good. However his behavior is very suggestive of a guilty conscience and turning him from this folly shouldn't be -too- difficult.

[hamishspence]

In D&D terms, where's the line between a Neutral character who balances evil means and good deeds, and an evil character who's means are to horrible for his/her good deeds to counteract?

For instance, one of the rare Neutral characters I ever ran was a Pathfinder Oracle focused on raising the undead and channeling negative energy, she even had Leadership and a skeleton for a cohort... but she was genuinely nice and only really used her undead summoning powers for good. I felt the two sides of things balanced out well.

How do I take a similar concept and tilt it toward the deep end of the alignment pool, without making a character who's impossible for a party to reasonably travel with? Any ideas? Evil is well... not my forte.

While it will depend on the DM and the player, doing Really Horrible Things to the party's enemies is one of those things the rest of the party may object less to, than doing Really Horrible Things to strangers of the "presumably innocent" type.

"Soul-damaging" and "soul destroying" are, per BoVD, about as Evil as it gets. There's a feat that allows a fighter-type to rip a big chunk out of their opponent's soul as they kill them (Champions of Ruin)- could be a good starting point.

[OldTrees1]

Realistic evil doesn't -have- to believe they're doing the right thing. They can also just not care what the right thing is. Sociopathic pragmatism is a thing.

The "right thing" is not the only driving motivation for a character. Thirst for knowledge, hedonism, greed for material wealth, envy, wrath, pride; all motivations that may well lead a character to do horrific things if they're not burdened with excessive conscience. Most people aren't willing to go beyond a certain line when acting on these motivations. Even good characters are sometimes driven by these things. Where they fall on the moral axis is a matter of where that line is and just how much of a driving force for their personality that motivation is.

If the details of objective morality are unknown, then people's belief about "the right thing to do" (not "what those people say is the right thing to do") is often defined by the answer to the question "What should I do?". (aka the normal decision of what to do)

Note: I am talking about belief not the mental trick belief in belief (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/) where someone believes they believe other than what they believe.

[Deophaun]

This discussion is rapidly making me doubt my understanding of Alignments... :smallconfused:

Let's say I have a NPC that works for BBEG to "destroy the world and recreate it", but firmly believes that it's for the good of all, spends his free time helping people, donates almost everything he finds from treasures, etc.

Would he still classify as "Good" or does the fact that he works for the BBEG to destroy and recreate the world class him as "Evil"?
Assuming he knows the broad strokes of the BBEG's plan, what it entails, and is a willing participant? Evil. Even if he goes around giving puppies and kittens to orphans he's rescued from burning buildings.

[mistformsquirrl]

"Soul-damaging" and "soul destroying" are, per BoVD, about as Evil as it gets. There's a feat that allows a fighter-type to rip a big chunk out of their opponent's soul as they kill them (Champions of Ruin)- could be a good starting point.

Ooh, I like that. There's a few different ways I could spin damaging/destroying souls too, depending on if there's a way I can use them to boost my own power or not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If the details of objective morality are unknown, then people's belief about "the right thing to do" (not "what those people say is the right thing to do") is often defined by the answer to the question "What should I do?". (aka the normal decision of what to do)

Note: I am talking about belief not the mental trick belief in belief (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/) where someone believes they believe other than what they believe.

I'm not quite sure I grasp your meaning and I'm pretty sure you missed mine.

My point was that what the -morally- right thing to do is not always the motivation behind any given act and that, for some, it may not be a factor in -any- of their decision making.

When confronted with what would normally be a morally questionable situation the character doesn't ask himself, "what's the right thing to do?" but instead, "how can I benefit from or get out of this with minimal problems?" It's not a question of the character thinking that the latter motivation, self interest, is the morally correct way to act but, rather, that he doesn't consider morality at all.

Some philosophers make the mistaken presumption that all people actually give consideration to ethics and morality at some point. Such contemplation is beyond the grasp of some and beyond the interest of others. Presuming that such characters are motivated by morality or ethics by default is folly.

[OldTrees1]

@Kelb_Panthera

Oh. I think I get what you are saying now.

You are saying: There exist people that never formed moral opinions.

I had overlooked that possibility.

[Red Fel]

You're describing, I think, the Well-Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist). That's a very popular and sympathetic villain model, although there may be times in D&D where a character like that is more Neutral than Evil. To be truly Evil, a Well-Intentioned Extremist would have to do something so utterly, completely inexcusable (genocide, deicide, ritual sacrifice of innocent children) that no amount of good intentions can balance it. It's one of those Potter Stewart gray lines - "I know it when I see it."

Instead, consider the Evil Has Standards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards) villain, in many ways the opposite of the Well-Intentioned Extremist. While the WIE will do whatever it takes to achieve a noble goal, the EHS villain won't cross certain lines, despite having an evil goal. He has principles, virtues. If he weren't evil, you could almost respect him.

Working with the WIE is extremely dangerous. The WIE is so obsessively focused, so willing to compromise his principles in pursuit of his goal, that he would turn on the party in a second if it meant getting closer to what he wanted. By contrast, the EHS villain has clearly outlined rules and principles to which he will adhere. He's a bad guy the heroes can trust. His word is his bond. If he says he will do something, he will; if he says he will abstain, he will. He's someone you know is a threat, but you know you can trust him to be the devil you know, not the devil you don't.

Don't bother with good intentions; as appealing as that can be, it gets cliched to slide down that slippery slope over and over again. It gets a little emo, to be honest. "Saving the world/ protecting the children/ sanctifying my deity's name is all that matters. I will give up everything - EVERYTHING! - for my cause." Say that over and over and it loses its meaning. A character like that makes for a compelling and tragic villain, but if you want them to adventure with the party, it's going to get increasingly tedious - and worrisome for the party, who (if they have any sense) will become paranoid about this guy's dwindling grip on morality.

My advice for adding an Evil character, in short, is to bring in a Lawful Evil character. He makes no qualms about what he is, what he does and why he does it. But he has rules, and the party can trust him to adhere to them, even if they don't like him.

The question, then, is writing such a character's motivations. That's harder. My advice is to have him motivated by one of two things: Strength or Ambition.

The Strength bad guy respects power. Arcane power, martial prowess, the might of the ruler; if you have power, and can protect it, you deserve respect. If you don't have power, or if you can't protect your power, you deserve to be made a victim. It's as simple as that, in his mind - the weak exist to serve and fall prey to the strong. If your party is powerful, he will respect them. He may even respect them enough to issue one of those "I alone will be the one to kill you" promises - which makes him the best bodyguard money can buy.

The Ambition bad guy wants power. He sees, and he covets. He sees the party as a means to achieve that power. He makes no secret of it, because he is already powerful in his own right; he simply wants more. He protects the party, because they are his key to gaining more power. The party tolerates him because (1) he will continue to work with them, not against them, in pursuit of his aim, and (2) it's better to keep him where they can see him (a.k.a. the Belkar Rule).

[Fouredged Sword]

In a pathfinder version of Red Hand of Doom, I have a CG vitalist (lifeleech sadist) who is planed for a dive into the deep end as soon as he hits the point he can no save mind control people. He is going to realize he can get to his goals faster if he MAKES people listen.

He wants to end mortality and grant everyone the same elan lifespan he has, but without memory loss.

He will wage war on the gods to make it so.

[hamishspence]

You're describing, I think, the Well-Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist). That's a very popular and sympathetic villain model, although there may be times in D&D where a character like that is more Neutral than Evil. To be truly Evil, a Well-Intentioned Extremist would have to do something so utterly, completely inexcusable (genocide, deicide, ritual sacrifice of innocent children) that no amount of good intentions can balance it. It's one of those Potter Stewart gray lines - "I know it when I see it."

Instead, consider the Evil Has Standards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards) villain, in many ways the opposite of the Well-Intentioned Extremist. While the WIE will do whatever it takes to achieve a noble goal, the EHS villain won't cross certain lines, despite having an evil goal. He has principles, virtues. If he weren't evil, you could almost respect him.

Given that the character's a member of a party rather than on their own - they will be probably be the Token Evil Teammate (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TokenEvilTeammate).

[mistformsquirrl]

Hrm, so it seems there's a good variety of ways to pull this off. That's good. This is a big help everyone. I've kind of got a few ideas for characters in my head at this point now; but the one that's particularly of interest is a revamp of my old "Death Knight" style Pathfinder Oracle.

To go along with that, I kind of like the idea of manipulating/damaging/destroying souls as part of the character's "Going too far" thing. While everyone else merely kills their opponents, she takes their soul and uses it to become stronger to further her objectives.

Only one thing... I've seen a couple methods of taking souls... but; anyone know how to use them to actually get power? I'm fine with 3/3.5e material if necessary, I'm just trying to figure out how to make this happen < . .>

[OldTrees1]

Only one thing... I've seen a couple methods of taking souls... but; anyone know how to use them to actually get power? I'm fine with 3/3.5e material if necessary, I'm just trying to figure out how to make this happen < . .>

[AFB] Book of Vile Darkness has a few answers.

[Zanos]

Souls can be traded to devils, demons and other creatures that traffic in such things. I don't believe there's a published exchange rate for them, though. In addition, souls can be used in item creation, which provide 10xp per soul for the item, and makes it super evil. Souls can be used as spell components, for which two exist. The Larval Soul can only be obtained from the lower planes, costs 250gp, and boosts the DC by +2. One in a container, such as from soul bind, are 200gp, and give you a +10 bonus to overcome SR.

I'd be impressed if you could gather enough souls to actually craft an item from them, but using them as spell components might be worthwhile, if expensive.

[Naanomi]

One thing to check is if they know they are doing the wrong thing but do it anyways. Can you have an innocent or deluded evil guy who has no clue his actions are evil? Of course! But people unaware of the weight of their actions flow towards neutrality to me compared to the reverse.

On the other foot, a evil character can have lots of good justifications for his actions to create a evil character capable of being sympathetic and undersanding towards even if they KNOW they are crossing the line. They may trivialize tier behavior (just for fun, or no real harm in the big picture); they can cite how moral/good actions have failed to produce results; claim their goal is important enough to justify anything; show how their evil pales in comparison to those they oppose... The list is endless

[Rubik]

Look at Headmaster Albus Dumbledore, from the Harry Potter series. Willing to risk and even sacrifice anything and anyone for "the greater good," even when there are less damaging ways to go about dealing with problems, because he thoroughly believes that he knows better than everyone about everything. It doesn't matter whether he's consigning a baby to an abusive family ('cuz there's no way he couldn't have known about the abuse, what with his spies stationed around Little Whinging for a decade) or sending an innocent young man to his death against what amounted to a superpowered supervillain because of a complete lack of training and information. He saw himself and his goals as being above such petty concerns, and so allowed his own sense of overweening pride to take full control, to the point where he very nearly allowed Voldemort and his cronies to destroy all of Wizarding Britain (and possibly, if the prophecy meant he could only ever be stopped by Harry, the entire world).

"Pride goeth before the fall," and all that.

[Valwyn]

An Evil character is different from a Neutral character in that Evil ones are willing to do horrible things even when there are other options. Neutral characters usually vary a lot, especially True Neutral ones, but they tend to prefer the least destructive option (bribe/sneak past the guards instead of killing them; kill someone who wronged them instead of torturing/slowly killing them; etc).

Lawful Evil characters can be trusted to a certain point, as long as they give you their word. Chaotic Evil characters can't really be trusted, but they can be controled if they feel they can't take the rest of the party in a fight ("Curse you, democracy!").

You may want to read on Antivillains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiVillain), which are villains with heroic goals. A cleric might turn his back on his god and serve a demon if it promises him to lift a curse from his family.

An Evil character might have Evil Virtues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilVirtues), but remember that just because he has one or two nice traits it doesn't mean he won't kick a box of kitties. Even those who are Affably Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil) can be complete monsters, even if they if they are genuinely polite. You may also want to read on the Noble Demon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NobleDemon), who is Evil, but is not a complete monster.

[~Nye~]

Hey dude,
I had this same dilemma once, the way I went about it was this.
I one campaign I really wanted to play an evil character, because the characters I gen, like you, are good/chaotic, kinda selfless, but will do the right thing even if it means you have to break the law a little. Anyway I'm drifting from my point.

What I did, is, I spoke to my DM, and asked if I could play an evil spy, working for the antagonist, but I was in the party being a wolf in sheeps clothing. I joined the party late (as my last character got axed), so there was a little of animosity between my character and the group, when it came to trust. However after a while, the players started to warm up to her. (just for the record, I was playing a bard.)

The players had no idea for a while that I was the one tipping the BBEG off about our plans etc. But my character had a change of heart when the villain didnt uphold his end of the bargain (in this case, the wellfare of a younger sibling.) So my character slowly brought the BBEG into an ambush, ultimately causing my character to die, but the journey was enjoyable all the same, and the big reveal where the party realized I had been backstabbing them for the last 10 sessions was worth it.

Also, I find an element of internal conflict within a party is nice to play, especially competition if the PCs are doting on a special NPC or reward, they can start tripping each other up. The roleplay elements are fun and very rewarding sometimes, but sometimes you get ganked by the other party members, depending on the level which they roleplay.

The current character I play is chaotic evil, he is a pathfinder goblin, and was part of a freak show, I joined the party because we're all in the same boat, running from a bounty hunter because we slew an NPC in cold blood, because she was planning on sacrificing us, however her fiancé only saw us merc her.
Even though he is chaotic evil, he is more of a mischievous child, stealing and playing tricks on the party. So many times he has been threatened, but his comic relief he provides as well as the cute element I have managed to pull off means the party is far too attached to me now. You can be evil, without being counter-productive for a party, though my character steals, he doesnt take useful stuff, he steals busts of bears from taverns and wears the taxidermy head for comedic effect, it turns heads and the reactions I get from the NPCs and PCs are priceless.

I hope this is some help!

[CombatOwl]

As some folks here may know - one thing I've never been especially keen on is the Evil alignments. I don't allow them in my games, and I don't play them myself.. however this irks some folks and to broaden my horizons*, I've been kind of thinking about precisely why this is the case.

I think I've figured it out:

I'm a nice person by default. My goals are usually in line with what D&D would consider a "Good" alignment. I like helping people, I like being the hero, I like saving the day. I really don't 'get' the typical evil character mindset of "Me first"; and I doubly don't get the "Kill everything" mentality of some evil characters.

Not all evil characters have that mindset. Neither is it the case that all good characters have remorse over the people they kill. Hell, I got bitched at by the DM running the only D&D game I'm playing in because my azata thought that maybe we ought to give the evil dragon we just killed some kind of burial--arguing that despite the fact that it was evil, it was still an intelligent creature deserving at least the dignity not to be left to rot in the forest. That was apparently insufficiently zealous because the DM insisted that my character ought to unquestioningly hate such creatures and therefore should feel no remorse whatsoever for the action. Personally I feel that good aligned characters ought not be so callous, but apparently the DM disagreed. :smallconfused:


However something else that occurred to me is an old truism:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

And it dawned on me at that moment that all the villains I'd ever actually sympathized with are the ones who are really, really trying to do the right thing. They just, for one reason or another, resorted to some really questionable means to do it.

To be honest, evil characters can simply be callous and selfish. They don't have to kick puppies and slaughter the innocent for fun. A merchant who gouges an extra profit out of his customers in times of crisis is evil, but it's not exactly Darth Vader.


This leads me to the point of all of this: In D&D terms, where's the line between a Neutral character who balances evil means and good deeds, and an evil character who's means are to horrible for his/her good deeds to counteract?

Motive. A neutral character will do evil things because he has to, an evil character will do evil things because it is expedient.


For instance, one of the rare Neutral characters I ever ran was a Pathfinder Oracle focused on raising the undead and channeling negative energy, she even had Leadership and a skeleton for a cohort... but she was genuinely nice and only really used her undead summoning powers for good. I felt the two sides of things balanced out well.

I had an evil cleric of Mask who was quite personable, cheerful, and helpful... right up until the point where you got in the way of his goals. He'd even regret the necessity of steamrolling nice people, but he'd still do it if it brought him closer to his goals.


*I have aspirations to being a writer. Whether I like them or not, I need to understand and be able to create interesting villains and evil characters. Right now, I have a really hard time doing that. < . .> So it's more complicated than just "Don't do it if you don't like it."

Villains should not consider themselves villains. The easiest way to do that is to give them a sensible motive, and make them driven to achieve it at any cost. Maybe they should even regret their actions, or contemplated alternatives. But in the end, an evil character is the sort of person who will stab that innocent villagers to death simply because it's a necessary step on the road to [building his empire, restoring his power, crafting the Magic McGuffin, etc]. Arguably, the sort of people societies actually do need in order to function--the folks who will make the hard choices without waffling too much about the morality of it.

[Zweisteine]

Well, to start, kill anyone who gets in the way of your "good" goals, etc. The Goblins attacked the village? Find their home, and slaughter every last one of them; even the children are not spared your blade. If an enemy surrenders and you weren't aiming to take prisoners, kill them. If the king is neglecting his people, kill him so his heir, who is much more willing to use his power, can replace him (rather than talking to the king, or helping the people yourself).
That's one extreme. It also helps to not be a people person.

I don't have time to write any more, sadly. I have a lot to say when it comes to alignment being effected by actions/intent/personality.

[druid91]

I remember playing a character like this, he intended to conquer the world, and give everybody a happy ending.

Except the people he hated who would die while he enforced his rule with an Ethereal boot of a spectre army.

[HaikenEdge]

I know a lot of people throw around "flexible neutral" to describe him, but I tend to think of somebody like Jack Bauer neutral evil. He tortures, murders, blackmails and the like, in order to achieve his goal.

If I were to boil down my style of "evil character with good intentions" archetype into one phrase, it'd be, "Whatever it takes, no matter the cost." These characters are extremely goal-oriented and are always looking for the most efficient (time and/or resources) way to achieve their goals, everything else be damned. These are also characters who will take the guaranteed partial victory over the possible but improbably total victory; that is to say, if killing 99 innocents will certainly save 100 innocents, the character will kill the 99 innocents, even if there's a chance to save everybody if that chance has a potential cost of more than 99 innocents dying.

That's not to say the characters won't have moments where they do good deeds; it's just the willingness to kick somebody in front of a train to save two other people, even if that one person was a close friend, that makes them evil.

[AgentofHellfire]

Although I myself prefer the type of evil that just outright views ethics as a load of hogwash and is out for power and entertainment, and nothing more, I've made a few well-intentioned Evil characters, some more characters that are well-intentioned that the Playground has called evil (I'm still not of the opinion that one of them is, but enh), and a few others whose intentions are good to an insanely warped individual, and based around ideas such as justice, but fully entail destroying the world and not replacing it with anything better because the world inherently requires harm towards innocents to exist as it is now, or creating dystopian systems out of a belief that a society without conflict is a fundamentally worse place (because violent conflict breeds inner strength, and to the right people fulfillment), and so on.

Man, ahm...hrm. I really want to take the time to explain every single motive in detail, but I doubt it'll fit...

To start, I guess would you define any of the "warped good" intentions above as good enough for your purposes? If so I can tell you some more on those (though I think I've done a lot of it)

Beyond that, though...if I was to describe my other well intentioned villains, well...a good portion are 1800s-style imperialists who think that others need they or their culture's guidance, but...one particular character I've made actually wasn't pursuing a "Greater Good", at any point in his life. He and his goals were in all respects, good (well, mostly. He wanted to do good at least somewhat because it'd earn him the love of people, but I think everybody has a bit of a selfish stake), but...when his life was threatened, all bets were off. His cowardice got the better of him again, and he'd readily kill anyone who stood in the way of his survival. He'd feel horrid about it afterward, and otherwise do as much Good as possible, but...things kind of didn't work that way.

Man, I have so many different antiheroes and villains...I would love to tell you about them. XD

[mistformsquirrl]

More excellent advice, thank you all <o.o>m I think I could manage to play this now.

[Red Fel]

More excellent advice, thank you all <o.o>m I think I could manage to play this now.

The bottom line, when playing any Evil character (or writing one!) is to ask yourself two questions.

1: What motivates this character? An Evil character's motivations can be as simple or complex as those of a non-Evil character. Is it love, money, idealism? Does he respect strength, seek order, wish to preserve justice or life? Does he devote himself to a cause, a deity, an ideal? Or is he just ruthlessly pragmatic and self-interested, to a borderline sadistic extreme?

2: What is/isn't this character willing to do? Are there lines that he will never cross? Are there actions that are abhorrent to him? Are there acts that he will not condone, in himself or others? Or will he do whatever it takes, regardless of the collateral damage? Does he impose these standards on others, or does he hold himself out to a unique standard?

You would write him exactly as you would a Good (or non-Evil) character. The only difference is that at least one of these two aspects - motivations or principles - will be twisted, perverted, less noble. A truly Good character has both - noble motivations and restrictions on his conduct. For a character to begin his descent into darkness, he has to give up on one of those two - he must either have dark goals or a lack of limits. That's where the slippery slope begins. (If he has both, he can be a true monster. But that's a special kind of evil.)

You'll be amazed (and probably a little frightened, at first) at how comprehensible an Evil character can become by following these guidelines.