Compliance Will Be Rewarded: A Guide to Lawful Evil

[Red Fel]

I have been told, upon occasion, that my skill at communicating my alignment of choice borders on the unnatural. That my uncanny ability to explain why someone would choose Lawful Evil, in such a manner that people seriously consider pursuing it, is creepy and mildly sociopathic. That I might very well be the incarnation of Asmodeus himself. I would like to dash these rumors, once and for all.

The next person to repeat one of these rumors will be summarily executed.

There! Rumors dashed.


http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141124040109/agentsofshield/images/2/2b/HYDRA_Logo_Black_Trans.png

Compliance Will Be Rewarded
A Guide to Lawful Evil

"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."
- Albert Camus

I. Introduction

As of this writing, at least two such guides exist; one for Chaotic Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?446414-No-Limits-No-Regrets-A-guide-to-the-Chaotic-Evil-alignment), one for Chaotic Good (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448507-Rules-are-for-Jerks-A-Chaotic-Good-Alignment-Handbook).

Obviously, this one will prove itself superior in short order. That's easy when you have superior subject matter to cover.

The goal of this guide is to give a broad overview of the nuance, value, and entertainment to be found in the Lawful Evil alignment. Whether you are a DM hoping to make your villains more compelling, or a player who wishes to learn how to make a helpful yet sinister player character, this guide will offer you advice and tools to help construct complex, well-rounded Lawful Evil characters.


http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbv4npIRHF1qg4blro1_500.gif

II. What is Lawful Evil?
Wizards of the Coast has defined the Lawful Evil alignment as follows (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawfulEvil):
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.
Ordinarily, I say that Wizards of the Coast doesn't know the first thing about alignments. In this case, though? It's a start.

But let's continue with a few guidelines. Here are some points that Lawful Evil should keep in mind.

1. Power. Power is everything. Evil is all about power - who has it, and over whom. Lawful Evil is all about how you use it. Power is control. The only way to gain power is to take it or exchange it. All things come down to power. Leadership is an exchange of power - you hold power to command your followers, but they hold power to command your loyalty. Friendship is an exchange of power - you grant your friends power over you, and together you have more power than you possess alone. That's how the Lawful Evil mind works. It all comes back to power.

2. Rules. Lawful alignments deal with rules. Lawful Evil's sense of rules is part of what makes it the most respectable, approachable Evil alignment. You need to define those rules. Perhaps your character has a pronounced sense of honor or fair play. Perhaps he never breaks a promise or contract. Perhaps he never harms the truly innocent, only those who, in his mind, deserve it. Whatever his principles, keep them in mind in all things. Your character's principles are a major part of what makes him truly compelling. And should your character ever truly violate those principles? Nothing should give the world worse nightmares than that thought.

3. Respectability. You may fear Lawful Evil. You may hate it. But no matter what, you can't help but respect it. Consider this: The Church of Hextor is one of the only canon Evil religions that operates openly. How can it afford to do so? It creates order. It eliminates crime, poverty, and chaos. It promotes a regimen of physical fitness and ethical obligation. In many ways, it makes the lives of those within its iron grip better. Those who seek to liberate a city from the Church of Hextor must acknowledge the fact that, without it, the lives of those citizens would be chaotic, brutish, nasty... And short.

After a brief recess, we'll discuss a few of my favorite archetypes.

[Red Fel]

III. Archetypes

In this section, I shall discuss some of the more colorful characters you're likely to encounter as you plumb the depths of the alignment spectrum.


1. The Prince

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/Grand_Moff_Tarkin.png

"You're far too trusting. Dantooine is too remote to make an effective demonstration - but don't worry; we will deal with your rebel friends soon enough."
- Grand Moff Tarkin, Star Wars

The Prince is a leader of men. His principle virtue is the unity he inspires in his underlings. He is cool and collected, and his presence is an inspiration to his forces and a chilling grip on the hearts of his foes. He views all he surveys with a covetous eye, and tolerates nothing less than total success. What distinguishes him from ordinary leaders is, among other things, his alignment. He is LE with an emphasis on the E; powerful and ruthless, but not above petty cruelty and shows of force. Unlike those who promote strength through order, he does it through fear, taking pleasure in the destruction and terror he leaves in his wake.

However, he is no petty brigand; he is a man of rank and stature. He holds counsel, respects the advice of those who serve him, and carries himself with a fitting demeanor. This does not mean he is above having them savagely executed for their mistakes, or cracking the whip when they produce anything less than perfection.

Despite the name, the Prince need not be royalty. He could be a general, or any other leader of men. He gravitates naturally towards positions of leadership, however.


2. The Bureaucrat

http://www.ealasaid.com/fan/vetinari/images/vetport.jpg

"Every evil tyrant has a plan to rule the world. The good people don't seem to have the knack."
- Havelock Vetinari, Discworld

The Bureaucrat is the necessary Evil. His principle virtue is that he is indispensable. Although he may not want it, and although others may not want it either, he is the best man for the job, and he feels enough obligation to do it. He is LE with an emphasis on the L, although the E will often creep in, whether it involves him taking a bit too much glee in sentencing a man to death, or making a harsh observation about others as he goes about his duty.

One of the more fascinating facets of the Bureaucrat is just how good he is at his job. He may take pleasure in few things, but he takes pride in doing his work well. His work can be anything, too; the Bureaucrat need not be a paper-pusher. He may be a leader in his own right, or simply an underling. But whatever the case, the unique thing about this character is that he doesn't necessarily want the power he possesses. Not every LE needs to have great, lofty ambitions. Despite what he wants, however, the Bureaucrat does what he needs to do.


3. The Dark Knight

http://images1.nick.com/teennick-assets/shows/images/buffy-the-vampire-slayer/characters/character_large_332x363_giles.jpg

"No, she couldn't. Never. And sooner or later, Glory will reemerge and make Buffy pay for that mercy, and the world with her. Buffy even knows that, and still she couldn't take a human life. She's a hero, you see. She's not like us."
- Rupert Giles, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

The Dark Knight is one of the most playable LE character concepts. His principle virtue is his comradery, for there is no truer friend than the one who would literally go to Hell for you. And that's precisely who the Dark Knight is - a person who, in pursuit of the loftiest ideals, is willing to plunge into the depths of immorality. His principles are what separates him from the monsters, and as such, he is LE with an emphasis on the L. He may be willing to get his hands dirty, but he won't cross certain lines.

Dark Knights are a wonderful choice in a party, even a party of Good characters, because they tend to put others before themselves. One would think this a fairly un-LE trait, but arbitrary alignment being what it is, it works. To make such a character even more compelling, consider making him a gentle soul, inwardly mourning each step he feels he must take to protect that about which he cares.

Some people may desire a bit less moral ambiguity for a character like this. That's fair; as I've mentioned, much of what qualifies him as Evil is simply the arbitrary nature of D&D morality. By almost any other metric, he comes across as more of a tragic hero or anti-hero. If you wish to remove that ambiguity, the easy solution is simply to follow the rationale of "those who fight monsters." Have him take just a little too much satisfaction from resorting to dirtier methods, or have him use violence as a first resort, rather than a last one. That readiness, nay, desire to get his hands dirty is what pushes a character like this from Neutral into Evil.

Now, you may take issue with my use of Rupert Giles in this illustration. I would agree that, generally, the character is more G than E, and frequently more C than L. However, what I chose to illustrate with the above quote is that particular moment in the character of Giles; the particular mindset illustrated in that brief window of time. Giles is ordinarily a character who wants to do good by those in his charge, by his Slayer and those for whom he feels a responsibility. That's the L. In that moment, however, he does so by murdering a helpless target in a cold, pragmatic, and deliberate fashion. That's the E - that willingness to do the worst possible thing for the best possible reason.


4. The Dragon

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Darth_Vader.jpg

"What is thy bidding, my master?"
- Darth Vader, Star Wars

The Dark Knight serves a lofty ideal, or his friends. The Dragon serves a greater Evil, and does so with slavish obedience. Like the Dark Knight, he is LE with an emphasis on the L, but unlike the Dark Knight, he will not hesitate in his duty. He may feel some compunction about what he does, but ultimately, his faith is in his dark master.

The Dragon is a perfect example of how LE need not be the biggest, baddest thing in the room. Some Dragons are quite content to serve, deriving satisfaction from having a function. They can be played as cold, emotionless automatons, or as tragic figures, enslaved to their fate. They can even be played as confused innocents, happy to serve, and uncomprehending of their callous acts. Unlike many on this list, because the focus of their character is on obedience, they can be quite prone to switching sides when it is revealed how ill-placed their loyalty can be. And while some on this list have been known to betray, the Dragon is one of the few who may switch alignments as a result thereof.


5. The Executive

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/Xanatos.JPG/250px-Xanatos.JPG

"Revenge, as they say, is a sucker's game."
David Xanatos, Gargoyles

The Executive is rather unique on this list. Being exceedingly ruthless, rational and self-interested, he seems LE in name only. Many Executives can come across as more LN, or NE, or even TN at times - sometimes even in the same character. Again, part of what makes him LE is simply the way arbitrary alignment works.

The Executive values the three R's - ruthlessness, rationality, and results. The Executive doesn't indulge in stupid plans for petty reasons. He's not some sort of cartoon villain who engages in plots "for the evulz." When he does something, he does it without mercy or hesitation, but only after being quite confident in its ability to achieve his desired results.

What makes him Evil is just how ruthless he can be. This isn't a casual failure to appreciate his immoral results, but a smirking glee at the fact that people will suffer when he gets what he wants. Similarly, what makes him Lawful is the fact that he is extraordinarily consistent. He will do what is in his best interests, and can be relied on to always be acting towards that end. This makes him surprisingly useful in a team-up, because as long as the success of others is tied to his own, you can be sure that he will invest heavily in their success.


6. The Zealot

https://keikakudoori.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/madoka-1.png

"Of course you can. Just make a contract with me. And become a Magical Girl."
- Kyubey, Puella Magi Madoka Magica

Much like the Dark Knight, the Zealot is devoted to a cause. Indeed, that idealism is one of his chief virtues, sometimes tragically so. Unlike the Dark Knight, however, who may feel compunction about the lines he has to cross, the Zealot is remorseless to an extreme, with one of the biggest Ls on this list. His fanatical devotion to his ideal justifies all possible actions.

Not all causes need be Evil, either. He could be devoted to saving the planet by enslaving all intelligent life. He could be devoted to preserving the memory of his people by stealing souls and using them to fuel the engine that simulates a virtual world for a dead race. He could wish to enslave a goddess to use her power to rebuild the world, having become convinced that the current world is corrupt.

Whatever his cause, the Zealot is truly inspired by the idea. Whether his fanaticism compels others to follow him or not, it tends to make him one of the more dangerous LEs on this list. It also makes him harder to function in a party, as his devotion must remain at the forefront of his mind. Wise players are encouraged to make his cause something manageable and palatable to others.

It is worth noting that this concept bears strong similarities to a more Chaotic concept, an extremist or radical. The important distinction between the two is that the radical will pursue his cause and passion to the exclusion and violation of other principles. For the Zealot, his cause is his principle. More than that, however, his devotion to his cause requires him to hold himself to standards. In service to his ideals, he has created a set of rules that satisfy them. For example, the Zealot who seeks to annihilate all life in order to "save" it will not allow himself to engage in needless, wanton acts of cruelty, because he believes that his goals require him to be "merciful." This is a key distinction, and one which makes the Zealot both palatable - in that he has rules - and frightening - in that you can find yourself almost sympathizing with him as a result.


7. The Rival

http://www.sleightsofmind.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hannibal-Lecter-hannibal-lecter-24822525-320-244.jpg

"I've no plans to call on you, Clarice. The world is more interesting with you in it."
- Dr. Hannibal Lecter, The Silence of the Lambs

When is an enemy not an enemy? When he is more interested in saving your life than ending it. The Rival is chivalrous, and another example of LE with an emphasis on the L. Perhaps he has decided that he is the only one who will kill you, perhaps he feels that true Evil cannot exist without true Good as its counterpoint in a sort of mystical whole, or perhaps he simply enjoys your company from time to time. Whatever the reason, the Rival doesn't want you dead.

That doesn't mean he's not a threat.

The Rival doesn't want to spend his time babysitting you. He may throw threats in your direction, knowing (or believing) that you can handle them. Or perhaps he'll send you clues that propel you into danger, as he takes pleasure in watching you squirm.

The point of the Rival is that, unlike most LE characters on this list, he actually wants to see you succeed. He wants to see you overcome challenges. In some ways, he equates you with himself. You are his light reflection, the opponent he has marked as his equal. If you excel, he has an admirable challenge to overcome in facing you. If you fail, it was his mistake to assume you were worthy, which reflects badly on him. His frustration arises when you are anything less than your best. This can create a very fascinating party dynamic, where the Rival will offer praise to a capable combatant or one who shows a keen mind, and derision and abuse to those who seem to slack off. (Although, when it comes to other party members, try to keep the abuse to a minimum, as a general rule.)

Sometimes, it's better to have an enemy as an enemy, rather than as a friend.


8. The Cartoon

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/Snidely1.jpg

"Curses! Foiled again!"
- Snidely Whiplash, Rocky and Bullwinkle

Not all LE needs to be mustache-twirling caricatures. But that doesn't mean it can't be. There is a place for everything. Perhaps your campaign has a goofy tone. Or perhaps it just needs a recurring joke antagonist. Whatever the reason, the Cartoon is there to remind you how absurd Evil can be. He is LE with an emphasis on the E, but instead of your usual "murder and pillage" Evil, he tends towards convoluted plans, elaborate traps, and absurd perils. He eagerly gloats when he is convinced that the time of victory is upon him, turns his back at the perfect moment to turn the tables, and perpetually escapes to fight another day.

But what makes him Lawful? Well, that's easy. There are rules in cartoons. When the hero challenges you to a fair fight, you accept. When you set out to kill somebody, you use an easily escapable trap. When you have your enemy at your mercy, you explain your plan in intricate detail. You don't do the easy thing or the expedient thing. You focus on what's important. Conventions! Standards!

Presentation!

He is two-dimensional and ridiculous. And sometimes, that's precisely what you need.


9. The Alien

https://winnifredartemis.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/the-dresden-files-mab.png

"Mortal brute. Whatever your past, whatever your future, know this: I am Mab, and I keep my bargains. Question my given word again, ape, and I will finish freezing the water in your eyes."
- Queen Mab, The Dresden Files

I just told you about how cartoonishly Evil characters have a place. I'd like to break another archetype - the Fey. Let me be clear - the actual Fey in D&D are almost universally Chaotic. But in literature, that's not always the case, and that's what I'm discussing here.

The Alien is a being whose actions seem mad and incomprehensible to us. It appears to most observers quite Chaotic in nature. But this could not be further from the truth. The Alien is in fact bound by extremely strict rules. It is simply that these rules are so bizarre and alien as to seem random at first blush. Nonetheless, this character is so intrinsically tied to its rules and regulations that it is in many ways severely L.

The illustration is of Queen Mab, from The Dresden Files. Fey in Dresden are precisely as I describe. They are intrinsically Lawful creatures, formed from and bound by rules which govern their existence. They cannot freely cross thresholds without certain penalties, they cannot break vows or contracts, and they absolutely cannot tell lies. Nonetheless, how they interpret what they can do is what makes them appear so mad and chaotic. This is the Alien, in its simplest essence. Its rules are absolute, but its logic borders on the incomprehensible.

Now, as applied to LE, you simply add a level of cruelty or apparent caprice. Arrogance is a common trait here. Another method is that of the destructive helper - the one whose "aid" tends to do more harm than good. A smirk is almost ubiquitous. The ideal Alien is one whose presence, whose very awareness is enough to cause nervousness, because the worst thing you can do is draw its attention. After that, life will become a lot more complicated for you. Even if you think you understand its rules. Even if you can work around them.

Especially then.


10. The Bad Cop

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090531102101/harrypotter/images/5/5a/Dolores_Umbridge.PNG

"Oh, you won't need any ink."
- Dolores Umbridge, Harry Potter

The Bad Cop is a subspecies of the Prince. Like the Prince, the Bad Cop is an abuser of power, LE with an emphasis on the E. Unlike the Prince, who is a natural and commanding leader, the Bad Cop is in many ways a follower, attaching himself to the authority in power as a means to vent his sadistic tendencies. Being a follower of the hierarchy grants him the protection and license he needs to hurt people. Despite the name, he is not necessarily employed by police. You'll find him employed running the king's torture chambers, enforcing contracts a bit too vigorously, and even running local educational institutions.

Superficially, the Bad Cop seems to have a lot in common with the Bureaucrat. The big difference is in the emphasis. While the Bureaucrat is LE with an emphasis on L, the Bad Cop is LE with an emphasis on E. A Bureaucrat might take no particular pleasure in disemboweling a captured prisoner. For a Bad Cop, that was the reason he took the job in the first place. Done poorly, a Bad Cop will devolve into The Cartoon. Done well, a Bad Cop's evil will be visceral, intensely personal, immediately recognized ... and backed by the full force of society and law.

It is worth noting that, unique on this list, the Bad Cop is unlikely to have any redeeming qualities, which may make him a poor choice for a player character, but an exceptionally hate-able choice for a villain or underling. At best, you could argue that, in his own twisted way, he promotes his unique view of the public good - albeit through wanton cruelty and heartlessness.

[Red Fel]

IV. Motivations

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6n9o8fYt91qmj6tp.png

"I see only despair..."
Ghaleon, Lunar: Silver Star Story

What makes a man a monster? In this section, we'll explore that question, in frightening detail.

1. Ambition. This is by far the easiest, and one of the most iconic, among Lawful Evil's motivations. Evil covets, that's part of its nature. The Lawful Evil character with this motivation possesses an overwhelming desire, the ruthlessness to pursue it, and the orderly mind to plan for its acquisition. Most of the other motivations you'll see have some flavor of this blended into them.

2. Vengeance. Vengeance is another classically Evil trait. Unlike retribution, which may be Good or Evil but tends to be about proportionate punishment and consequence, revenge is specifically Evil. It is the pure, selfish desire to inflict suffering on those who have wronged you. The Lawful Evil character with this motivation sets down a long, cold path with a target in his sights, and does not stop until his revenge is complete. While other flavors of Evil may have varying takes on what constitutes revenge, however, Lawful Evil's methods tend to be more methodical - and more comprehensive. Breaking your enemy physically is for amateurs. Destroying his spirit by tearing his life down around him, that's the sort of holistic plan that Lawful Evil can get behind.

3. Loyalty. Yes, Lawful Evil can have noble motivations as well. Adequate Lawful Evil characters can stand alone, but truly great Lawful Evil characters stand with others. A leader is defined just as much by his own abilities as by those of the forces at his disposal. Why do you think the Church of Hextor can operate openly? It's because, in a strange way, it lives in symbiosis with the citizens under its thrall - it offers them protection and order, and they in turn provide it with support. Remember again, however, that loyalty doesn't just mean to followers. A Lawful Evil character can be loyal to a leader, or to his friends. This virtue can also make the character more compelling, raising him to a level of nobility some PCs lack. It's worth noting, however, that loyalty is also a shortcut to vengeance, when the subject of your loyalty is hurt or becomes unworthy of admiration.

4. Love. Yes, Evil can feel love. In some ways, Evil feels love more profoundly and more painfully than other alignments, because love is about sacrifice and selflessness, concepts that don't come easily to Evil. So when Lawful Evil feels love, truly surrenders to it, it is with the understanding that the emotion carries with it a profound danger and vulnerability. When love is threatened, Evil is likely to respond with ruthless, disproportionate force. When true love is lost, Lawful Evil's response may well be the sort of thing associated with cataclysmic natural disasters.

5. Duty. This is particularly true of archetypes like the Bureaucrat, Dark Knight, and Dragon - sometimes Evil is simply what must be done. Some Lawful Evil characters will feel joy or job satisfaction in the execution of their duties, while others - particularly the Dark Knight - may feel only grim futility. This is a perfect motivation for a character who favors his L to his E, a devotion to doing the right thing, even when it means doing the wrong thing. Especially then.

6. Madness. Insanity isn't the sole province of Chaos. Nor is it only expressed in cackling and bouncing about inanely. Sometimes, madness is the cold, cruel mindset of one who can no longer see reality for what it is, but rather for what he wishes it to be. Some go mad from loss, others from frustrated idealism. Whatever the cause, madness taints the thoughts, clouds the eyes and judgments, and convinces the character that what he is doing is right, or even righteous. This doesn't make him unplayable or difficult to get along with, necessarily - a character whose delusions about the world merely color his thoughts, as opposed to compelling his hand, can still play nicely with others, provided those delusions remain unthreatened.

7. Hatred. Everyone has their own prejudices from various sources. But when prejudice meets Evil, it becomes something more severe - hatred. Hatred may have its reasons - for example, vengeance, above - or it can be completely senseless. But much like love, hatred can motivate one to act. Hatred for a race, hatred for an ideology, hatred for heroes or criminals or dissidents. Lawful Evil will take this hatred and direct it towards a productive end, for certain definitions of "productive." In the hands of a character, it can actually establish the basis of surprisingly effective, if Lawful Evil, heroes. It's a fairly simple motivation, but with the right explanation - the right heartache, the right history, the compelling characterization that brings it all together - it can make for a very compelling character.

8. Sadism. As has been mentioned, Evil is known for taking things to excess. Leave it to the Neutrals to impartially sentence a man to execution; the Evil character will let him suffer before he dies. A layer of this excess, of cruelty, underlies much of what an Evil character does. The Evil character motivated by sadism takes particular pleasure in this excess, wringing joy out of his everyday acts of cruelty. How much joy - and whether he makes obscene faces or sounds while experiencing it - may vary, but there is always a degree of, at the very least, satisfaction. However, sadism alone does not a satisfying motivation make - at least, not for a major villain. For lesser characters, however - minions and henchmen and the like - it can be tremendously satisfying. Picture, if you will, the recurring antagonist who shows up in the heroes' lives just long enough to make them distinctly uncomfortable, before laughing his way into an exit, stage right. That level of hedonistic pleasure - the character motivated solely by his desire to cause others to suffer - is distinctly Evil, and with the right characterization, can be focused in a Lawful direction as well. A sadist is likely to be manipulative - enjoying not only physical pain, but emotional discomfort and disturbance - and manipulators do fit in nicely with the Lawful paradigm.


V. Methods

http://static.thefrisky.com/uploads/2015/04/22150603/western-day-arrested.jpg

"We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That's who we really are."
- Sirius Black, Harry Potter

Lawful Evil isn't merely a state of mind. It's a way of life. And like any lifestyle choice, you're going to need to walk the walk if you plan to become a card-carrying member.

Or am I mixing my metaphors?

1. Force. Evil is about power, and about using it. That means employing force to get what you want. But Lawful Evil doesn't merely employ brute strength. It can, mind you, when it's called for, but force is so much more than that. Force can be political influence, calling in favors and outmaneuvering opponents. Force can be social influence, influencing people by influencing those around them. It can be economic influence, such as trade, bribery, or boycotts. Whatever your chosen means, Lawful Evil must be willing to flex its iron fist, even when that fist wears a velvet glove.

2. Cruelty. Cruelty is about doing more than is necessary. To a certain extent, this is something that distinguishes Evil from Neutral. Neutral does what it needs to, but Evil goes beyond that. Or, to paraphrase what others have said, Neutral puts Number One first, while Evil puts Number One at the expense of Number Two. Cruelty is therefore about excess. You don't need to be constantly sadistic - in fact, cruelty can have little if anything to do with causing physical pain, or even pain at all. Consider a scene in Doctor Who, in which David Tennant's Doctor, infuriated by the actions of Harriet Jones (Prime Minister), decides not only to punish her, but to completely end her career - a career which, previously, he had observed marked the beginning of a golden age for humanity. In six words, no less. Consider a later Doctor Who scene, in which Matt Smith's Doctor, having defeated the forces of an entire military base, orders the commander to order, not retreat, but "Run away," that history will always remember and mock him as "Colonel Runaway." That's what cruelty is. Lawful Evil can often employ cruelty - excessive violence, cutting observations, and so forth - both as tools and as reminders. Tools, in that few things deter an enemy more than the knowledge that retribution shall be disproportionate; reminders, in that sometimes, your party needs to remember that this character is indeed Evil.

3. Arrogance. While frequently associated with Evil, and particularly Lawful Evil, it is imperative that you either do this right, or not at all. Arrogance can be one of the most grating and obnoxious character traits to possess. There are two rules that you absolutely must follow if you intend to play this. First, don't lord over the other player characters. Doing so is fine for an NPC, but a player character cannot survive after alienating himself from his colleagues. If you must lord over the other player characters, have your character evolve to respect them, quickly. Second, have the skills to back up the hype. Consider Vegeta from Dragon Ball Z (and the Abridged series). Although he is a poor example of Lawful Evil, he is a fine example of this second point. He frequently alternates between being a glorious badass who absolutely is the hype, and being an absurd caricature who arrives on the scene with great self-exultation, and is promptly thrashed. Repeatedly. Mercilessly. And while it is gratifying to see an ego like that deflated, it makes for poor character development to have someone with such an irrationally inflated opinion of himself.

4. Loyalty. I cannot emphasize this enough. For a player character, Evil means being under constant scrutiny. Whether it's out of a sense of self-preservation, a sense of duty, or genuine fondness for your fellow partymembers, be loyal. Be helpful. Be productive. Be the one who can be relied upon to get things done. If you're cynical, it guarantees that the fools with whom you adventure will work to your benefit, and protect you. If you're not a complete sociopath, it means that your friends won't be forced to choose between you and your shared quest. Similarly, a Lawful Evil character should show loyalty to his underlings. Yes, he is their better and they his inferior, that's why he's on top and they are on bottom. They should be honored to serve. But a certain noblesse oblige is at play, here. You are strong when your underlings are strong. Although it is their duty to serve you, you should still endeavor to be worthy of that right. And no leader inspires underlings quite like one who recognizes and rewards their achievements, one who protects them just as they protect him.

5. Approachability. Like Loyalty, this is an extremely valuable method. The deal-doling devil needs to come across as friendly enough to deal with, not hostile and abrasive. The leader of armies, though severe, must be able to hold counsel with his generals. And in a party, you need to be able to get close to people, whether it's to corrupt them, to destroy them, or to make an asset of them. Lawful Evil, being somewhat more predictable and reliable than its Chaotic and Neutral cousins, is and should be more approachable than they are. Moreso, since being Evil means being under the ever-watchful eye of Paladins everywhere. Remember also that your charm - and I don't mean Charisma, I mean general affability - is a tool, like a sword or a spell or an incriminating photograph, that can be applied to almost any person with just as much effectiveness.

6. Trustworthiness. One of the classic examples of Lawful Evil is the contract devil. It's so iconic, so obvious, that I didn't feel the need to make an archetype of it. You all know it. It's not news. But what makes the contract devil work, as an archetype? Simple: The rube knows that you can be relied upon to carry your side of the bargain. Maybe he's a particularly clever rube, and expects you to twist your way through some loopholes, but he knows that any agreement with you will at least be respected on its face. He trusts you. Your word is your bond. That reliability is vital. Even the Bad Cop makes good on his threats - they're not just threats, they're promises. Whatever you do, whatever you say, carry through on it.

7. Presentation! I love the style of Evil. Good can wear whatever, but the villain always wears something that just screams classy. Even studded leather looks classy when a real villain wears it. Lawful Evil is generally preoccupied with appearances. In most cases, it's the appearance of power, influence, or confidence. Not just physical appearances, either; overall presentation, from how you speak to how you carry yourself, everything matters. The Dark Knight is a unique case, but even there, he manages to convey the appearance of menace and cruelty to his enemies. Evil desires power, and just like you need money to make money, you need power - or the appearance of power - to acquire more power.

8. Apologies. They're not your thing. Let me explain. Lawful Evil is about having convictions. What you're doing may be morally wrong, but in your mind, you have to justify it. It has to be "right" to you. And you should never have to apologize - at least, not sincerely - for doing the "right" thing. Now, that's not to say you won't try to soothe the hurt feelings of friends, or pay lip service to a rube to get what you want from him. But a sincere apology means saying, "What I did was wrong, and I will endeavor not to do it again." And that should be a rare commodity for Lawful Evil.

9. Dingus. Don't be one. It's true of any character, but particularly true of Evil characters. There is a great temptation to be a clever backstabbing manipulator, or to join forces with the strongest baddy in the room even if it means betraying the party, or to snark until your lips can't move anymore. Temper your desire to do so. One of the biggest thrills of Lawful Evil is being able to earn the respect, admiration, and even love of those around you, all while openly being a terrifying monster. And you can't do that when you go around being a dingus.

[Red Fel]

VI. Relationships With Other Alignments

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_medium/0/77/307980-60591-magneto.jpg

"Charles Xavier did more for mutants than you will ever know."
- Magneto, X-Men

Not everyone can appreciate the true quality and nuance of Lawful Evil. But at the very least, you can appreciate them.

Sometimes, as cannon fodder.

Lawful Good: Honestly, Lawful Evil can respect Lawful Good. They both have an adherence to order, tradition, and honor. Lawful Evil is Evil designed around stability, and even though they may be morally at odds, Lawful Good is about stability, too. But while Lawful Evil may respect Lawful Good, that door doesn't necessarily swing both ways; Lawful Good may be too overcome by its precious moral ideology to appreciate all of the "good" a strong tyrant can do.

Neutral Good: Wishy-washy idealistic fools, the lot of them. Neutral Good is the alignment of pure altruism and benevolence, concepts quite unnecessary to Lawful Evil. You can't even respect them for having firm ethics, inasmuch as they don't dedicate themselves to Law or Chaos.

Chaotic Good: People have this mistake impression that Lawful Evil must despise Chaotic Good, given that they occupy opposite corners of the alignment grid. But that's simply not true. Chaotic Good may hate everything that Lawful Evil stands for, and rightly so, but Lawful Evil sees use in Chaotic Good. Chaotic Good characters tend to be revolutionaries, anarchists seeking positive change, or simply those operating outside of the law, but with good intentions. That means they can be directed. Chaotic Good may hate Lawful Evil, but it can serve Lawful Evil's ends - sometimes, you need a well-intentioned revolutionary to operate outside of your realm of influence. And because they are Good, you can appeal to their morals.

Lawful Neutral: Out of all of the alignments on this list, I would go so far to say that Lawful Evil gets along most consistently with Lawful Neutral. Lawful Neutral is the most regimented, the most firm and severe, the most orderly and honorable and utilitarian of alignments. Lawful Neutral can fold almost instinctively into the service or aid of Lawful Good or Lawful Evil. Every organization needs its enforcers, its paper-pushers, those who perform the rote, mechanical roles, and those who ensure that rules are complied with. Lawful Neutral can do that, and often will without hesitation or compassion.

True Neutral: These cretins are both unpredictable and useless. Let them seek their precious balance in their wilds and hermitages; some of us have countries to run.

Chaotic Neutral: Anarchists and fools, the lot of them, but easily manipulated. The Chaotic Neutral character seeks freedom for freedom's sake. While they loathe Lawful alignments, they can be used, much like Chaotic Good. Unlike Chaotic Good, however, they're not above getting their hands dirty. It's dangerous to maintain an extended relationship with them, but for specific tasks, they can be employed with great results.

Lawful Evil: Lawful Evil is a curious thing - it is either its own best friend or its own worst enemy. For the sort of Lawful Evil that constantly has one eye on the face it's crushing beneath its heel and the other on the boot crushing it - that is, LE with an emphasis on the E - being around fellows of your alignment means keeping on your toes. They keep you sharp, but that's only because you know they're waiting for the chance to pounce. For the sort of Lawful Evil that adheres to structure and hierarchy - that is, LE with an emphasis on the L - it's like being in an office filled with people who think just like you. It's a wonderful, comfortable work environment, where everyone promotes the collective benefit, albeit at the cost of others.

Neutral Evil: Dangerous. Naturally ruthless and self-interested, qualities Lawful Evil can respect, but at the same time not bound by ethical concerns along the Lawful-Chaotic spectrum. They are mercenary at the best of times, and dealings with them should be kept brief and to the point.

Chaotic Evil: To those who think that Chaotic Good is Lawful Evil's worst enemy, I say you, "Look here, and behold." Chaotic Evil is all of the anarchy of Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral, with none of the manipulable idealism. Good can be channeled towards ostensibly Good ends; Neutral can still be channeled through its love of freedom and self-expression. But there is no leash that can restrain Chaotic Evil's mad, brutal passion, no structure or agreement that can bind them to your will. Kill them on sight; nobody would begrudge the loss of another demon.


VII. Relationships With Other People

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/b/b3/Lord_Jareth.jpg

"Everything that you wanted, I have done. You asked that child be taken, I took him. You cowered before me, and I was frightening. I have reordered time, I have turned the world upside down, and I have done it all for you! I am exhausted from living up to your expectations of me. Isn't that generous?"
Jareth, Labyrinth

Lawful Evil people are still human, after all. (Or Elves. Or Dwarves. Or Dragons... You understand.) As such, they still seek relationships. They still enjoy the company of friends, the warmth of a loved one. But there's a distinct way in which they see those relationships, a unique lens that colors them all. Here are some illustrations of how a Lawful Evil character may see another person.

1. Friends: Friends are a rare commodity for Evil characters. That's not to say they don't have friends, but rather that the concept of friendship - pure, altruistic, genuine friendship - takes on a very different tint. Certainly, a Lawful Evil character can have comrades and colleagues, people he respects, even admires, and would gladly stand beside. Still, the concept of friendship, in a non-utilitarian respect, is strange. It's that concept of which I'm speaking - not the friend who is a co-worker, or another person in your field, but the friend you met at the coffee shop or in the library. A person with whom you have little in common, but have nonetheless struck up a genuine rapport.

It's not that this is so incomprehensible to Lawful Evil. As I've mentioned, a Lawful Evil person is still a person. Rather, it exists outside of most of their operative paradigms. A colleague, friend, or lover serves a function, even an emotional one. But making a friend of a stranger serves no real function - it is a purely social action. This is an opportunity to humanize a Lawful Evil character. Consider the scene where the villain of the story meets a random person, offers them money for a cab, or to buy them a drink, or just sits and talks and listens. This is called a "Pet the Dog" moment, and illustrates the depth and complexity of an Evil character.

That said, at the end of the day, Lawful Evil values utility. And while he will protect those that matter to him - often with disproportionate force and terrifying conduct - one of these "mere" friends, who serves no other function, is more easily abandoned than a person to whom he has sworn true loyalty. Oh, his rage and grief will be terrible, but he can still shut his heart off long enough to turn a cold shoulder to their pleas for aid. At that point, he goes from empathetic to dreadful and tragic.

2. Lovers: Love, like friendship, isn't completely alien to Lawful Evil, but it is a challenge. Being in love means opening yourself up to great pain. Lawful Evil characters bask in their power, and the protection it offers them, but it is much easier to protect yourself than to protect someone else, particularly someone with an independent and sometimes disobedient mind. There are many ways that Lawful Evil can address this concern, some disturbing, some heartwarming.

For example, one demonstration of love could be overprotection that borders on slavery. Think of how the uber-paranoid TO-level Wizard protects his spellbook. That spellbook is the most important thing in the world to him. It's the source of his power and his greatest weakness. Now, imagine that the spellbook was a person. This form of love is embodied by the Witch in Rapunzel (or Into the Woods), who expresses love and a desire to protect her loved one by sealing her away in a tower far from anybody else. Another method amounts to using mind control to turn the loved one into an obedient and easily protected puppet, although this is frequently followed with a "What have I done?" realization.

Another demonstration, and a particularly cheery one, is the idea of loving someone as they are. This is particularly true when Lawful Evil falls in love with an opposing alignment, such as Lawful Good or Chaotic Good, but can be equally true of Lawful Evil and Lawful Evil. The beautiful thing about this relationship is that it enables the Lawful Evil character to truly appreciate the other's merits, even if they stem from a different mindset. Now, this character will still demonstrate his love in a way fitting of his alignment; the Prince will use shows of force and wealth, the Bureaucrat will bend the rules in his beloved's favor from time to time, the Dark Knight will dive headfirst into the Hells. And if his love is threatened, his fury will destroy kingdoms.

Again, a way to turn love into tragedy is to show consequences. Lawful Evil characters make enemies. Sometimes Lawful Evil must choose between love and victory. And depending on how thoroughly you've humanized the character, you may see surprising outcomes.

3. Underlings: Power begets followers. People flock to those with apparent power. Perhaps it's because they're sheep, perhaps it's because they're parasites, or perhaps they're backstabbing cheats hoping for a quick piece of the pie. Whatever the reason, it is the natural inclination, and the divine right, of those in power to command others. Lawful Evil should recognize that, by merit of its strength and achievements, it has earned their respect, their loyalty, and their obedience.

That does not mean, however, that stupid abuse of minions is encouraged. Certainly, they are beneath you. Certainly too, they owe everything to you, and your ownership of them is complete, mind, body, and spirit. But do you destroy your table in a fit of pique? Of course not. It is a perfectly good, functional furnishing. So, too, should you treat your underlings as you would your worldly possessions. Just as you protect and keep your treasure, so too should you protect and keep those pledged to your name. They lay their lives and souls at your feet, you owe them nothing more and nothing less than proving worthy of that sacrifice.

Towards that end, the wise Lawful Evil is encouraged to reward success, as well as to punish failure. The carrot is just as motivational as the stick; moreso, at times. Those who act in order to avoid punishment will do just enough to succeed at that, but those who act to earn reward will do whatever it takes. Not all Lawful Evil characters are this wise, of course. Particularly petty ones may dole out harsh consequences on a whim. But such conduct veers towards Chaotic territory. Further, in a player character, it shows an appalling lack of people skills that won't win friends among the party.

4. Superiors: Not every Lawful Evil character needs to be on top. Lawful Evil respects power, even as it covets it. Some characters are content to be second to someone greater. The Dragon is a classic illustration of this concept. To those who earn his respect, the Lawful Evil character's loyalty will be undying.

That said, the sort of Lawful Evil character who would swear himself to another holds both himself and his master to a lofty standard. If he fails to meet his master's expectations, his self-punishment will likely exceed anything his master would care to do to him. But if his master fails to meet his standards, or worse, if his master betrays him, the Lawful Evil servant's rage is that of a caged beast suddenly unleashed. Lawful Evil's willingness to serve stems from a combination of respect and honor, and a desire to be as close to power as possible. The primary reason that he does not indulge the latter by deposing his master is due to the presence of the former; when that respect disappears, there is only a ravenous hunger, which will likely have grown with time.

Somewhat ironically, those who overthrow their corrupt masters don't always seek the throne themselves. Some do, of course, but others may be put off of the entire thing after seeing their master's decline.

5. Rivals: First, let me distinguish something. The Rival, as an archetype, is a Lawful Evil character defined by having an opponent against whom to put himself. But any archetype can perceive a person as a rival. It can be a friendly rivalry, with each trying to outperform the other; a respectful rivalry, with each appreciating the other's abilities but determined to exceed the other; or a vicious rivalry, with the Lawful Evil character out for blood. How Lawful Evil characters approach the concept of rivalry is distinct, however.

As a rule, Lawful Evil considers itself above many things. That's not to say all Lawful Evil characters are elitists who never get their hands dirty, but attendant with the idea of power is the idea of station, the idea that your power makes you better. So before a Lawful Evil character can consider someone his rival, he must first consider that person to be more than scum, which may be an accomplishment in and of itself. Some archetypes, such as the Prince or Bad Cop, are often so burdened by arrogance that they may never consider a person worthy of being viewed as a rival, but merely as a nuisance.

Assuming the person reaches above-garbage status, it is then important to understand the basis for their status. For example, if a person has consistently thwarted the Lawful Evil character's plans, their rivalry may well stem from the Lawful Evil character's appreciation of the other's ability to get in his way. Conversely, if they're on the same side, that rivalry may stem from their common pursuit of goals.

Ultimately, how Lawful Evil treats his rival depends on what's at stake. If it's another competition, one of many, he may well see the sport in it. If he finds that his rival's constant efforts are causing injury to his reputation, he may feel a need to end the nuisance in a more permanent fashion. And if his rival stands between him and his desired goal, unless he is particularly fair or honorable, he may well simply attempt to kill his rival outright.

6. Enemies: Few people will take greater joy in tearing your world down around you than the Lawful Evil. If your goal is a quick, relatively painless death, simply offend one in a mild fashion. But if you truly desire suffering, make an enemy of the Lawful Evil.

Disproportionate retribution is something in which Lawful Evil can take particular pride. As I've mentioned repeatedly, the appearance of power - particularly unassailable, absolute power - is important to Lawful Evil. It's not enough to simply stop your enemies, or avenge yourself upon them. Their punishment must leave a scar upon the world, a gash so deep and bloody that all history will remember the mistake that one enemy made, and nobody capable of any rational thought will ever endeavor to repeat it. This is how Lawful Evil handles its enemies. Think of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. "When it is done and Gotham is ashes, then you have my permission to die." Lawful Evil doesn't simply annihilate those who have risen to the level of enemy - it destroys them, emotionally, spiritually, piece by piece. It crushes their faith, poisons their love, burns their world, and rends their flesh before it gives them the sweet release of death.

And it enjoys it.

7. Nobodies: This will likely be the vast majority of people. Lawful Evil is, in many ways, a numbers game. You've heard the quote, "When one man dies, it is a tragedy; when a million die, it is a statistic." Lawful Evil sees the statistics. It sees the vast, teeming masses of humanity, desperate for order. It doesn't see persons, it sees people. A whole people. It sees a mass of people, like an ocean or a fungal colony. And it wants to give them shape, structure, strength.

Lawful Evil can't reshape the world, or a kingdom, or even a society, if it goes around seeing the vast majority of people as actual people. It sees them as things, and in doing so it can countenance virtually any action taken on their behalf, or against them. It is only those exceptional few who rise to the level of personhood - those who excel in your service, those who earn your love or your hate, those who command your respect or wield power. Those are people.

The rest? They're nobody.

[Red Fel]

VIII. Illustrations and Resources

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/matrix/images/c/c8/Agent_Smith2.jpg

"The best thing about being me... There are so many 'me's."
- Agent Smith, The Matrix Reloaded

There are many lovely resources for Lawful Evil. It would seem futile for me to attempt to list them all.

Nonetheless, I do have some favorites.

1. Books. Great villains are as old as the written word, and in some cases older. Here are a few literary sources that can give you an exceptional mindset.
Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes is classically presented as opposed to John Locke. Whereas Locke asserted that the rights of men derived from nature, and that they exchanged some of those rights for the security of civilization, Hobbes proposed that all rights descended from the absolute monarch, and that the state of nature so loved by Locke was little more than barbaric anarchy, staved off by the ruler's absolute law.
The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli. You all know the quote, "it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both." Machiavelli's literary classic sets down the ruthless mindset with which a ruler must execute his duties, and advises that sometimes immoral methods are both expedient and effective.
Paradise Lost, John Milton. The Satan described in the book is a glorious exultation of the tragic hero turned villain. Here is presented a character who, because he is not perfectly Good, ultimately becomes Evil. Dedicating himself to vengeance, he brings about not only the fall of his fellows, but of a fledgling race. Yet, throughout, you can see his pain, frustration, and raw feeling of betrayal. An excellent illustration of how to make your villain - even a truly iconic one like this - more compelling.
The Dresden Files, Jim Butcher. There are many kinds of villains in this series, but as I mentioned above, the Fey are among the most Lawful. Not to give away too much of the story, but their conduct is strictly controlled by their nature, and they carry with them a dark and profound duty beyond what is known of them. Indeed, it is the darkness that they must endure that makes them, in turn, so monstrous and alien. Another Lawful Evil exemplar is crime lord "Gentleman" Johnny Marcone, a mobster who takes over the Chicago criminal underworld - and becomes the only ordinary human to be recognized by the supernatural community - through a combination of cleverness, ruthlessness, and utilitarian ethics. He is a classic Executive of the highest order, yet surprisingly understated in some ways. There are a number of other great examples of many kinds of Evil, but particularly Lawful Evil, in this series, but I don't want to go too deep into spoilers.
Les Miserables, Victor Hugo. Javert. Need I say more? Okay. Javert is a classic example of a sense of duty - typically LN - being driven to an Evil extreme. The book goes into far more depth about Javert's past and his character, how he renounced his parents, how he sought vengeance against Valjean, and ultimately how he could not reconcile his duty to the law with the idea that the law was unjust. If you ever wanted to create a Dragon or Zealot with a cold, vicious streak, you could do no better than Inspector Javert.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Victor Hugo. Archdeacon Claude Frollo (not to be confused with Tony Jay's awesome depiction in the animated film) is torn between fanatical devotion to the church and burning lust for a woman. Here is a classic illustration of a conflicted person, torn between two horrible choices - take a woman by force, or turn her over for execution? He is at the same time compellingly tragic and revolting. His is also a solid illustration of the ability to abuse power, as Frollo is Archdeacon of Notre Dame, a powerful and iconic church.
Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling. Most of her villains are cliched and trite, barely worthy of mention on this list, save one - Dolores Umbridge, the revolting toad-faced woman who graces the Bad Cop archetype. This character is a perfect illustration of a person who adheres himself, like a lamprey, to the underbelly of power, in order to inflict his sadistic whims on others. This character is arguably the most hated in the entire fandom, and for good reason.
A Practical Guide to Evil, ErraticErrata. Some people have suggested that, given their strong sense of duty and obligation, the Lawful Evil characters I design seem almost more Good than Evil. So how can you have a Lawful Evil leader, with a strong sense of justice and compassion and an avoidance of needless bloodshed and brutality, who still manages to come across as Evil? This web-novel answers that. Now in its fifth book, it tells the story of Catherine Foundling, who starts with the best of intentions - to free her kingdom from the rule of a foreign despot - and somehow rises to be a terrible and feared leader in her own right. Trying to do some of the best things in some of the worst ways possible is a hallmark of Lawful Evil, and this story revels in the triumphs - and failures - of someone using the most ruthless means at her disposal to save her kingdom - and eventually the entire continent - from a far worse fate.
2. Films. Sometimes, a performance can elevate a character concept into a work of art. Since performance is a big part of RPGs, seeing a well-acted villain will probably offer you some valuable insight into improving your own ability to convey Evil.
A Few Good Men. The film, based on an Aaron Sorkin play, revolves around the court-martial of two marines charged with the killing of another marine. In its most iconic scene, the protagonist confronts Colonel Nathan Jessup (masterfully played by Jack Nicholson), who explains that his authority should be unimpeachable. In a tense and well-written scene, Nicholson's Jessup asserts that the necessity of his role in defending the nation gives him a status verging on the sacrosanct, such that any misconduct on his part is excusable. It is an exceptional illustration of power, cruelty, and a cold pragmatism that borders on sadism.
3. Theater. Before it was on screen, it was on stage. Some of the best illustrations of Evil were written to be performed in a packed auditorium. Some even involve music!
Damn Yankees. Satan-analogues are a staple of Lawful Evil depictions, but one of the most stylish ever was Mr. Applegate, the singing, wise-cracking contractor in this musical comedy. Initially offering the protagonist the chance to become a world-class baseball player in exchange for his immortal soul, Applegate is hoisted by his own petard when his would-be rube demands that the contract feature an opt-out clause. As with many such depictions, Damn Yankees is heavily inspired by Doctor Faustus, but its delightfully affable villain renders it a uniquely cheerful take on the classic.
4. Television. Yes, the small screen has its fair share of amazing villains, as well. Here are a few notable examples.
Magic Knight Rayearth. In addition to being an anime that watches like a self-aware RPG, this series features an amazing antagonist, Zagato. He embodies the Zealot, Dragon, and Dark Knight archetypes, blended beautifully into a single tragic figure. Here is someone whose sense of duty is torn. On the one hand, his loyalty and love for the Princess. On the other, his duty to preserve and serve the kingdom. As the series evolves, he alternately paints a sympathetic and terrifying picture. For some of his minions, service to him means a place of safety and peace. For others, it means enslavement, physical and mental. And for one, it means agonizing unrequited love. This is a man who, despite a profound sense of grief and duty, is willing to let the entire world burn to grant the woman he loves a moment's peace. I defy you to watch it and not cry at the outcome.
Disney's Gargoyles. Despite being 90s cartoon in Disney's afternoon animated block, Gargoyles was almost Shakespearean at times in its storytelling and characterization. This is intentional; one of the creators was an English teacher with a background in the literature, two of the writers also worked on Batman: The Animated Series, and the stories themselves drew heavily from Shakespeare and Scottish history. Many of the characters, particularly the antagonists, demonstrate remarkable complexity of character. But no discussion of Lawful Evil would be complete without mentioning series regular David Xanatos, illustrating the Executive archetype, above. Xanatos was present from the very first episode, and his continued presence - even when he was not actually present in a given episode - would hang over the characters. Here was someone with a profound development arc. He could be charming, as shown in virtually every scene; genuinely affectionate, as shown in scenes between him and his wife (and eventually his son as well); cruel and calculating (as shown in his creation of a race of human-cat-eel-bat hybrid mutants). And it wasn't merely a single trajectory - he alternated between these qualities. Even when he was honorable, he was ruthless; even when he was cruel, he was sympathetic.

IX. Final Notes

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120306155603/dragonball/es/images/d/dc/SSJ2VegetaMajin.png

"I am the hype!"
- Vegeta, Dragon Ball Z, The Abridged Series

A few quick thoughts before you put pen to paper.

First, remember the rule of fun. The goal is for everyone to enjoy themselves at the table. Whether you're playing an LE character or running an LE NPC as DM, you need to make sure that you're keeping yourself in check. Yes, Lawful Evil has the potential to be the most awesome thing in the room at any given moment. Nonetheless, restrain yourself. Don't hog the spotlight - it will come to you naturally, at the best possible times. If you play your character well, with charm and subtlety, the handful of times you decided to stand out will be among the most memorable moments of the campaign.

On a related point, and I mentioned this earlier, don't be a dingus. Evil is tempting. There's a natural inclination to wave off any misbehavior as "Well, my character is Evil." Hold yourself to a higher standard than that. I don't mean your character, I mean you. Police your character's behavior. Yes, your character should behave in a suitably Evil fashion, but there are lines. Don't cross the other PCs, unless it's that type of game. Don't do things that you know will make things harder for everyone, unless you have a remarkably good reason. Leave the lunatic murderhobos to the people who put G on their character sheets.

Lastly, one area into which I haven't delved is that of actual character and personality. Although I've suggested some methods and motivations, there's really no such thing as a "Lawful Evil personality." Lawful Evil characters are people, like any other. They have their tendencies, but are hardly monolithic. Even the archetypes I proposed above are general concepts, mere suggestions; your character could embody one of them, combine several, or fall neatly into none at all. What's important is that you flesh out your character as a person. It's entirely possible that, once you've given life to your creation, LE isn't the best fit. That's fine. The key is that you create a whole, comprehensible, enjoyable person to play.

Lawful Evil is more than an alignment. It's an obligation. There have been so many amazing Lawful Evil characters, in various media and throughout history. When you create a Lawful Evil character, you're adding your own creative flourish to that legacy.

Make us proud.

[Red Fel]

X. Acknowledgements

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/dongerz/14442386/16048/16048_320.jpg

"Do you comprehend the triumph which you have contributed, the secret glory that it affords? Do you understand my shame at so inadequate a reward?"
Ozymandias, Watchmen

A few words of thanks to those I stepped on to get where I am today.

To Thealtruistorc and ThinkMinty, for starting this stupid trend, which resulted in me finally getting up off my evil throne to do this thing.
To everyone in Snowbluff's "GITP Regulars As" threads, for indulging my knack for the naughty.
To Seto, for encouraging me to clarify the Giles quote.
To Telonius, for the Bad Cop archetype, and the excellent Umbridge quote and image. You monster.
To T.G. Oskar, for helping me to clarify the Dark Knight archetype.
To ILM, for suggesting that I distinguish between the Zealot and a common CE radical.
To phlidwsn, for pointing out that The Dresden Files has more to offer than just the Fey.
I think this line's mostly filler.
And to you, for reading and commenting!

[Thealtruistorc]

I am feeling so much hype right now.

[Draconium]

*heavy breathing*

I can't wait to see this one when you've finished!

[AvatarVecna]

How dare you interrupt the Fel Lord when he's working?!

Oh wait, I'm doing the same thing. Oh yeah, I'm doing it because I'm in the midst of writing a Chaotic Neutral handbook, purely because of how nonsensical such a thing is.

Wild card, bitches! *hops on a five-wheeled moped and bounces away Pinkie-Pie style*

[Red Fel]

Sadly, you'll not be seeing any more work tonight. Red Fel needs sleep badly. But feel free to leave comments, suggestions, and things you'd want to see, and I'll see if I can squeeze them in when I'm slightly more conscious.

Adulation and offers of money, power, or undying loyalty will also be taken into consideration.

[torrasque666]

Sweet baby jesus. This will be my bible.

[Spore]

But feel free to leave comments, suggestions, and things you'd want to see

I'm not sure what your "methods" section aims at but I would love for it to contain some general easy-to-use pointers to start own character's plans. And maybe some heads up on how to create and stay in a standard "good" party that furthers your goals and wouldn't dare to hamper you.

[Vhaidara]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4a889v2yw1qiz4ulo1_500.jpg
https://33.media.tumblr.com/52c856c1d2fae7c0dbfc7056c5bb9bd4/tumblr_mnow12iLCA1rng0f3o1_400.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaqV9vVP2Yc
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/steven-universe/images/1/11/Hype_hype_hype_hype_https_falloutbethsoftcom_it_s_ happening_the_end_times_are_d1ffdf_5565755.gif/revision/latest?cb=20150620191516

[Svata]

Sadly, you'll not be seeing any more work tonight. Red Fel needs sleep badly. But feel free to leave comments, suggestions, and things you'd want to see, and I'll see if I can squeeze them in when I'm slightly more conscious.

Adulation and offers of money, power, or undying loyalty will also be taken into consideration.

I've got a spare soul to sell. What can I get for it?

[OPG]

I don't know where this will lead, except to glory. I'm not certain I'll comply with it all (my only Lawful Evil character was Chaotic Good), but I'm quite glad this exists.

[Dondasch]

The next person to repeat one of these rumors will be summarily executed.


For the sake of sticking one in the face of Evil: Red Fel probablyalmost certainly is an Avatar of Asmodeus.


Also, I feel the need to point out that WotC's parenthetical asides about Lawful Evil getting around its own rules by methods such as "having underlings slaughter the children" is pretty far from what Lawful Evil is like, at least from what I've seen. You do seem to cover this with 2. Rules though, so points for you there.

[FrancisBean]

I think I'm already having an evilgasm. This is the guide I've been looking for, and right now it's only a planted seed. May the ground be well watered with the blood of those not worthy. I offer my service, dread Lord.

[tadkins]

I am ready for all the cool Lawful Evil info to come this way.

Ready to defend myself with a Chaotic-aligned weapon, if necessary!

[Malroth]

Kyubey, and Xanatos and Leckter and Ventinari all serving as Archetype examples.... This is going to be so awesome.

[tadkins]

Yup, if Xanatos doesn't get mentioned I'm going to be very disappointed. xD

[DarkSonic1337]

So how much of this guide is going to be purple? :smallcool:

[Ellowryn]

Yup, if Xanatos doesn't get mentioned I'm going to be very disappointed. xD

God i feel so old, and outdated, just by realizing that i know who that is and that im happy that other people do too.

That said, i too look forward to the completion of this. My 2c though? Snidely Whiplash isnt really LE, he is a CE that thinks he is LE.

[Seto]

Whooohoo, this is promising ! (and the Giles quote alone makes my day. But do you actually slap a LE tag on him ?) I've never actually played a LE character, but this is a good place to start.
In the wake of the three existing Handbooks, I'll probably try my hand at True Neutral. But now I gotta find a Camus quote for that, too.

[Eno Remnant]

And on the eve of an evil campaign, Eno did look unto the forums, and saw there a guide to playing Lawful Evil.

Having clicked upon the title--his curiosity piqued, his needs potentially met--and having allowed the page to load, he did tremble in the utter anticipation and terror any mortal must feel,

Must feel when the Crimson Lord speaks unto the world.

(Basically: hype. All of the hype. Looking forward to seeing this done)

[zergling.exe]

adulation and offers of money, power, or undying loyalty will also be taken into consideration.
WORSHIP HIM!

WORSHIP HIM!

Side-note to the worship, you said dark knight instead of dragon at the end of the dragon's description. The part about switching alignment.

[Vhaidara]

So, I may have just had an evilgasm at work reading those archetypes. You really did nail all of them, with fantastic media examples (and I even knew most of them)

[Red Fel]

Whooohoo, this is promising ! (and the Giles quote alone makes my day. But do you actually slap a LE tag on him ?)

Well, let me clarify this one. I'm not saying that Giles is LE. In fact, I'd ordinarily consider him CG-NG. Rather, I'm using this particular moment of Giles to illustrate LE. This moment illustrates the Dark Knight mentality - willing to do Evil things for an overwhelming cause or loyalty.

I'll try to clarify that in the text when I get back to do more editing.

Yes, there is more to come.

[Strigon]

I always knew this day would come, but it's finally here... I just can't believe it!

Now I want to do one of these for LG; honestly, they need some love.
People need to learn that it doesn't always mean being a self-righteous lecturer, dagnabit!

[Telonius]

I'd suggest another archetype:


The Bad Cop

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090531102101/harrypotter/images/5/5a/Dolores_Umbridge.PNG

Oh, you won't need any ink.
- Dolores Umbridge

Bad Cops are very much interested in law and hierarchy, because it grants them the protection and license they need to hurt people. Their targets might be a particular group, or they might just enjoy dealing out pain generally. Despite the name, these people are not necessarily employed as police. You'll find them employed running the king's torture chambers, enforcing contracts a bit too vigorously, and even running local educational institutions.

Superficially, the Bad Cop seems to have a lot in common with the Bureaucrat. The big difference is in the emphasis. While the Bureaucrat is LE with an emphasis on L, the Bad Cop is LE with an emphasis on E. A Bureaucrat might take no particular pleasure in disemboweling a captured prisoner. For a Bad Cop, that was the reason he took the job in the first place. Done poorly, a Bad Cop will devolve into The Cartoon. Done well, a Bad Cop's evil will be visceral, intensely personal, immediately recognized ... and backed by the full force of society and law.

[PsyBomb]

Let me second Telonius's archetype suggestion. Dolores Umbridge is one of the most hatred-inducing LE characters ever written, and goes into territory that should have its own archetype.

[Red Fel]

I'd suggest another archetype:


The Bad Cop

Actually, the Bad Cop is in many ways an aspect of the Prince - an abuser of power. I suppose I could modify the Prince accordingly.

Also, disgustingly good choice with respect to Umbridge. My hat is off. I really ought to find a place to fit her in. I might even use her as the Prince.

[Telonius]

Thinking about it, yeah, I suppose the big difference is in terms of scale and ambition. When I think of a Prince, I think of inflicting evil on a wider domain. They want to be top of the hierarchy. For a Bad Cop, they're not trying to be the Commissioner necessarily; they just want to be able to do their thing on a more local scale.

[Red Fel]

Thinking about it, yeah, I suppose the big difference is in terms of scale and ambition. When I think of a Prince, I think of inflicting evil on a wider domain. They want to be top of the hierarchy. For a Bad Cop, they're not trying to be the Commissioner necessarily; they just want to be able to do their thing on a more local scale.

Well, I did decide to add the Bad Cop as a separate archetype. The distinction for me is that the Prince is a leader, whereas the Bad Cop may not be. Both are prone to abuses of power, though, so I noted the relation. I made some adjustments, but on the whole, I lifted most of what you said. Enjoy!

I'll keep working on this over the next arbitrary interval of time, so do keep checking in for more updates.

[Geddy2112]

"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."
- Albert Camus
chaotic, brutish, nasty... And short.


Well played with both Camus and Hobbes, particularly to justify lawful evil.

I like how you have examples of "good" lawful evil (dark knight) cool lawful evil (dragon) and then utterly want to strange lawful evil (bad cop/Scumbridge).

[Red Fel]

Well played with both Camus and Hobbes, particularly to justify lawful evil.

Hobbes' Leviathan is actually a perfect illustration of Lawful Evil, inasmuch as his philosophy basically espouses the idea that absolute authority - even in the hands of a tyrant - is vastly superior to the inevitable anarchic alternative.

Camus I just stuck in there because quoting him is apparently obligatory in these guides.


I like how you have examples of "good" lawful evil (dark knight) cool lawful evil (dragon) and then utterly want to strange lawful evil (bad cop/Scumbridge).

That's part of the goal. It's not hard to come up with ways for Evil to be a bad guy - I mean, that's almost the definition. So I don't need to try too hard there. Rather, the challenge is making it relatable, so that someone playing an LE character or NPC can wrap his or her mind around how the character works and thinks. That's part of why I tried to give each of the archetypes some kind of understandable virtue (conveniently indicated in bold), something that constitutes, if not a redeeming quality, at least a humanizing one.

But yes. LE can totally run the spectrum. LE characters can work alongside the noblest heroes, they can be the flashiest villains and the most horrific monsters. I really want to communicate the sheer breadth of the alignment, because it's very easy for any alignment - not just the Evil ones - to be pigeonholed into one particular role or character. And there's so much more than that to LE.

[FocusWolf413]

Thank you for this. This was beautiful. All hail the Serpent of War.

I recently came into possession of a soul that was grown in a body that belongs to me. Can I trade it for something?

[ILM]

The Prince and Bad Cop share their cruelty and pleasure at hurting others. For the former, the Lawful aspect is expressed by the facts he works in a hierarchy with him at the top; the latter is Lawful because he's supported by rules held up by others, and they serve him well. They do seem similar to me; I feel that if you relaxed the leadership requirement of the Prince you could merge them if you wanted.

Generally, it seems that a lot of archetypes can be classified along the following aspects:
- how high is he in the food chain? (leader or soldier?)
- does he obey an external set of rules, or is he driven by his own self or code? (external or internal code?)
- does he hurt others out of sole necessity, or because he enjoys it? (reluctant or gleeful?)

I almost proposed the Mobster as an archetype. Fiercely loyal to those he considers his own (whether his superiors or underlings, or entirely independently of all hierarchical structure), committed to certain goals, with a strong sense of continuity in his own actions (i.e. similar circumstances would elicit similar reactions, whether due to a strict code or just character), and willing to step on others if that's what it takes - but not really out to hurt others, and in fact quite capable of helping people if it helps his own designs (though not if he has nothing to gain from it). Ultimately, I decided the Dark Knight kind of encompassed this.

[Seiji]

This is tremendous. A friend of mine just tried slipping a Lawful Evil character into our campaign after a TPK, but he kind of slipped up in his execution. I will definitely be pointing him to this. Red Fel, by the way, you are my favorite contributor to these forums and I bookmark almost every post you add to. :smallsmile: They are never bad. Well, I mean they are usually bad, but good bad. I mean...you're good at being bad.

[Segev]

I fear that the Zealot is not actually an LE archetype. It isn't Lawful. Yes, it has an all-consuming ideal, for which it will sacrifice everything...but that "everything" includes any principles or ethics. The Zealot will willingly violate the tenets of his own ideal in its name, recognizing that the world he builds to embody it has no place for him - but it's worth it.

The Zealot is NE. Too driven by an ideal to have the freedom of CE, but too willing to throw all out in the name of his Cause to be LE. By the time he's got enough of an organization and backing devoted to his Ideal for him to be LE, he's really stepped into Dragon or Dark Knight territory.

Kyu-bei is not a Zealot, anyway; by your categorization system, he's Alien.


Otherwise, good work. :)

[BowStreetRunner]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C.S. Lewis

For me, the WHY is the most imporant distinguishing characteristic between Lawful Evil archetypes. We are discussing alignment after all, where intentions matter easily as much or more than actions. Their methodologies are certainly significant, but I would put far more emphasis on the motivations in each of the archetypes.

There is actually a page on the DnD Wiki relating to Kinds of Tyrants (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Kinds_of_Tyrants_(DnD_Other)) that touches on this a bit more with the archetypes it proposes.

[Red Fel]

I fear that the Zealot is not actually an LE archetype. It isn't Lawful. Yes, it has an all-consuming ideal, for which it will sacrifice everything...but that "everything" includes any principles or ethics. The Zealot will willingly violate the tenets of his own ideal in its name, recognizing that the world he builds to embody it has no place for him - but it's worth it.

The Zealot is NE. Too driven by an ideal to have the freedom of CE, but too willing to throw all out in the name of his Cause to be LE. By the time he's got enough of an organization and backing devoted to his Ideal for him to be LE, he's really stepped into Dragon or Dark Knight territory.

Kyu-bei is not a Zealot, anyway; by your categorization system, he's Alien.


Otherwise, good work. :)

This is a fair argument. The fact is, many of these archetypes are flexible alignment-wise. The Bureaucrat could be LN. The Bad Cop could be NE. The Zealot could be LN, NE, or even LG. There is wiggle room.

That said, I think where we differ is on our definitions of Lawful. You say that devotion to the cause would enable him to violate all other principles, meaning that he couldn't be Lawful. That's a fair position. My position, by contrast, is that devotion to the cause is his principle, the principle to which he adheres above all others. The idea of having a guiding principle from which you will never, ever deviate is a highly Lawful position, in my mind.

As for Kyubey, well, here's the spoiler.

It's not unfair to say that he's the Alien. His views are amoral and utilitarian, his logic cold and frightening. But here's why I call him the Zealot.

Kyubey's primary function is to stave off universal entropy. He does so by horrifying means - by taking the naive idealism of young girls and slowly breaking them until they become witches. He uses childhood innocence as an energy source. He does whatever it takes - enters into any contract, grants any wish - in order to stave off the end. That goal, staving off the heat death of the universe, is admirable. Saving all reality is a good thing. But the execution - and the ruthless and amoral mind required to perform it - is horrifying. Frankly, Kyubey's adorable willingness to traumatize, kill, and recycle these girls like plastic dolls is what makes him one of the most terrifying creatures on my list.
So, yeah, that's why I put him down as the Zealot. I suppose I could have put Javert there, but Kyubey is pretty much recognized as being sickeningly Evil.

[Suichimo]

This LITERALLY could not have come at a better time. I'm about to play a LE Duskblade who will eventually be a True Believer of Hextor.

As for examples, what about Makoto Shishio from Rurouni Kenshin?

[Segev]

This is a fair argument. The fact is, many of these archetypes are flexible alignment-wise. The Bureaucrat could be LN. The Bad Cop could be NE. The Zealot could be LN, NE, or even LG. There is wiggle room.

That said, I think where we differ is on our definitions of Lawful. You say that devotion to the cause would enable him to violate all other principles, meaning that he couldn't be Lawful. That's a fair position. My position, by contrast, is that devotion to the cause is his principle, the principle to which he adheres above all others. The idea of having a guiding principle from which you will never, ever deviate is a highly Lawful position, in my mind.That's the thing: lawful implies that there are lines you will not cross. The Zealot...will. All in the name of his cause. Generally speaking a Zealot's cause is not a rigid code; those are usually termed Knights Templar.


As for Kyubey, well, here's the spoiler.

It's not unfair to say that he's the Alien. His views are amoral and utilitarian, his logic cold and frightening. But here's why I call him the Zealot.

Kyubey's primary function is to stave off universal entropy. He does so by horrifying means - by taking the naive idealism of young girls and slowly breaking them until they become witches. He uses childhood innocence as an energy source. He does whatever it takes - enters into any contract, grants any wish - in order to stave off the end. That goal, staving off the heat death of the universe, is admirable. Saving all reality is a good thing. But the execution - and the ruthless and amoral mind required to perform it - is horrifying. Frankly, Kyubey's adorable willingness to traumatize, kill, and recycle these girls like plastic dolls is what makes him one of the most terrifying creatures on my list.
So, yeah, that's why I put him down as the Zealot. I suppose I could have put Javert there, but Kyubey is pretty much recognized as being sickeningly Evil.See, he follows the wish-contract rules even when it HINDERS his goals, when he was...perhaps out-smarted, perhaps merely out-wished. That's why he's Lawful. If he were a Zealot rather than an Alien, he'd have refused to contract with Madoka.

[Draconium]

That's the thing: lawful implies that there are lines you will not cross. The Zealot...will. All in the name of his cause. Generally speaking a Zealot's cause is not a rigid code; those are usually termed Knights Templar.

Really? I always saw "lines you would not cross" as a Good concept, not a Lawful one. That's what sets Good and Evil (for the sake of Good) apart. One will have lines they will not cross. The other is willing to cross those lines, and throw away their ownhumanity for the sake of a greater goal, even if it means commuting horrendous acts of evil.

At least, that's how I see it.

[BowStreetRunner]

Really? I always saw "lines you would not cross" as a Good concept, not a Lawful one. That's what sets Good and Evil (for the sake of Good) apart. One will have lines they will not cross. The other is willing to cross those lines, and throw away their ownhumanity for the sake of a greater goal, even if it means commuting horrendous acts of evil.

At least, that's how I see it.

So if the line is "I will not defy my government." and the government sends your military unit into an unguarded settlement to kill the women and children while their husbands are away fighting in the war, the good person will not defy their orders because it would cross that line?

There are lines between good and evil and their are lines between law and chaos. Willingness to cross lines is more a matter of the strength of your beliefs than a characteristic of any one alignment.

[Strigon]

Really? I always saw "lines you would not cross" as a Good concept, not a Lawful one. That's what sets Good and Evil (for the sake of Good) apart. One will have lines they will not cross. The other is willing to cross those lines, and throw away their ownhumanity for the sake of a greater goal, even if it means commuting horrendous acts of evil.

At least, that's how I see it.

There's a bit of an overlap, really.
A good person will simply not perform evil acts, period. They might do questionable things in service of a greater good, but according to D&D, things like random murder - even with the best intentions - make you Evil.

A lawful person will generally work within a certain range. Their work will be methodical, and everything will have an overarching theme. They're consistent.
They might have a personal code of some sort, but it won't necessarily match up with a good vs evil code; keeping your word, for example, is Lawful, not necessarily Good.

Lawful basically means you think there's a certain way things should be done, and you will behave accordingly. This doesn't have to be a "Good" way of doing things, or even necessarily logical, but it does have to be consistent. In extenuating circumstances, you very well could go against this personal belief, but only if it makes no sense not to; even then, you'd probably prefer not to.

Chaotic, on the other hand, is very moment-to-moment. They have a set of ideals, rather than rules, and they perform the action that furthers those ideals at any given point, whether or not that choice is similar to the ones they've made before.

TL;DR, it depends on which lines you are(n't) crossing.

[Draconium]

So if the line is "I will not defy my government." and the government sends your military unit into an unguarded settlement to kill the women and children while their husbands are away fighting in the war, the good person will not defy their orders because it would cross that line?

There are lines between good and evil and their are lines between law and chaos. Willingness to cross lines is more a matter of the strength of your beliefs than a characteristic of any one alignment.

That's true, it is a matter of your overall beliefs more than it is one of your alignment. However, the reason I see it as more of a "Good" concept is because those lines are often determined be your conscience - the little voice in your head that tells you what's right from wrong. Now, different people will have different ideas about right and wrong - someone who's Good will usually have different views on acts like killing than an Evil person, just as someone who's Lawful usually won't see eye-to-eye with a Chaotic person concerning matters of the government. Indeed, you can choose to utterly ignore what your conscience says if you wish. But in most stories and tales, the Good Guys will be the ones who have a stronger conscience,m regardless of any other aspects to their personality they may have.

This isn't always the case, of course, as you demonstrated above. It is entirely possible to have two different lines you think you'll never cross that come into conflict, and you must ultimately cross one, which will say a lot about how you view the world. I'll even concede it's a matter of more than any one aspect of your alignment. But I merely view it as I have seen it in stories I'm familiar with. My opinion is subject to change based on what I view in the future, but I was merely making an observation.

[Telonius]

Even Evil can have standards and lines they won't cross; I'd suspect that Lawful Evil has more of those, just because of the Lawful influence. Taking a quote from Gotham:


You have to understand I can forgive all kinds of betrayal and dishonesty. But my mother? How dare you use my sainted mother against me? That's wrong! You'll suffer for that.

[Flickerdart]

This thread needs more Magneto and Ozymandias (both probably falling under Zealot).

[Frosty]

I love what you have done here. I am currently playing a dark knight in Way of the Wicked campaign, fighting against the oppressive Mitran church but willing to kill innocent civilians in the process. He hates it, by he accepts it as necessary.

He is going to have conflicts with other characters in the end game since some of them have nich more emphasis on the E than the L and genuinely enjoy hurting others.

[Gabrosin]

Really loving this series. Thanks for taking the time to put them together!

[hamishspence]

I could see The Punisher fitting somewhere between Dark Knight and Zealot - going by TV Tropes descriptions.

But, on the other hand, the CE Handbook's "Radical" archetype could also apply.

[BowStreetRunner]

Hypothetical: How would you classify Gandalf and Galadriel if either had taken the One Ring?

Gandalf: "I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine. "

Galadriel: "In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair!"

[hamishspence]

Gandalf: "I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine. "

In Tolkien's Letters:

Letter #246:


"Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained ’righteous’, but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for ’good’, and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great)."

In the margin of the draft:

"thus while Sauron multiplied {illegible word} evil, he left ’good’ clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil".

[Red Fel]

Hypothetical: How would you classify Gandalf and Galadriel if either had taken the One Ring?

Gandalf: "I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine. "

Galadriel: "In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair!"

With how the Ring corrupts? Probably the Prince, rapidly approaching the Alien. They would start by using the Ring to unite people under one banner. A noble aim. But the ring corrupts all things towards darkness. What was once a gentle sense of unity and direction would become a benevolent dictatorship. What became a benevolent dictatorship would become a brutal tyranny. And as the mind of the wielder slipped further into darkness and madness, what remained would be a terrifying, nigh-omnipotent autocrat whose twisted desire to save, protect, and console the scattered and shattered people of Middle Earth would ultimately result in their ruination.


This thread needs more Magneto and Ozymandias (both probably falling under Zealot).

Go check again.

[Flickerdart]

Go check again.
Movie Magneto? It's like you did it just to spite me. :smalltongue:

[Red Fel]

Movie Magneto? It's like you did it just to spite me. :smalltongue:

Don't get me wrong. I love comic book Magneto. Not so much when they did the whole "Joseph" thing, or whatever he called himself. But I really love the character in the comics.

But Sir Ian is awesome. Absolutely awesome. And that quote, if memory serves, is a movie quote. So I'm going to give credit there.

As for Ozy... Well, Xanatos pretty much has that nailed down. Both are hyper-rational genius-guys with elaborate plans that boil down to "Heads I win, tails you lose," both have snark and style, but the difference is that I saw David Xanatos on my television set as a child, and since I'm writing the guide, my nostalgia wins.

[Segev]

Ozy really didn't pull off a Xanatos Gambit; he pulled off a Batman Gambit. Still abhorrently evil, and his intricate and careful planning does lean him towards Lawful, however.

[FocusWolf413]

Would Wrath from FMAB fall under The Prince, The Dragon, or The Zealot?

[Segev]

Would Wrath from FMAB fall under The Prince, The Dragon, or The Zealot?

I take it Brotherhood's Wrath is a very different character from the one in the original anime? (Yes, I know Brotherhood is more faithful to the manga.)

[Suichimo]

I take it Brotherhood's Wrath is a very different character from the one in the original anime? (Yes, I know Brotherhood is more faithful to the manga.)

EXTREMELY. I won't ruin it here, I'll pm it if you want though.

[FocusWolf413]

I take it Brotherhood's Wrath is a very different character from the one in the original anime? (Yes, I know Brotherhood is more faithful to the manga.)

I've never actually seen the original anime. I just remember really liking Brotherhood.

[Segev]

EXTREMELY. I won't ruin it here, I'll pm it if you want though.
Nah, I mean to see it myself, eventually.

Makes me a little sad, though. Wrath in the original anime was one of my favorite characters.

[Suichimo]

Nah, I mean to see it myself, eventually.

Makes me a little sad, though. Wrath in the original anime was one of my favorite characters.

Then I'll just say he is crazy awesome in Brotherhood.

[T.G. Oskar]

Fel, take this with a grain of salt as I attempt to remain strongly on the side of Lawful Good, but I have some qualms about the description of the Dark Knight. In particular...


The Dark Knight is one of the most playable LE character concepts. His principle virtue is his comradery, for there is no truer friend than the one who would literally go to Hell for you. And that's precisely who the Dark Knight is - a person who, in pursuit of the loftiest ideals, is willing to plunge into the depths of immorality. His principles are what separates him from the monsters, and as such, he is LE with an emphasis on the L. He may be willing to get his hands dirty, but he won't cross certain lines.

Dark Knights are a wonderful choice in a party, even a party of Good characters, because they tend to put others before themselves. One would think this a fairly un-LE trait, but arbitrary alignment being what it is, it works. To make such a character even more compelling, consider making him a gentle soul, inwardly mourning each step he feels he must take to protect that about which he cares.

The bold parts are where I have the qualms, and particularly the last bold. See: I can understand the Zealot being LE, because that's the way the Knight Templar works, but the Dark Knight can't be considered Evil just by that description. You make a really good argument for someone who's Neutral, to be honest - and that's probably a flaw, because for all your focus on how someone Evil behaves, it doesn't really make much sense for the Dark Knight to be considered LE when it's closer to LN or even LG.

Let's go by the points. A Dark Knight may pursue power to withhold his ideals, but doesn't make that the focus of its existence. The way you present it, the Dark Knight may feel that, in order to protect what s/he cares for the most, it needs power; it pursues power as a means, not as an end, and for someone who cares about the ends and not about the means (which is, really, what you're distilling the Dark Knight in the end), it creates a conflict, but doesn't provide definition to its alignment. A Dark Knight probably won't care about the rules - quite the contrary, if rules are against what he cares for, he'll probably break them. That doesn't make him entirely Evil; heck, it doesn't even make him Lawful! Perhaps, and this is a mistake of people who see Lawful as "follows the rules", you're perceiving the Dark Knight as someone disciplined, which often leads to incline towards following the rules. Finally - a Dark Knight, if it puts others before themselves, cares little about respect: it cares about respect for those he appreciates, but not for the respect of others.

Let's go by motivations - of the six motivations you have, only Loyalty (something mostly Lawful, not necessarily Good or Evil), Love (which you actually claim that is unusual, but quite possible) and Duty (something that's also, as you mentioned, mostly Lawful; not necessarily Good or Evil). There's too little to speak about the methods.

I understand where you're getting into, but trust me - the Dark Knight is too poor a LE archetype. In order to make it work, the Dark Knight needs ONE little thing to distinguish it from a Knight in Sour Armor or a Knight Templar, and that is satisfaction. The Knight in Sour Armor knows that doing the right thing will cause a lot of conflict and problems, but does it because he feels it's the right way; that is satisfaction aligned towards Good. A Knight Templar, which is closer to a Zealot than a Dark Knight, is VERY goal-oriented. The Dark Knight, thus, in order to be clearly LE, must have a degree of satisfaction for the methods in order to be clearly LE. See - it's not the same to have someone brutally interrogate a subject in order to save a town, than to have a sadist do the same. The first shows restraint - once the information is subtracted from the individual, it stops, and on its solitude, it may or may not show remorse, but it certainly doesn't show satisfaction. The sadist, on the other hand, feels satisfaction, and eventually goes over and beyond in order to satisfy itself further.

This is, in the end, what I feel is your problem with this archetype - you emphasize its restraint, and you explain it better with other people. I feel you want to explain the Noble Demon trope, which almost always overlaps with Dragon or Zealot - and more often than not, the Noble Demon ends up redeeming (which is why he works so nicely with Good people; he's one inch closer to alignment change). For a Dark Knight to be truly LE, he must have one of three things: first, loyalty to a cause that invites a "ends before the means" philosophy; second, satisfaction in the means selected to achieve the end; third, temperance to know when to hold over. The Dark Knight, or the Noble Demon, has no qualms to hinder or help the heroes, if in the end it ends up helping the cause; however, when the character does its job, it shows no remorse. It can be polite and friendly, but when the LG Paladin questions him about the means, the Dark Knight/Noble Demon gives a very convincing reason why...at least for him/her. The Dark Knight/Noble Demon is what happens when you fight the monsters, but still hold a tether towards good - you can't help but enjoy doing your job, no matter how malicious, but you are capable of holding your own leash. And, when the best course of action is staying your blade and showing mercy, or doing something that's more Good than Evil (including giving your own life), you do it without question - it's the most efficient way of achieving the goal, after all.

Here's a last tidbit to ponder about: when the Dark Knight has a conflict of loyalties, which will be the side it'll choose? The response will tell you if the archetype is more Good, Evil or Neutral.

P.S.: Something I realized just now - you want a textbook example of what I perceive is the "Dark Knight" archetype? Look no further than Saiyan [Saiya-jin] Prince Vegeta. He lusts for power, has an enormous desire to control, has a sharp tongue, enjoys causing deliberate pain when on the upper hand, demands everyone's respect, and fights to prove Saiyan supremacy over others...but holds begrudging respect for Goku (as long as Goku is strong) and is willing to cooperate with others if the need arises. He has a drive to excel that makes him Lawful (if bordering on Neutral), but his desire for power and his brutality firmly steps him on Evil territory.

[Frosty]

Oskar, I have to disagree with you. Enjoyment of doing evil things is not a prerequisite to the evil alignment, although it he enjoyment does make someone MORE evil, in my opinion.

As an example, let me tell you more about my character in a Way of the wicked campaign. It is, of course, an evil campaign.

(As a quick background note, the "good" church of Mitra (or at least it's mortal worshippers on the island of Talingarde where the campaign takes place) that you are fighting against acts horribly ethnocentric, treats other religions like dirt, is a bit racist, and once falsely blamed another religion of using witchcraft in order to cover up the crazy actions of the previous king. A pogrom/inquisition followed, and the followers of that religion were rounded up and burned at the stake.)

My character began the campaign on Death row for speaking it against the pogrom (heresy, in effect), and hated everything Mitra stood for. For the first third of the campaign he was mainly motivated by revenge. But, as it got to the halfway point, he realized more and more that most of the people of Talingardr aren't evil, but rather they have been brainwashed by the evil mortal leaders of the church and he government (who absolutely support each other). His motivations change from revenge to taking power so that he can he fix the problems of Talingarde and be a benevolent overlord. However, toppling the current government isn't easy. As part of the war against the current government, my character went along with a plan (even though he really didn't want to, and regrets his decision more and more) to find and release the equivalent of magical bubonic plague that can't be cured naturally into the populace. He went along at the time because he thought it was necessary at the time and also because he isn't strong enough to go against their employer, a high level lich.

Despite he fact that my character only uses minimum force, and tries to spare as many civilians as he can when killing them is not a part of the plan, he went along and killed thousands of people using bio-terrorism. Despite how he feels he is fighting against an evil tyrannical government, he is still slaughtering innocents (even if he hates the idea himself). To him, the ends justify the means, even if he plans on making up for it later by implementing the most progressive policies (religious freedom, reconciliation with the barbarians tribes that he current government mistreats, etc).

the willingness to hurt innocents, not the enjoyment, is what makes him ping Evil, even if he is less evil than the rest of the party.

[FocusWolf413]

Vladimir Putin should have a subsection all of his own, as he's the closest thing to a real supervillain.

He's ex-KGB, a world class judo black belt, has a tiny personal stealth submarine AND stealth jet, and semi-regularly hunts tigers and bears. His political enemies keep getting poisoned or assassinated. He controls thousands of nukes. He made Putin memes illegal.

[Vhaidara]

Vladimir Putin should have a subsection all of his own, as he's the closest thing to a real supervillain.

I think that might tread into discussion of IRL politics.


He made Putin memes illegal.

I find this far funnier than I probably should.

[FocusWolf413]

I'll edit it so it's blue. It was tongue in cheek.

Edit: done

[kalasulmar]

Here's what I use as a reference point for my version of the Dark Knight:


A Few Good Men*(1992)

Judge Randolph: *Consider yourself in Contempt!*

Kaffee: *Colonel Jessep, did you order the Code Red?*

Judge Randolph: You *don't* have to answer that question!

Col. Jessep: I'll answer the question!

[to Kaffee]

Col. Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to.

Col. Jessep: *You want answers?*

Kaffee: *I want the truth!*

Col. Jessep: *You can't handle the truth!*

[pauses]

Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

[Strigon]

Snip

Under D&D alignment, anyone who regularly performs Evil acts is Evil. Doesn't matter how they did it, why they did it, or who they were doing it for, they're evil. Now, there's certainly an argument to be made that he could be good, but he can't be Good. In that I mean, the world is better with him than without, but he's still considered to be Evil under D&D's alignment system.
You don't have to enjoy what you're doing, but as long as you do it, you are Big-E-Evil.

Which, for me, makes it all the more compelling; you can have a character who is so dedicated to doing the right thing that he willingly becomes Evil - and we all know what that means in D&D.

[Red Fel]

The bold parts are where I have the qualms, and particularly the last bold. See: I can understand the Zealot being LE, because that's the way the Knight Templar works, but the Dark Knight can't be considered Evil just by that description. You make a really good argument for someone who's Neutral, to be honest - and that's probably a flaw, because for all your focus on how someone Evil behaves, it doesn't really make much sense for the Dark Knight to be considered LE when it's closer to LN or even LG.

This is actually a fair position. The character is decidedly non-Good, but whether he's Evil or Neutral is in question.

First of all, though, as Frosty and Strigon point out - and as I note in the language you quoted - arbitrary alignment is arbitrary. Under the rules, a person who regularly engages in Evil acts cannot be Good. Further, one who regularly engages in Evil acts as a first resort is decidedly Evil, even if he does so for the best possible reasons. It's part of what makes the archetype both noble and tragic.


Let's go by the points. A Dark Knight may pursue power to withhold his ideals, but doesn't make that the focus of its existence. The way you present it, the Dark Knight may feel that, in order to protect what s/he cares for the most, it needs power; it pursues power as a means, not as an end, and for someone who cares about the ends and not about the means (which is, really, what you're distilling the Dark Knight in the end), it creates a conflict, but doesn't provide definition to its alignment. A Dark Knight probably won't care about the rules - quite the contrary, if rules are against what he cares for, he'll probably break them. That doesn't make him entirely Evil; heck, it doesn't even make him Lawful! Perhaps, and this is a mistake of people who see Lawful as "follows the rules", you're perceiving the Dark Knight as someone disciplined, which often leads to incline towards following the rules. Finally - a Dark Knight, if it puts others before themselves, cares little about respect: it cares about respect for those he appreciates, but not for the respect of others.

It depends on how you define "the rules." Here, "the rule" is loyalty and service to the people or things that matter, and an uncompromising adherence to that principle. Part of why I chose the name Dark Knight, for the record, is in reference to the definitive Dark Knight, Batman. (No, not Leon or Cecil, Batman.) Let's not forget that what separates Batman from his rogues' gallery - in fact, arguably the only thing that separates him from them - is that Batman Has Rules. Yes, one of them is to follow the law of the land (albeit to a certain degree; in other ways he completely ignores the law), but others are things like protecting the weak and never killing. He tells himself that any depths to which he might sink - breaking and entering, stalking, manipulating, lying, even traumatizing those who care about him - is worth it to achieve his goals, so long as he keeps his rules. That's the Lawful component about which I'm speaking.


Let's go by motivations - of the six motivations you have, only Loyalty (something mostly Lawful, not necessarily Good or Evil), Love (which you actually claim that is unusual, but quite possible) and Duty (something that's also, as you mentioned, mostly Lawful; not necessarily Good or Evil). There's too little to speak about the methods.

Yeah, I'm working on that.


I understand where you're getting into, but trust me - the Dark Knight is too poor a LE archetype. In order to make it work, the Dark Knight needs ONE little thing to distinguish it from a Knight in Sour Armor or a Knight Templar, and that is satisfaction. The Knight in Sour Armor knows that doing the right thing will cause a lot of conflict and problems, but does it because he feels it's the right way; that is satisfaction aligned towards Good. A Knight Templar, which is closer to a Zealot than a Dark Knight, is VERY goal-oriented. The Dark Knight, thus, in order to be clearly LE, must have a degree of satisfaction for the methods in order to be clearly LE. See - it's not the same to have someone brutally interrogate a subject in order to save a town, than to have a sadist do the same. The first shows restraint - once the information is subtracted from the individual, it stops, and on its solitude, it may or may not show remorse, but it certainly doesn't show satisfaction. The sadist, on the other hand, feels satisfaction, and eventually goes over and beyond in order to satisfy itself further.

This is actually a very good point, and I've been trying to figure out what I can do about it since I read it. (Evil Overlord Rule #17: When I employ people as advisors, I will occasionally listen to their advice.) There is, I think, a line, generally delineated by arbitrary morality. That said, I think I can make a distinction for those who are just a bit too ready to look into the abyss in order to serve their cause. I think I can do that.


This is, in the end, what I feel is your problem with this archetype - you emphasize its restraint, and you explain it better with other people. I feel you want to explain the Noble Demon trope, which almost always overlaps with Dragon or Zealot - and more often than not, the Noble Demon ends up redeeming (which is why he works so nicely with Good people; he's one inch closer to alignment change). For a Dark Knight to be truly LE, he must have one of three things: first, loyalty to a cause that invites a "ends before the means" philosophy; second, satisfaction in the means selected to achieve the end; third, temperance to know when to hold over. The Dark Knight, or the Noble Demon, has no qualms to hinder or help the heroes, if in the end it ends up helping the cause; however, when the character does its job, it shows no remorse. It can be polite and friendly, but when the LG Paladin questions him about the means, the Dark Knight/Noble Demon gives a very convincing reason why...at least for him/her. The Dark Knight/Noble Demon is what happens when you fight the monsters, but still hold a tether towards good - you can't help but enjoy doing your job, no matter how malicious, but you are capable of holding your own leash. And, when the best course of action is staying your blade and showing mercy, or doing something that's more Good than Evil (including giving your own life), you do it without question - it's the most efficient way of achieving the goal, after all.

I do actually want to explain the Noble Demon. I think that's where I was going with that. And now that I realize it, I think I can better clarify my point.


P.S.: Something I realized just now - you want a textbook example of what I perceive is the "Dark Knight" archetype? Look no further than Saiyan [Saiya-jin] Prince Vegeta. He lusts for power, has an enormous desire to control, has a sharp tongue, enjoys causing deliberate pain when on the upper hand, demands everyone's respect, and fights to prove Saiyan supremacy over others...but holds begrudging respect for Goku (as long as Goku is strong) and is willing to cooperate with others if the need arises. He has a drive to excel that makes him Lawful (if bordering on Neutral), but his desire for power and his brutality firmly steps him on Evil territory.

I've actually mentioned Vegeta in the section on Arrogance. I never really considered him Lawful, though. His tendency to fly into a rage, lash out at everything and everyone, and even resort to tricks and short cuts (see e.g. Majin Vegeta) to become more powerful, all together he's generally struck me as far more Chaotic. Everyone in DBZ has a drive to excel; they all train like animals, and I hardly think they all qualify as Lawful.

I'm thinking of trying to find a Vegeta quote to stick in there someplace, though. Or maybe Hiei instead. Hiei was pretty Evil.

I'm also considering swapping Mab out for Jareth. Same premise, possibly more recognizable character. Thoughts?

[Vhaidara]

I'm also considering swapping Mab out for Jareth. Same premise, possibly more recognizable character. Thoughts?

Please no. I saw the picture, went "Mab", and immediately understood the archetype.

[Blackhawk748]

Please no. I saw the picture, went "Mab", and immediately understood the archetype.

I read "Mab" and went "Oh god"

Btw this is as lovely as i thought it would be.

[Frosty]

This is actually a fair position. The character is decidedly non-Good, but whether he's Evil or Neutral is in question.

First of all, though, as Frosty and Strigon point out - and as I note in the language you quoted - arbitrary alignment is arbitrary. Under the rules, a person who regularly engages in Evil acts cannot be Good. Further, one who regularly engages in Evil acts as a first resort is decidedly Evil, even if he does so for the best possible reasons.
My charactet doesn't even go to evil as the first option. He almost refused to fight the boss of the halfway point of the campaign (an advanced angel) because threat angel and the group he leads were not responsible for any of the crap that my character hates the church for. There was a peaceful solution, but he was outvoted by the rest of the party and in the end he decided not to betray the group and fought the Angel (betraying the group means the lich boss would do Bad Things to him. He was afraid of that.).

But despite this, he is still evil because he is doing evil deeds.

[Threadnaught]

X. Acknowledgements

A few words of thanks to those I stepped on to get where I am today.

To Thealtruistorc and ThinkMinty, for starting this stupid trend, which resulted in me finally getting up off my evil throne to do this thing.
To everyone in Snowbluff's "GITP Regulars As" threads, for indulging my knack for the naughty.
To Seto, for encouraging me to clarify the Giles quote.
To Telonius, for the Bad Cop archetype, and the excellent Umbridge quote and image. You monster.
I think this line's mostly filler.
And to you, for reading and commenting!
Comments are open now, but the guide is tragically incomplete. Consider it, like the study of alignment itself, a work in progress. Don't worry; you can look forward to more very, very soon.

You're Evil?

I have a hard enough time believing you're Lawful.

[legomaster00156]

How exactly would villains with deep personal codes of honor work into these archetypes?

[Vhaidara]

How exactly would villains with deep personal codes of honor work into these archetypes?

Zealot seems to be the answer here, but that's the archetype I understand least, so I'm ignoring it

I'd say Prince, Rival, possibly Bureaucrat or Executive, and, on a technicality, Alien (technicality for Alien being that it isn't chosen but simply part of them). Cartoon could also be a technicality (the code of exposing your plan, being really obvious, and never being efficient when killing people)

Dark Knight slaps that idea in the face, Dragon will do as ordered (so technically it could work if sheer obedience is the core of the code), and Bad Cop just uses the rules as an excuse

[Red Fel]

Zealot seems to be the answer here, but that's the archetype I understand least, so I'm ignoring it

I'd say Prince, Rival, possibly Bureaucrat or Executive, and, on a technicality, Alien (technicality for Alien being that it isn't chosen but simply part of them). Cartoon could also be a technicality (the code of exposing your plan, being really obvious, and never being efficient when killing people)

Dark Knight slaps that idea in the face, Dragon will do as ordered (so technically it could work if sheer obedience is the core of the code), and Bad Cop just uses the rules as an excuse

I'd actually say Zealot, Bureaucrat, Prince, or Dragon, yeah. Bureaucrats in particular operate based on a sense of duty or responsibility, which is fairly close to honor. Dragons are known for having a code of honor, although it's not a job requirement.

Keep in mind that certain traits, such as "deep code of honor" or "ingrained sense of superiority" or "appreciation for formal attire" are personality traits, somewhat independent of the archetype. Obviously, some such as Bad Cop, don't work as well with a sense of honor; their Lawfulness comes from adhering to Lawful structure (e.g. order, hierarchy) and employing it to their benefit, not from an inner sense of honor. But for others, you could play them in a deeply honorable fashion.

[ColossusCrusher]

Just wondering why there's no entry for how LE relates to other LE. Every supervillain mastermind needs subordinate managers who follow the same philosophy. That they can be obfuscated behind layers of bureaucratic nonsense to the point that the "heroes" think they've defeated the ultimate villain is just a bonus.

[Red Fel]

Just wondering why there's no entry for how LE relates to other LE. Every supervillain mastermind needs subordinate managers who follow the same philosophy. That they can be obfuscated behind layers of bureaucratic nonsense to the point that the "heroes" think they've defeated the ultimate villain is just a bonus.

That is an extremely good point, and an oversight on my part which will shortly be rectified.

[ColossusCrusher]

That is an extremely good point, and an oversight on my part which will shortly be rectified.

Excellent. Soon nobody will be able to stop us.

LE is my favorite alignment too. Glad I could help. ^_^

[Red Fel]

Excellent. Soon nobody will be able to stop us.

LE is my favorite alignment too. Glad I could help. ^_^

Your compliance will be rewarded.
Say, that sounds familiar...

[Malroth]

This LITERALLY could not have come at a better time. I'm about to play a LE Duskblade who will eventually be a True Believer of Hextor.

As for examples, what about Makoto Shishio from Rurouni Kenshin?

Shishio is more of an example of The "Radical" or "Broken" archetypes from the CE handbook than any of the LE examples given here.

[Sayt]

This thread reminds me of the time I got to play a Lawful Evil character (It's usually my meta-role to put some weight on the other end of the see-saw in my group), in a Kingmaker style game. We were getting protests over our intensive mining policies. So we rounded up the ringleaders, and made sure they were in the mine when we caved it in. We didn't get any more protests after that.

So I think perhaps Cruelty and Fear might need some distinction, perhaps. Cruelty isn't useful, in and of itself. Cruelty for cruelty's sake is just an exercise in making yourself feel better. Cruelty as a source of fear is a useful form of control

Also, I think it bears saying that the Archetypes aren't static. People change and evolve. Baron Klaus Wulfenbach from Girl Genius starts out as the party Dark Knight in a band of folk heroes. Then he gets planeshifted to gods know where, his Extremely Good best friends go mysteriously missing.

He makes his way home, and finds Europa in Quite A State (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20040804#.VhXlRvmqpBc). So he Fixes It (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20040806#.VhXiIPmqpBd). And ends up as something halfway between Prince, Bureaucrat and Executive.

[ILM]

So I'm wondering about one thing: what's the difference between a LE Zealot, and a CE Radical? Both are dedicated to a cause to the point of setting the world aflame if they must, so why is one lawful and the other, chaotic?

Somewhat related question: is a character willing to kill anyone in the way of his revenge LE or CE?

[Saintheart]

So I'm wondering about one thing: what's the difference between a LE Zealot, and a CE Radical? Both are dedicated to a cause to the point of setting the world aflame if they must, so why is one lawful and the other, chaotic?

From my perspective, it's the observance of a standard. A CE Radical is willing to dispense with tradition, law, authority to advance the interests of his morality. A LE Zealot believes fervently in promulgating to the exception of all else the tradition, law, authority upon which his morality rests.

@Red Fel, I should add I made references to your good self and to your handbook in the introduction of the Lawful Neutral one. We here at Neutral have no difficulty with either salvation or damnation, so long as it proceeds in an orderly fashion.

[Troacctid]

For films with LE villains, how about that Disney Animated Canon? Disney really loves lawful villains. Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Mulan, Princess and the Frog, Frozen... LE antagonists in all of them. And I'm probably leaving some out, too.

[Vhaidara]

Not seeing how the hunic hoardmaster or the lying scumbag prince qualify as Lawful. Especially since Hanz was out and out going around the law, and didn't really seem to have any kind of code. I'd peg him as NE: he's just using the system of inheritance to get what he wants. He doesn't respect it.

[Strigon]

For films with LE villains, how about that Disney Animated Canon? Disney really loves lawful villains. Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Mulan, Princess and the Frog, Frozen... LE antagonists in all of them. And I'm probably leaving some out, too.

I don't know that Ursula or Shan Yu are necessarily Lawful.

Granted, Ursula signed a contract, but she was hardly willing to keep the spirit of the contract once it started going poorly. I think she was just using it as a tool to get her way. Personally, it seemed like the only reason she kept it was because it was magically binding; she certainly didn't seem to have any personal issues with breaking it.
Neutral and even Chaotic people can sign contracts, if they think it'll help them; they just won't necessarily feel beholden to them unless forced. That seems to be what's happening here.

Shan Yu I can't really argue, but that's mostly because I don't think he got enough screen time to justify any alignment. He certainly showed signs of lawfulness, but I don't know that there were enough to say with any certainty.

You want a Lawful Disney villain, though? How about Scar? Or Hades? Or the cricket boss from A Bug's Life whose name escapes me?
Or even Rattigan and Yzma?

[Red Fel]

You want a Lawful Disney villain, though? How about Scar? Or Hades? Or the cricket boss from A Bug's Life whose name escapes me?
Or even Rattigan and Yzma?

Disney villains are complicated, because many of them carry the veneer of civility and Lawfulness, but when things go south, they frequently resort to lying, cheating, whatever it takes.

Hades comes close, I think, but like Ursula, it seems more that he's in the business of making deals when it benefits him, rather than following order or tradition. Scar certainly has certain authoritarian undertones, but at the end of the day he's just a lying usurper, and shows nothing particularly Lawful other than a desire for the throne, which is simply the typical Evil desire for power. Yzma's only truly Lawful tendency is her steady employment of an adorable minion. And Rattigan, being based on Moriarty, is in fact quite non-Lawful - a major aspect of the character is the fact that his persona of cultured sophistication and order is a lie, meant to cover up his humble origins and deep-seated coarseness.

I'll give you the cricket, though. Warlords are one thing, but that dude was a general. Very regimented, very severe, he fits the bill nicely. Was his name Hopper?

As for others you've mentioned, I noted the original Frollo - the Archdeacon, not Tony Jay's awesome Judge - in the literature section. Tony Jay's Judge Frollo, however, would totally count as the Zealot. Pocahontas... That guy wasn't necessarily Lawful Evil, just greedy. Princess and the Frog... Hm. Facilier was very contract-based, translating his debts to his "friends on the other side" into debts owed him by rubes, but by the same token he seemed very much interested in subverting those contracts. Even his name suggests that he was constantly in search of the quick, "easy" way.

That said, Keith David is awesome and will forever have my admiration.

[Telonius]

Lawful Evil in Disney? That's kind of hard. Maybe the Gogans in Pete's Dragon? The townsfolk collectively in Beauty and the Beast? The Horned King in Black Cauldron?

EDIT: All the villains in Robin Hood, too, though I don't know that Disney has any kind of exclusive claim on that story. (If I hadn't thought of Umbridge, Alan Rickman would have been the picture for Bad Cop).

[Segev]

When you get into magically-binding contracts, you're still in the Lawful side of things - rather than choice, it's your nature, but it's still binding. In fact, that lands you smack dab into this article's "Alien" description: you do, in fact, follow rules, because you're bound to do so.

Ursula, for instance, didn't break her contract at all. It's not her fault that nobody asked for a clause that forbade Ursula from interfering to prevent them from fulfilling their side of the bargain. Presumably, somewhere in that fine print we don't get to read all of, it mentioned the contract being transferrable with Ursula's approval (thus, King Triton could sign in Ariel's place).

I mean, she didn't even subtly hide the "gotcha" clause; she spoke it with great emphasis in her most sinister voice: "...you belong...to ME." Sure, she went on to fast-talk good and mitigating aspects, but Ariel cannot claim she didn't know what she was signing.

Ursula's just a high-charisma LE who is more than happy to disregard the spirit in order to exploit the letter. Lawful through and through.

[Strigon]

Hades comes close, I think, but like Ursula, it seems more that he's in the business of making deals when it benefits him, rather than following order or tradition. Scar certainly has certain authoritarian undertones, but at the end of the day he's just a lying usurper, and shows nothing particularly Lawful other than a desire for the throne, which is simply the typical Evil desire for power.


I'll admit I'm mostly going off of what their personality strikes me as; I didn't even think about the contracts of Hades when I put him down. But planning the overthrow of the gods over the course of what can only be assumed to be centuries at least strikes me as very Lawful behaviour. Honestly, the two of them just scream LE, with their manipulative ways, the fact that they've always planned one step ahead, and never made important decisions while they're emotional. I can certainly see your point, but I'd have to watch the movies again to be sure.

Besides, Scar seems to me to be an example of a low-Wisdom LE character.



Yzma's only truly Lawful tendency is her steady employment of an adorable minion.

I don't know; everything around her seemed pretty ordered; again, though I'd need to watch the movie to be sure.




And Rattigan, being based on Moriarty, is in fact quite non-Lawful - a major aspect of the character is the fact that his persona of cultured sophistication and order is a lie, meant to cover up his humble origins and deep-seated coarseness.

But isn't alignment based entirely on your actions, ignoring your motivations behind them?
Sure, he went pretty Chaotic at the end, but if you're fighting Chaotic urges to remain Lawful, aren't you still Lawful?



I'll give you the cricket, though. Warlords are one thing, but that dude was a general. Very regimented, very severe, he fits the bill nicely. Was his name Hopper?

Hopper! That's the one!



As for others you've mentioned, I noted the original Frollo - the Archdeacon, not Tony Jay's awesome Judge - in the literature section. Tony Jay's Judge Frollo, however, would totally count as the Zealot. Pocahontas... That guy wasn't necessarily Lawful Evil, just greedy. Princess and the Frog... Hm. Facilier was very contract-based, translating his debts to his "friends on the other side" into debts owed him by rubes, but by the same token he seemed very much interested in subverting those contracts. Even his name suggests that he was constantly in search of the quick, "easy" way.

That said, Keith David is awesome and will forever have my admiration.

Can't take credit for any of those ones; I never mentioned them.

[Orm-Embar]

Impressive. Most impressive.

Quite the resource, too.

[Uncle Pine]

An astounding start for what already looks like the most in-depth guide to the best shade of Evil.

This seriously motivates me to go back to NWN and turn my favourite LN "Bureucrat" Wizard character into a LE one. It'll also help me to better render the LE villain behind the villain behind the villain of my current campaign (no that's not a typo).

A toast to Red Fel!

[Red Fel]

A toast to Red Fel!

To absent friends!

https://31.media.tumblr.com/c9e24fd0f36188d40671be34a191c325/tumblr_inline_n2jy15ybl81qhf0rz.jpg

... Another slice, anyone?

By the by, I've updated a few of the archetypes, hopefully resulting in a more clear picture of what I wanted to communicate. I'm also now looking into more resources. The problem isn't that I don't have enough, but rather that I have too many, and I'd be grateful for any suggestions one may have to offer.

[kalasulmar]

But isn't alignment based entirely on your actions, ignoring your motivations behind them?

I would say no. Motivation and method together make up alignment, but I would go so far as to say that you have to possess good intentions and follow through with good behavior to actually be considered good. If you intend to make the world a better place but your actions directly cause the suffering of others, are you truly a good person? Conversely, if you do good deeds out of obligation or because of societal standards rather than because you believe it to be the right thing to do, can you be considered benevolent?

[Madara]

Well, we added a new player to my party recently. I had 1 hour notice to the fact that they were playing a Paladin. Your guide is all I have to clutch to for my survival. Like a life vest thrown over the edge to save me, I can only wonder what I will have to give in exchange for my life to my savior.

[Red Fel]

But isn't alignment based entirely on your actions, ignoring your motivations behind them?

I would say no. Motivation and method together make up alignment, but I would go so far as to say that you have to possess good intentions and follow through with good behavior to actually be considered good. If you intend to make the world a better place but your actions directly cause the suffering of others, are you truly a good person? Conversely, if you do good deeds out of obligation or because of societal standards rather than because you believe it to be the right thing to do, can you be considered benevolent?

I've often expressed it as follows. Good is defined primarily by actions, Evil by intentions. A Good person who regularly performs Evil acts, for whatever reason, will not remain Good for very long, but an Evil person who performs Good acts, provided that he has an agenda, can remain Evil. Take the example of the criminal who operates a charity as a front for his illegal activities; any positive outcome is incidental.

That's not to say motivations are completely irrelevant to a Good character; selfish motivations for Good deeds aren't the most wholesome basis for Goodness. Further, it's not unfair to say that actions reflect mindset - that is, a person who finds it acceptable to engage in a certain course of action, who finds that course of action comfortable and reasonable, is the sort of person who would engage in that kind of action. A person who commits a series of murders isn't Evil because he committed murders, but because he's the kind of person who would; a person who gives to charity doesn't suddenly move from Neutral to Good because he gave one too many times, but because he has become the kind of person for whom it is a natural inclination. Action reflects mindset, and it's the mindset that determines alignment.

Also, if I haven't said it enough, arbitrary alignment is arbitrary.

[Cirrylius]

Hades comes close, I think, but like Ursula, it seems more that he's in the business of making deals when it benefits him, rather than following order or tradition.

When you get into magically-binding contracts, you're still in the Lawful side of things

I think Hades fits the Alien much better than Ursula. Hades is a god, and suffers a set of draconian rules that govern his response because of those responsibilities. All of his machinations involved (fairly) nudging mortal creatures, who don't have those restrictions, or are spirit-of-the-law violations that were already his prerogative. Even his conquest of Olympus was teeeeechnically not outright rebellion- he just let Zeus' problems bite him in the ass, and planned to take over as the only leader who could control the Titans. It was dirty and underhanded, but the Pantheon and its responsibilities would (presumably) have survived.

Ursula had to use a magic contract to force her victims to play fair; once she won, though, her first act was an attempt to brutally and pointlessly murder the protagonists because she hated mer-people and anyone who even accidentally stood in her way.

[Segev]

Ursula had to use a magic contract to force her victims to play fair; once she won, though, her first act was an attempt to brutally and pointlessly murder the protagonists because she hated mer-people and anyone who even accidentally stood in her way.

An LE Tyrant starting her reign by purging her political rivals is still LE. LE can even pointlessly hate, if they like.

It's possible she would have shifted to a more CE style of "do what I want when I want because I want to," but she didn't really exhibit that in the brief time she had to be a powerhouse. Whether she would have been a tyrant-queen or a thug-queen (whose rule amounts to "I like you, so you get to live, until I change my mind") never was really revealed.




This does bring to mind an interesting potential, however: when an LE ruler falls (for whatever reason) and is succeeded by a CE one who simply steps into his position (say an LE tyrant has a CE heir), and the CE ruler is reliant on the Lawful structures his predecessor put in place to get others to obey him, how long until his chaotic nature undermines his authority? Or can an LE organization survive a CE autocrat at its helm?

[Cirrylius]

An LE Tyrant starting her reign by purging her political rivals is still LE. LE can even pointlessly hate, if they like. It's possible she would have shifted to a more CE style of "do what I want when I want because I want to," but she didn't really exhibit that in the brief time she had to be a powerhouse. Whether she would have been a tyrant-queen or a thug-queen (whose rule amounts to "I like you, so you get to live, until I change my mind") never was really revealed.
That's fair. I personally got the vibe that it was her bottomless loathing for mer-people that drove her to pursue both magical contracts and political power, but obviously that's subjective.




how long until his chaotic nature undermines his authority? Or can an LE organization survive a CE autocrat at its helm?
I imagine they'd be fine up until the organization's laws started blocking their way- any duties they slack off on can probably be assumed to be handled by underlings, temporarily or as part of a restructuring of responsibilities."

[mabriss lethe]

I think additional required reading for this guide would be John Wick's "Treachery 101: or 'How to be a sneaky git and not get killed by the other characters.'" presented as Appendix I in L5R 1e's Way of the Scorpion.

[Red Fel]

Alright, folks. Apart from the illustrations and resources section - which I intend to keep updating - I think this bad boy is just about complete. If you haven't re-read it in awhile, I encourage you to go back over it and share your thoughts.

At this point, I'd like to open the thread to any further suggestions as to how I might further refine it. I'd also welcome any questions or brainstorming requests on how to better play LE. My services are at your disposal.

[Madara]

I mean, these guides don't seem to be focused on mechanics, but considering that LE has to watch out for paladins and such....


It'd be nice to know about tools available to manipulate and obfusicate

[atemu1234]

Whooohoo, this is promising ! (and the Giles quote alone makes my day. But do you actually slap a LE tag on him ?) I've never actually played a LE character, but this is a good place to start.
In the wake of the three existing Handbooks, I'll probably try my hand at True Neutral. But now I gotta find a Camus quote for that, too.

Giles was my favourite bit. This is wonderful work.

[Red Fel]

I mean, these guides don't seem to be focused on mechanics, but considering that LE has to watch out for paladins and such....


It'd be nice to know about tools available to manipulate and obfusicate

Admittedly, I'm not as big an expert on crunch. This guide is designed for the roleplay side of things. I specifically avoided using system-specific stuff, so it can be applied to 3.0, 3.5, PF... Whatever.

Really, what you're describing is nondetection, in terms of avoiding notice. But my suggestion isn't that you hide your character's history; rather, you should be so great, so helpful, such a good friend, that the other PCs don't care. And they'll protect you from hostile NPCs, in turn.

As for tricks for manipulation... Well, that tends to get very fact-specific. What kind of character is it? What's the job? That's not the sort of advice you can just give with a broad brush.

[phlidwsn]

By the by, I've updated a few of the archetypes, hopefully resulting in a more clear picture of what I wanted to communicate. I'm also now looking into more resources. The problem isn't that I don't have enough, but rather that I have too many, and I'd be grateful for any suggestions one may have to offer.

While Mab is a great example, as long as you're drawing from the Dresden Files, I think 'Gentleman' Johnny Marcone deserves an honorable mention as well as a paragon of LE.

[Red Fel]

While Mab is a great example, as long as you're drawing from the Dresden Files, I think 'Gentleman' Johnny Marcone deserves an honorable mention as well as a paragon of LE.

Ooh, good call! I'd almost forgotten how much I love that guy. I'd say he's a rather solid example of the Executive, too - cold, ruthless, not above working with the protagonists when it furthers his goals. Good call!

I might as well throw Nicodemus in there, too. Come to think of it, a lot of Dresden baddies are pretty Lawful, aren't they?

[Segev]

Ooh, good call! I'd almost forgotten how much I love that guy. I'd say he's a rather solid example of the Executive, too - cold, ruthless, not above working with the protagonists when it furthers his goals. Good call!

I might as well throw Nicodemus in there, too. Come to think of it, a lot of Dresden baddies are pretty Lawful, aren't they?

Particularly a certain good man. If he's not to gray for your moral pallet, anyway.

[Segev]

Reading the version as it stands now, it's overall well-done, but I have two quibbles:

1) Nicodemus doesn't strike me as LE. He's NE. This is primarily shown in the exchange he has more than once with Michael and other Sword-bearers. Usually a hostage situation, but sometimes simply a need for one side to trust the other to provide a good or service. Nick will ask why he should go first, and the response is something along the lines of, "Because you know I will keep my word, and we both know you won't."

He isn't CE; he's far too willing to plan and stick to it, and he's willing, when it serves him better than not, to hold himself to a standard. But he's not trustworthy, and he's not about to let rules get in the way of what he desires.

2) I'm not sure NE really is as despicably dismissible to LE as you portray it. Yes, CE is the greatest enemy and most useless impediment to LE, but NE, like LN, can be an oddly kindred spirit. To some degree, NE can actually serve as the "poisonous friend" to LE: willing to cross that line LE finds itself bound to. NE is just as capable of loyalty as LE, too, for the more pragmatic reasons.



As a comment and analysis, I think it's interesting that you center on CG as being "useful" to LE, not their natural hated enemies all the time. Similarly, LG notes that CE need not be their greatest foe (that's actually usually NE); there is something in the CE character that strikes LG as "broken," and thus makes them even more likely targets for redemption than NE.

Meanwhile, CG probably does loathe LE above all other alignments, and CE will tend to view LG as even more disgusting than LE - at least LE has an understandable, non-hypocritical motive.

Which leads me to the strange conclusion that the L side of the ethical axis doesn't hate its diametric opposites the way the C side of the ethical axis will tend to.

[Red Fel]

Reading the version as it stands now, it's overall well-done, but I have two quibbles:

1) Nicodemus doesn't strike me as LE. He's NE. This is primarily shown in the exchange he has more than once with Michael and other Sword-bearers. Usually a hostage situation, but sometimes simply a need for one side to trust the other to provide a good or service. Nick will ask why he should go first, and the response is something along the lines of, "Because you know I will keep my word, and we both know you won't."

He isn't CE; he's far too willing to plan and stick to it, and he's willing, when it serves him better than not, to hold himself to a standard. But he's not trustworthy, and he's not about to let rules get in the way of what he desires.

Hmm... That's fair, actually. I can cut him based on that ambiguity, I suppose.


2) I'm not sure NE really is as despicably dismissible to LE as you portray it. Yes, CE is the greatest enemy and most useless impediment to LE, but NE, like LN, can be an oddly kindred spirit. To some degree, NE can actually serve as the "poisonous friend" to LE: willing to cross that line LE finds itself bound to. NE is just as capable of loyalty as LE, too, for the more pragmatic reasons.

Not so much dismissable as mercenary. LE could certainly employ NE to do what it could not - assuming LE believed in subverting its rules by proxy, which not all LEs do - but the problem is that there would be the knowledge that if I can hire you, so can my enemies. LE likes trust, after a fashion - it enjoys absolute loyalty and reliability. NE is dangerous, not because it's able to cross lines, but because it can't be relied upon not to cross them. The difference between it and CE, as far as LE is concerned, is that CE is almost explicitly dedicated to crossing those lines, while NE only does so as a matter of convenience.

Perhaps I could go into a bit more detail on that point, I suppose.


As a comment and analysis, I think it's interesting that you center on CG as being "useful" to LE, not their natural hated enemies all the time. Similarly, LG notes that CE need not be their greatest foe (that's actually usually NE); there is something in the CE character that strikes LG as "broken," and thus makes them even more likely targets for redemption than NE.

Meanwhile, CG probably does loathe LE above all other alignments, and CE will tend to view LG as even more disgusting than LE - at least LE has an understandable, non-hypocritical motive.

Which leads me to the strange conclusion that the L side of the ethical axis doesn't hate its diametric opposites the way the C side of the ethical axis will tend to.

Yeah. I think it's worth noting that while LE is basically everything CG loathes in the world, LE can find use in G, the same way anyone can find use in L - having a set of principles, whether moral or ethical, means that someone can appeal to those principles in order to influence you. A wise opponent values enemies who are G or L for that precise reason.

However, C, by its very nature, sees the flaws in L. That reliability may be valuable - and the wise C will respect it - but it comes with a cost that most C are naturally reluctant to pay. In much the same way, E may find use in G, but G is loathe to employ E.

Ironically, LE is one of the most tolerant of alignments for that particular reason. At least, that's how I see it. Not that I'm biased, or anything.

[Svata]

Yeah, ol' Nick is about as trustworthy as a $5 PS4 on Craigslist. And while LE might not care overmuch for NE, from my perspective, NE views LE as a useful ally, in most circumstances.

[BowStreetRunner]

I've often expressed it as follows. Good is defined primarily by actions, Evil by intentions. A Good person who regularly performs Evil acts, for whatever reason, will not remain Good for very long, but an Evil person who performs Good acts, provided that he has an agenda, can remain Evil. Take the example of the criminal who operates a charity as a front for his illegal activities; any positive outcome is incidental.

That's not to say motivations are completely irrelevant to a Good character; selfish motivations for Good deeds aren't the most wholesome basis for Goodness. Further, it's not unfair to say that actions reflect mindset - that is, a person who finds it acceptable to engage in a certain course of action, who finds that course of action comfortable and reasonable, is the sort of person who would engage in that kind of action. A person who commits a series of murders isn't Evil because he committed murders, but because he's the kind of person who would; a person who gives to charity doesn't suddenly move from Neutral to Good because he gave one too many times, but because he has become the kind of person for whom it is a natural inclination. Action reflects mindset, and it's the mindset that determines alignment.

Also, if I haven't said it enough, arbitrary alignment is arbitrary.

There are several problem with your statement. For one thing, you are mixing your ethical models together by attempting to define one thing by actions and another by intentions. Consider the following normative ethical models:

Virtue Ethics focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on specific actions.
Deontological Ethics focuses on a person's duty to act in a manner that respects the rights of others.
Consequential Ethics focuses on the outcome of an individual's actions more than their intent.
Relational Ethics focuses on the impact of a person's actions within the context of the relationships between those affected.
Pragmatic Ethics focuses on the current societal view of right and wrong which evolves over time.

Each model of normative ethics attempts to answer the question "what is right and what is wrong?" in a different manner. You are essentially picking and choosing from the different models entirely depending on the outcome you want, and that just doesn't work. If good is indeed determined by actions and evil by intentions then your paradigm will be thus:

A person who commits good acts is good.
A person who has evil intentions is evil.

The problem here is the corollary to the these must therefore be that:

A person who does not commit good acts is not good.
A person who does not have evil intentions is not evil.

Now if you assume the absence of good and evil is neutral, you are essentially creating the following alignment model:

GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD
GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = NEUTRAL
GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = EVIL
GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD and EVIL

I don't think that is actually what you intended.

Of course the model gets even more complicated if you take the additional statements you made about a good person who commits evil acts. We can now conclude that:

A person who commits evil acts is evil.

And then you go and talk about an evil person who commits good acts and completely throw everything into confusion because it assumes that good acts do not make a person good which contradicts your initial supposition that good is defined by actions.

The second problem is that you talk about Good Person who performs evil acts and an Evil Person who performs good acts. This assumes that the person is good or evil at the outset without explaining how they came to be good or evil.

My recommendation is to choose a single normative ethical model and stick with it. Then simply put in a disclaimer that allows people who use a different ethical model to adjust accordingly, replacing actions with intentions and so forth.

[Segev]

I'd almost give "most tolerant" to CN and NE. CE is too hung up on the selfishness and freedom from obligation and responsibility to be "tolerant," unless you mean "they tolerate others' existing, isn't that good enough?" But NE really has few, if any, standards to offend. NE is about making themselves better at any cost (to others), and finds use in both Law and Chaos, and even in Good (for the aforementioned reasons of standards and principles making them manipulable and/or even trustworthy). NE can understand and exploit CE the way LE can NE, and can respect and work with LE because LE is just a little more foolishly willing to let his own rules screw him over. NE can work with LN as long as he knows LN's rules; it's just a matter of exploiting them and strategically ignoring them when LN's back is turned.

NE isn't even really all that offended by LG, though LG finds NE to be probably even worse than CE. CE could be mad or broken; NE tends to be where the true monsters dwell: unrepentant and lacking even a Freudian excuse. NE, on the other hand, sees in LE everything that makes G and L manipulable. Frustrating, at times, because so much has to be done while they're not looking, but if they have something useful, they can be counted on to deliver even if you do your part first. This can be a bit novel to the NE character. (The CE character tends to distrust that LG will do it, unless they specifically know THAT LG person has done it before, for them; CE isn't stupid, but LG is just so alien to them that they have trouble understanding it.)

CN...just doesn't care. Do what you want, and they'll do what they want. Even LN is only offensive when it is actively enforcing things; CN can hang out with LN all day long if LN isn't, won't, or can't do anything about the CN character's whims. CE is dangerous, but that's true of all Evil alignments compared to the morally Neutral ones; Neutral tends to like Good better than Evil just because Good is less likely to actually willfully hurt them. It really is no skin off their backs if you want to tie yourself up in a bunch of pointless regulations.

Ironically, I think the least tolerant alignment is probably TN. Most likely to expect others to follow whatever rules they've adopted without actually being consistent about following them, themselves, and most likely to be offended by evil in others while justifying their own violations of good. TN goes along to get along, but gets comfortable in the personal set of rules they follow vs. breaking. Most likely to view Good as not deluded, but oppressive, because their own consciences tell them on some level that they should be better than they are (where Evil has long since dismissed that as a weakness and see the Good as deluded). But also to view Evil people as something to shun, because they're frankly scary and likely to hurt them.

TN is also the alignment most likely to come up with highbrow justifications for why Good is naïve, Evil is whatever they don't like others doing, Laws are good guidelines (especially for others to follow, except where they personally have made exception), and Chaos and freedom are cool within limits (but anybody who inconveniences them is taking it too far).

I'm sure there's the more TN-as-balance druidic variant that takes a stronger philosophical stance on it, but if anything, that's going to be even LESS tolerant: any tilt towards one extreme or another must be actively counter-balanced, after all.

[kalasulmar]

There are several problem with your statement. For one thing, you are mixing your ethical models together by attempting to define one thing by actions and another by intentions. Consider the following normative ethical models:

Virtue Ethics focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on specific actions.
Deontological Ethics focuses on a person's duty to act in a manner that respects the rights of others.
Consequential Ethics focuses on the outcome of an individual's actions more than their intent.
Relational Ethics focuses on the impact of a person's actions within the context of the relationships between those affected.
Pragmatic Ethics focuses on the current societal view of right and wrong which evolves over time.

Each model of normative ethics attempts to answer the question "what is right and what is wrong?" in a different manner. You are essentially picking and choosing from the different models entirely depending on the outcome you want, and that just doesn't work. If good is indeed determined by actions and evil by intentions then your paradigm will be thus:

A person who commits good acts is good.
A person who has evil intentions is evil.

The problem here is the corollary to the these must therefore be that:

A person who does not commit good acts is not good.
A person who does not have evil intentions is not evil.

Now if you assume the absence of good and evil is neutral, you are essentially creating the following alignment model:

GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD
GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = NEUTRAL
GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = EVIL
GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD and EVIL

I don't think that is actually what you intended.

Of course the model gets even more complicated if you take the additional statements you made about a good person who commits evil acts. We can now conclude that:

A person who commits evil acts is evil.

And then you go and talk about an evil person who commits good acts and completely throw everything into confusion because it assumes that good acts do not make a person good which contradicts your initial supposition that good is defined by actions.

The second problem is that you talk about Good Person who performs evil acts and an Evil Person who performs good acts. This assumes that the person is good or evil at the outset without explaining how they came to be good or evil.

My recommendation is to choose a single normative ethical model and stick with it. Then simply put in a disclaimer that allows people who use a different ethical model to adjust accordingly, replacing actions with intentions and so forth.

The problem I have with that train of thought is that while this a game, I am not sure you can keep score on how good you are. Let's face it, if we are really trying to be honest about morality, it is much harder to be a truly good person than to not be. Good and evil are separate entities and can't really be measured in the same fashion.

[Segev]

I'd also say that GOOD ACTIONS + EVIL INTENTIONS = NEUTRAL. What makes these kinds of characters evil is that they also perform evil acts, and since their good acts are done with evil intentions, that doesn't even counterbalance out to "neutral" overall: they're Evil.

Conversely, a guy who'd totally be NE if he thought he could get away with it, but never acts on it, always doing good deeds for all the wrong reasons, will likely actually be neutral. He's probably not going to do good deeds unless it earns him something, but he's also not doing anything evil because it could cost him too much to act on those particular desires in that way.

[Red Fel]

There are several problem with your statement. For one thing, you are mixing your ethical models together by attempting to define one thing by actions and another by intentions. Consider the following normative ethical models:

Virtue Ethics focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on specific actions.
Deontological Ethics focuses on a person's duty to act in a manner that respects the rights of others.
Consequential Ethics focuses on the outcome of an individual's actions more than their intent.
Relational Ethics focuses on the impact of a person's actions within the context of the relationships between those affected.
Pragmatic Ethics focuses on the current societal view of right and wrong which evolves over time.

Each model of normative ethics attempts to answer the question "what is right and what is wrong?" in a different manner. You are essentially picking and choosing from the different models entirely depending on the outcome you want, and that just doesn't work.

I really don't feel like discussing real-world ethics, when, as I've said, arbitrary alignment is arbitrary. I'm approaching this from a more practical standpoint. Can a Good character commit serial murder and still be Good under arbitrary morality? No. Therefore, a Good character is defined by action. Can an Evil character be a philanthropist and still be Evil under arbitrary morality? Yes, provided that he has an Evil agenda that his charity serves. Therefore, an Evil character is defined by intention. No fancy models, no philosophizing, just a practical application of the concepts as handed down from the Wizards on high.


If good is indeed determined by actions and evil by intentions then your paradigm will be thus:

A person who commits good acts is good.
A person who has evil intentions is evil.


Incorrect. The accurate reflection of my statements is:
A person who commits Evil acts is not Good.
A person who acts based on Evil intentions is Evil.

The problem here is the corollary to the these must therefore be that:

A person who does not commit good acts is not good.
A person who does not have evil intentions is not evil.


Even assuming that your initial paradigm was accurate - which, as I've mentioned, is not the case - your contrapositives are malformed. The correct contrapositive of "A person who commits good acts is good" is "A person who is not good does not commit good acts," not "A person who does not commit good acts is not good." Similarly, the contrapositive of "A person who has evil intentions is evil" is "A person who is not evil does not have evil intentions," not "A person who does not have evil intentions is not evil."

More importantly, however, the choice is not binary between Good and Evil. There is a third option - Neutral. It is possible, for example, for a character to be non-Good, and still not be Evil. In many illustrations I've given in the past, an ostensibly Good character who commits Evil acts becomes non-Good. That doesn't mean he is Evil, it means he's not Good. Similarly, an Evil character who engages in Good acts without an ulterior motive may eventually become non-Evil, but that doesn't mean he catapults all the way into Good.

Bringing it back to my paradigm:
A person who commits Evil acts is not Good. This doesn't make him Evil, it simply means that he isn't Good. Conversely, a person who is Good does not commit Evil acts. That works logically; a Good person does not justify Evil.
A person who acts based upon Evil intentions is Evil. This is more explicit than the other one. But look at the converse. A person who is not Evil does not act based upon Evil intentions. This makes sense - a Good character does not act based on Evil intentions, and a Neutral character is either amoral or acting out of a sense of balance, not Evil.

Now if you assume the absence of good and evil is neutral, you are essentially creating the following alignment model:

GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD
GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = NEUTRAL
GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = EVIL
GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD and EVIL

I don't think that is actually what you intended.

Your first point is inaccurate. I have repeatedly said that an Evil character can perform Good acts for Evil reasons. That keeps him Evil, not Good. I agree with Segev, committing Good acts for Evil reasons tends to wash, and leaves the Evil character to define his alignment based upon his additional Evil actions. I haven't said that Evil committing Good for an Evil reason is the sole basis for that character to be Evil, but rather that it does not immediately render them non-Evil.

The rest of what you say is just plain confusing. You talk about normative ethical models, when as previously stated, arbitrary alignment is arbitrary.

This is not a guide for being Lawful Evil in real life. This is not the basis for a dissertation on morality or ethics. This is a guide to playing a Lawful Evil character in a fictional cosmology where terms like "Good" and "Evil" are rigidly defined and enforced by cosmic laws as inevitable as gravity. I don't choose a normative ethical model because one has already been chosen by the writers, and whether I agree with it or not, it is the RAW of the land. If we disregard their rules on alignment, there's hardly any point in me even writing this guide, now is there?

[BowStreetRunner]

The problem I have with that train of thought is that while this a game, I am not sure you can keep score on how good you are. Let's face it, if we are really trying to be honest about morality, it is much harder to be a truly good person than to not be. Good and evil are separate entities and can't really be measured in the same fashion. As for keeping score on how good you are, that is exactly the problem with the D&D alignment system. What happens when a DM does try to keep score and eventually tells you your alignment must change?

You say it is harder to be a truly good person than to not be - define TRULY good as opposed to just good? For alignment purposes is the distinction relevant? Do we now need a Neutral Good and a Neutral Very Good alignment? As for it being harder to be good than not, that should be true. After all, when Good, Neutral, and Evil are the options then 2/3 of the time you should be 'Not Good'. You also have to consider that if working hard at something is a virtue, then by definition being good should be hard, not easy. Doing what's easy may be considered a vice, and definitely in the domain of evil and not good.

When you say good and evil are separate are saying that good and evil are not on a spectrum with good on one side, evil on the other, and neutral in the middle. Instead they are...what? A pair of mutually exclusive descriptors that each has different prerequisites? That of course goes completely against the alignment model in D&D which uses a pair of spectra (Good - Neutral - Evil and Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic) and not just a few descriptors (although it has those too).


I'd also say that GOOD ACTIONS + EVIL INTENTIONS = NEUTRAL. What makes these kinds of characters evil is that they also perform evil acts, and since their good acts are done with evil intentions, that doesn't even counterbalance out to "neutral" overall: they're Evil.

Conversely, a guy who'd totally be NE if he thought he could get away with it, but never acts on it, always doing good deeds for all the wrong reasons, will likely actually be neutral. He's probably not going to do good deeds unless it earns him something, but he's also not doing anything evil because it could cost him too much to act on those particular desires in that way.
You can certainly combine your normative ethical models by stating that both actions and intentions are considered. My point was that if you say actions determine good and intentions determine evil you can create several contradictory and even paradoxical outcomes. If you are going to weigh actions you need to weigh both good actions and evil actions. If you are going to weigh intentions you need to weigh both good intentions and evil intentions.

[BowStreetRunner]

I really don't feel like discussing real-world ethics, when, as I've said, arbitrary alignment is arbitrary.The alignment system is in fact a poorly implemented attempt to introduce real-world concepts into a game environment using ambiguous rules that usually leave it to DM interpretation to judge whether someone is in fact accurately playing their character alignment. So maybe not intended to be arbitrary but in execution decidedly so. Fair enough.

Incorrect. The accurate reflection of my statements is:
A person who commits Evil acts is not Good.
A person who acts based on Evil intentions is Evil.So 'evil acts regardless of intention' and 'any acts that stem from evil intentions' makes a person evil, according to your definition. That seems workable. (Although the DM is still left struggling with how many evil acts or intentions and of what type and severity will cause someone to undergo an alignment change. TSR/WotC never did create a score-keeping system for alignment like some of the Karma systems I've seen in other games.)

Even assuming that your initial paradigm was accurate - which, as I've mentioned, is not the case - your contrapositives are malformed. The correct contrapositive of "A person who commits good acts is good" is "A person who is not good does not commit good acts," not "A person who does not commit good acts is not good."This actually demonstrates the problem I had with accepting what I thought was your intent - that "A person who commits good acts is good". Since the contrapositive would be that "A person who is not good does not commit good acts" that would logically mean an evil person cannot commit good acts regardless of evil intent. We know that an evil person is not good. But we also know that an evil person can certainly commit good acts. You admirably clarified your position as "A person who commits evil acts is not good". Since the contrapositive is "A person who is good does not commit evil acts" this remains consistent.

[phlidwsn]

The contrast to the CE thread amuses me: In CE they joke about plagiarizing content left and right, because CE.

Meanwhile, over here, there's a detailed list of even minor suggestions credited it. And as I read it, I went through the following thought process:

Cool, I got credit.
Red Fel just acknowledged indebtedness to me.
Oh crap, this is bad for me.

[Vhaidara]

TSR/WotC never did create a score-keeping system for alignment like some of the Karma systems I've seen in other games.

Honestly, one of the best calls they made. Can you even begin to imagine what the Playground would do if alignment could be manipulated by specifically written mechanics?

[AvatarVecna]

Honestly, one of the best calls they made. Can you even begin to imagine what the Playground would do if alignment could be manipulated by specifically written mechanics?

"...at this point in your career as an adventurer, you need to either burn down an orphanage with no less than 17 orphans trapped inside, or you need to tie a virgin princess to railroad tracks to coerce her father into giving you at least 100000 gp worth of oil-laden fields..."

[Cirrylius]

Which leads me to the strange conclusion that the L side of the ethical axis doesn't hate its diametric opposites the way the C side of the ethical axis will tend to.
Well, the law is ostensibly for everybody's benefit, so it gets applied to everybody equally, which chafes pretty hard against the "the individual is the only true measure of responsibility, because both individuals and responsibility are subjective" of Chaos.

For my money, Law is somewhat more tolerant because, by design, it's impartial and impersonal- Chaos takes things personally because a C character's morals and ethics are based on their own personal psychological cornerstones.



Red Fel just acknowledged indebtedness to me.

In public, no less. Someone's life is about to get busy.

[AvatarVecna]

Well, the law is ostensibly for everybody's benefit, so it gets applied to everybody equally, which chafes pretty hard against the "the individual is the only true measure of responsibility, because both individuals and responsibility are subjective" of Chaos.

For my money, Law is somewhat more tolerant because, by design, it's impartial and impersonal- Chaos takes things personally because a C character's morals and ethics are based on their own personal psychological cornerstones.


In public, no less. Someone's life is about to get busy.

I take issue with this; there's just as many stubborn *******s in Chaos as there are apathetic freespirited types, the same way there's just as many fussy busybodies in Law as there are impartial judges. Law and Chaos are capable of getting along, given the right match-up, but it's just as likely that one or the other is going to cause a problem...and neither is more or less at fault then the other, in the grand scheme of things.

[Madara]

Admittedly, I'm not as big an expert on crunch. This guide is designed for the roleplay side of things. I specifically avoided using system-specific stuff, so it can be applied to 3.0, 3.5, PF... Whatever.

Really, what you're describing is nondetection, in terms of avoiding notice. But my suggestion isn't that you hide your character's history; rather, you should be so great, so helpful, such a good friend, that the other PCs don't care. And they'll protect you from hostile NPCs, in turn.

As for tricks for manipulation... Well, that tends to get very fact-specific. What kind of character is it? What's the job? That's not the sort of advice you can just give with a broad brush.

The character, "Peter Steele" (Obtained name: better PR)(Rogue 3 PF, +17 Bluff and high Alchemy ability), has ambition to control the drug trade and obtain a high powered position in public office. He believes in legalizing but regulating all trade. Mr. Paladin has been using Detect Evil quite a bit and was hired by our shared employer to "watch" me. Unfortunately, the DM saw LE on my sheet and decided to describe me as sly and mischievous as opposed to someone more akin to Sebastian Blood (http://arrow.wikia.com/wiki/Sebastian_Blood) from Arrow. The question is, how do I regain the standing advised when I started at a disadvantage.

[Red Fel]

I take issue with this; there's just as many stubborn *******s in Chaos as there are apathetic freespirited types, the same way there's just as many fussy busybodies in Law as there are impartial judges. Law and Chaos are capable of getting along, given the right match-up, but it's just as likely that one or the other is going to cause a problem...and neither is more or less at fault then the other, in the grand scheme of things.

First off, Law and Chaos aren't about stubbornness. Law is about the importance of something other than the individual - order, honor, tradition, and so forth - while Chaos is about the individual - freedom, expression, passion, and so forth. I argue, in part tongue-in-cheek, that because Law focuses on the greater, it can ignore its personal grievance with Chaos, whereas since Chaos focuses on the personal, it becomes that much harder to ignore. But again, tongue-in-cheek.

I will say that Law and Chaos can get along, but only under the right circumstances. Obviously, in major metropolitan areas or places like Sigil, everybody will get along, for the most part, simply because everybody is there. You learn to at least tolerate your neighbors. Similarly, LG and CG can get along nicely, because their common G can stand for a common Goal. CE and LE are right out, particularly as written; it is possible, but highly unlikely, that CE can temper its whim long enough, and that LE can temper its impatience, to get along. Similarly, CN and LN are diametrically opposed ideals - CN focusing on personal expression and freedom feels stifled, while LN focusing on routine and order feels disrupted.

Bottom line is that LE is awesome and everyone should be friends with it, is my point.

Speaking of friends... How are things, phlidwsn? :smallamused:

[Malroth]

Well everybody except CE who we all team up to stab and then hand the loot to the LE guy for fair and equitable distribution.

[Segev]

The character, "Peter Steele" (Obtained name: better PR)(Rogue 3 PF, +17 Bluff and high Alchemy ability), has ambition to control the drug trade and obtain a high powered position in public office. He believes in legalizing but regulating all trade. Mr. Paladin has been using Detect Evil quite a bit and was hired by our shared employer to "watch" me. Unfortunately, the DM saw LE on my sheet and decided to describe me as sly and mischievous as opposed to someone more akin to Sebastian Blood (http://arrow.wikia.com/wiki/Sebastian_Blood) from Arrow. The question is, how do I regain the standing advised when I started at a disadvantage.

Well, first off, I would politely but clearly say, "Actually, Peter isn't all that sly or mischievous. He's more [adjective] and [adjective]." Then play him the way you see him as being. Make sure to describe his actions, and above all, live up to the standing you want to achieve.

Politely, again, interject whenever anybody - including the DM - describes your character in a way you disagree with. If your character is fat, but the DM said he was skinny, you'd correct him. If your character has a stylish goatee but the DM describes a snidely whiplash mustache, you'd correct him. If your character is bald and black but the DM describes him looking like Fabio, you'd correct him.

Do likewise for your behaviors. If you're not furtively glancing from side to side, don't let the description say you are. If you're not speaking with an oily, mocking tone, correct the description of what you're saying and how you're saying it.

Eventually, the DM will get it right, or will get tired of constant correction and ask you. If he doesn't, talk to the DM about him god-moding your character. Privately, because you don't want to be causing a scene at the table and embarrassing the DM in front of the rest of the players if you can avoid it.

[Sayt]

Y'know, I was thinking: in Dark heresy there is a radical faction within the Inquisition called the Oblationists. And Paraphrasing/adapting a little, It is their view that although the goals and ideals of Lawful Good are admirable and noble, they are fundamentally insufficient. That the defeat of evil requires evil in and of itself. And so they wield forbidden sorcery, bind demons to their will, take up demonic weapons. They don't posture to believe that they are unaffected by these acts, but view that they 'spend' their purity for a greater good, despite the fact that they inevitably become worse monsters than those they set out to fought. Like a malconvoker gone horribly wrong.

Would this fit as an archetype of a Lawful Evil character? "Well Intentioned, Wrong, and Thoroughly Damned."

[Red Fel]

Y'know, I was thinking: in Dark heresy there is a radical faction within the Inquisition called the Oblationists. And Paraphrasing/adapting a little, It is their view that although the goals and ideals of Lawful Good are admirable and noble, they are fundamentally insufficient. That the defeat of evil requires evil in and of itself. And so they wield forbidden sorcery, bind demons to their will, take up demonic weapons. They don't posture to believe that they are unaffected by these acts, but view that they 'spend' their purity for a greater good, despite the fact that they inevitably become worse monsters than those they set out to fought. Like a malconvoker gone horribly wrong.

Would this fit as an archetype of a Lawful Evil character? "Well Intentioned, Wrong, and Thoroughly Damned."

That fits into either the Dark Knight or the Zealot, although generally more the former. The basic idea that I extrapolate in the third paragraph is what I refer to as the "those who fight monsters" mentality. That they have principles, and noble aims, and that these are basically what separates them from the things they fight. They are willing to resort to dark, dirty deeds to get it done.

Yeah, I think it's fair to call that Lawful Evil. Under a more fluid morality system, you could be argued that it's slightly ambiguous Good, but under arbitrary D&D morality, Evil acts are Evil acts, befitting an Evil person. Their acts make them Evil, their principles and goals make them Lawful.

It's not unlike the position of Othar Tryggvassen (Gentleman Adventurer!), whose goal is to destroy all Sparks, using their own tools against them. And when his job is done, the last Spark he eliminates will be himself.

[Sayt]

That makes sense, but Othar always seemed more "Chaotic Clueless" than LE to me.

[Saintheart]

First off, Law and Chaos aren't about stubbornness. Law is about the importance of something other than the individual - order, honor, tradition, and so forth - while Chaos is about the individual - freedom, expression, passion, and so forth. I argue, in part tongue-in-cheek, that because Law focuses on the greater, it can ignore its personal grievance with Chaos, whereas since Chaos focuses on the personal, it becomes that much harder to ignore. But again, tongue-in-cheek.

I will say that Law and Chaos can get along, but only under the right circumstances. Obviously, in major metropolitan areas or places like Sigil, everybody will get along, for the most part, simply because everybody is there. You learn to at least tolerate your neighbors. Similarly, LG and CG can get along nicely, because their common G can stand for a common Goal. CE and LE are right out, particularly as written; it is possible, but highly unlikely, that CE can temper its whim long enough, and that LE can temper its impatience, to get along. Similarly, CN and LN are diametrically opposed ideals - CN focusing on personal expression and freedom feels stifled, while LN focusing on routine and order feels disrupted.

Bottom line is that LE is awesome and everyone should be friends with it, is my point.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/agreed_pirates_caribbean.gif

[Strigon]

(Debate over the merits of intentions and actions)

See, this entire argument has strayed far from its original course (and I was away for the weekend, so I hadn't time to object). The original question was whether Rattigan was LE or CE, based on the general assumption here that alignment is based mostly off of deeds. You two immediately went to debating good vs. evil, with respect to intentions and deeds - which is fine, but I'm still interested in hearing what someone more knowledgeable might say about this.

Personally, I still think he's LE, even if his nature is CE; he's making every effort to shuffle off his Chaotic nature in favour of a Lawful one. If a character who was originally Evil decided "Hey, I don't want to be Evil anymore, I want to be good", and genuinely made every effort to be Good, even in cases where nobody would know if he were Evil, then I say he should be Good. That same argument, I believe, should apply to someone who is determined to be Lawful instead of Chaotic.


Besides, tell me he doesn't fit The Cartoon to a T?
He planned to make a robotic version of the Queen, kidnap the real Queen, make the robot version abdicate and crown him king, all after he killed his rival with this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taMg5VN83tM)?
That's the quintessential Cartoon, if ever there was one!
I'd forgotten just how ridiculous that scene was, but blast it if the end doesn't make me laugh every time!

[Segev]

Law and Chaos are more difficult to extricate from motive. Even the most chaotic of people can have reasoned, logical motives. Chaos is not madness, though the two often extravagantly overlap. (And even madness is generally very rational, if you accept the wholly false and insane premises of the mad.)

The big distinguishing factors tend to center around whether you allow rules to constrain you, even when it is to your disadvantage, or you disregard the benefits of order, particularly in the heat of the moment. While you can have self-controlled Chaotic people, it is unusual. You can also have out-of-control Lawful people; they are similarly unusual.

An excellent example of a supremely self-controlled CE individual, I think, is Darkseid, of DC Comics. This is a behemoth of horrific rage whose iron self-control means he only indulges it in measured, deliberate ways. He runs an entire CE world of ungodly powerful beings; the only rule is Darkseid. Worship him, serve him, fear him. In no particular order. His whims are all that matter, but he has an iron control and a will to defer gratification of his malice. But there is no law that binds him, save his own design. And he has no code by which he lives other than one of supreme arrogance and self-aggrandizement. Even his empire is CE: yes, there is hierarchy, but the only hierarchy is that which the strong carve out for themselves, or which is put in place by somebody whose authority amounts to, "Obey my appointee, or suffer my wrath." Again, the only rules are those imposed by direct threat of force, and those change at the pleasure of he who enforces them. Yet the most powerful tend to be the most disciplined, because Darkseid keeps them close and keeps them disciplined.

Rattigan... I could see an argument for The Cartoon, but I'm not 100% convinced this is truly an LE archetype. It has to be taking it to the extreme of "I do this because it's a cliché" in an entirely self-aware way. (Señor Senior, Sr. - of Kim Possible infamy - qualifies, here.) Literally card-carrying villains who have standards and traditions to uphold.

Rattigan is not quite that self-aware. He does what he does because he wants to, and because he is genre blind to why some things won't work. That last has nothing to do with alignment; it's genre convention. I'd put him firmly in NE territory, I think. The law is only a tool, to him: if the Queen abdicates and gives him the throne, those who follow the law will accept his rule. He's got no problem violating the law entirely; an LE plot would more seek to shelter himself from prosecution by doing nothing against the rules, worm his way into the Queen's trust, and then arrange to marry her or otherwise find a legal way into the line of succession. Maybe to gaslight her into thinking she was unfit to rule and that her trusted advisor should be Regent while she "recovers." Or merely make him her "right hand" and then confine herself away from the stresses of rule for as long as he convinces her to do so.

His plot is NE because it relies on a sense of order, it is orchestrated and stuck to rigorously, but it has no qualms about actually following the rules except where they serve his goal.

[hamishspence]

Some Redwall villains may qualify - when you're singing songs about how wonderful it is to be bad, or boasting "I do my best to be the worst" - that's pretty close.

[atemu1234]

Some Redwall villains may qualify - when you're singing songs about how wonderful it is to be bad, or boasting "I do my best to be the worst" - that's pretty close.

Meh, I've usually found Do Wrong Right to be a more neutral evil outlook. Though any alignment may take pride in its... quality.

[Strigon]

Meh, I've usually found Do Wrong Right to be a more neutral evil outlook. Though any alignment may take pride in its... quality.

I agree; many of the Redwall villains were simply common bandits who were good at their job.
Of course, there are so many books, there are sure to be exceptions; Asmodeus and the one from one Doomwyte spring to mind.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Raises hand In segment 7, Relationships With Other People, I'm 80% certain you have the descriptions for Underling and Superior mixed up.

[Optimator]

I don't understand why Darth Vader is always brought up as the poster child for Lawful Evil. Seems more Chaotic to me. Is he in a hierarchy? Sure, but he doesn't want to be--no Sith does. That's why there was the rule of two: Sith kept killing each other. Do Chaotic and Neutral villains not crave power? Canonically, the dark side of The Force channels hatred and passion and makes people fly off the handle. Is Vader honorable? He strangles underlings! Does he follow a strict personal code? Maybe when he was Anakin, but no longer. Sith always freestyle it. The Sith Code is really "Channel hate, flip out." Not exactly screaming "strict" personal code.

I just don't see it. I think people just get confused. "Oh, he's in politics and something of a leadership position? Lawful then." Never mind the fact that Vader couldn't give less than a crap about the Empire. He's just begrudgingly doing his master's bidding. Is it Lawful to follow orders? Slightly, but if one's master uses violence and coercion then one does what one has to. Doesn't make one Lawful.

[atemu1234]

I don't understand why Darth Vader is always brought up as the poster child for Lawful Evil. Seems more Chaotic to me. Is he in a hierarchy? Sure, but he doesn't want to be--no Sith does. That's why there was the rule of two: Sith kept killing each other. Do Chaotic and Neutral villains not crave power? Canonically, the dark side of The Force channels hatred and passion and makes people fly off the handle. Is Vader honorable? He strangles underlings! Does he follow a strict personal code? Maybe when he was Anakin, but no longer. Sith always freestyle it. The Sith Code is really "Channel hate, flip out." Not exactly screaming "strict" personal code.

I just don't see it. I think people just get confused. "Oh, he's in politics and something of a leadership position? Lawful then." Never mind the fact that Vader couldn't give less than a crap about the Empire. He's just begrudgingly doing his master's bidding. Is it Lawful to follow orders? Slightly, but if one's master uses violence and coercion then one does what one has to. Doesn't make one Lawful.

I find Palpatine more CE, really. He's definitely taken advantage of laws throughout his time.

Vader is closer to NE, a pretty even split between LE and CE.

[Cirrylius]

I find Palpatine more CE, really. He's definitely taken advantage of laws throughout his time. Vader is closer to NE, a pretty even split between LE and CE.
Depends on movies vs. books, too. In the EU his internal monologue seems to support a more LE warrior-philosopher-king image, while the movies he seems to be split between "do what Palpatine says for now, because what's the alternative" and "reunite with my estranged son at any cost except maybe pissing off Palpatine", which suggests NE to me, too.

[Tuvarkz]

I find Palpatine more CE, really. He's definitely taken advantage of laws throughout his time.

Vader is closer to NE, a pretty even split between LE and CE.

Twisting around the law to one's advantage IS Lawful Evil, though.

[Saintheart]

I don't understand why Darth Vader is always brought up as the poster child for Lawful Evil. Seems more Chaotic to me. Is he in a hierarchy? Sure, but he doesn't want to be--no Sith does. That's why there was the rule of two: Sith kept killing each other. Do Chaotic and Neutral villains not crave power? Canonically, the dark side of The Force channels hatred and passion and makes people fly off the handle. Is Vader honorable? He strangles underlings! Does he follow a strict personal code? Maybe when he was Anakin, but no longer. Sith always freestyle it. The Sith Code is really "Channel hate, flip out." Not exactly screaming "strict" personal code.

I just don't see it. I think people just get confused. "Oh, he's in politics and something of a leadership position? Lawful then." Never mind the fact that Vader couldn't give less than a crap about the Empire. He's just begrudgingly doing his master's bidding. Is it Lawful to follow orders? Slightly, but if one's master uses violence and coercion then one does what one has to. Doesn't make one Lawful.

The Sith Rule of Two strikes me as a potent example of Lawful Evil. Most non-movie 'canon' sources quote it as, in essence, "Two there shall be. One to embody power, the other to crave it." It was brought about to control what otherwise would be a suicidally NE body of people, since the Sith were ultimately about power. Lawful Neutrals, at least, operate as law, tradition, or a personal code directs them. The Rule of Two was not merely organisation - it was a restatement of Sith philosophy, that being the pursuit of power. A Sith who followed that tradition out of a genuine belief in it would have been, in my view, Lawful Evil. The Sith Code is less a set of personal standards to live up to and more of a philosophy, a way of seeing the universe:

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

But for all that, it does not brook noncompliance. If you're not following it, you're not a Sith. Bear in mind here that Sith =/= Dark Side as such, at least in non-movie canon; there are plenty of authors who make the distinction between someone who is devoted to the Sith in particular and someone who uses the Dark Side of the Force. The Sith are not simply a creed, they are an organisation - one with fairly restrictive precepts. These point towards lawful rather than chaos.

I've seen some argument along the lines that the Rule of Two broke down when Darth Plagueis -- Palpatine's master -- secured the secret of eternal life and therefore intended to live forever. Before that point, the flow was meant to be steadily in one direction: when the apprentice was strong enough to kill the master, he would do so, become the master, and take a new apprentice himself. The Rule of Two did not allow for and did not contemplate steadily killing off or replacing one's apprentices to avoid being displaced from the role of the master. This is where Palpatine departed from the Rule of Two -- even right at the end, he was looking to replace Vader with Luke. In this respect Palpatine is CE or NE -- having disregarded law, tradition, and order generally though he still uses them for his own ends.

Vader, though, is Lawful Evil. In trying to topple his master -- he tempts Luke with what may or may not have been a serious offer at Bespin -- he's obeying the Rule of Two. Vader's entire worldview changes once Padme is dead and he's with Palpatine under the influence of the Dark Side. The motivation for his actions is not solely fear of Palpatine; it's more complex than that, as evidenced by his rejection of Luke in ROTJ when he says "You don't know the power of the Dark Side. I must obey my master." When Luke points out that Vader was once Anakin Skywalker, Vader immediately replies "That name no longer has any meaning for me." Vader is following a strict personal code, but it's a decidedly evil one, and it's allied to that of the Sith.

[Saintheart]

Double posting, but also: do you guys place Inspector Louis Renault, the French policeman of Casablanca, in the Lawful Evil category?

He's a bit of a corrupt chap -- he negotiates to hand over a letter of transit out of Casblanca in exchange for a little horizontal jogging with the female of a couple, something that Rick (played by Bogart) interferes with -- and he also partakes in gambling at Rick's (at least until the German major, Strasser, requires him to find an excuse to shut the place) -- but he does strike me as living very well and using the power of his position to his advantage. What do we think, Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil?

[Red Fel]

Double posting, but also: do you guys place Inspector Louis Renault, the French policeman of Casablanca, in the Lawful Evil category?

He's a bit of a corrupt chap -- he negotiates to hand over a letter of transit out of Casblanca in exchange for a little horizontal jogging with the female of a couple, something that Rick (played by Bogart) interferes with -- and he also partakes in gambling at Rick's (at least until the German major, Strasser, requires him to find an excuse to shut the place) -- but he does strike me as living very well and using the power of his position to his advantage. What do we think, Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil?

Oh, heavens no. Louis is the definition of a good man in a bad position. It's frankly questionable whether he's Lawful, in that he has no real loyalty to the Vichy government, nor to the Germans, and offers only token adherence to the laws he ostensibly enforces. ("I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" "Your winnings, sir.") During the film, he shows little in the way of personal convictions. ("I have no conviction, if that's what you mean. I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy.") That said, by the end of the film, he does show his principles.

As for Evil, he's an example that's Neutral leaning Good. He doesn't like the fact that he works for people who answer to the occupying German forces. He's a proud Frenchman and doesn't like the fact that he now answers to an occupying power, let alone how unpleasant said occupiers are. He does his job, in part because he enjoys the power it offers him, in part out of duty, and in part out of a sense of futility - after all, what else can he do? But he takes no joy in it, no pleasure in working for the obviously Evil bad guys. And by the end, he throws off his servitude altogether. (Shown when he discards a bottle of "Vichy Water" in disgust.) He's a man of principles, and by the end of the film, he's tired of compromising them. Hence, Neutral leaning Good.

Benefiting from your position doesn't make you Evil. Working for a villain doesn't make you Evil (although it may keep you from being Good). I'd argue that Louis was LN/TN leaning LG/NG, depending on your view of his Lawfulness.

Great character, though.

[Segev]

Double posting, but also: do you guys place Inspector Louis Renault, the French policeman of Casablanca, in the Lawful Evil category?

He's a bit of a corrupt chap -- he negotiates to hand over a letter of transit out of Casblanca in exchange for a little horizontal jogging with the female of a couple, something that Rick (played by Bogart) interferes with -- and he also partakes in gambling at Rick's (at least until the German major, Strasser, requires him to find an excuse to shut the place) -- but he does strike me as living very well and using the power of his position to his advantage. What do we think, Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil?

The difference between Lawful and Neutral Evil for this guy would seem to center around one question: does he abuse his power, but within the letter of the law, or does he actively break and/or selectively enforce the law to his advantage? Not merely exercising legitimate (if corrupt) prosecutorial discretion ("No, really, I only have budget to prosecute 8 crimes this month, and I am going to prosecute THESE 8, so the one from the guy who's brother is doing me a favor isn't getting prosecuted"), but actively choosing simply to never enforce the law even if he can't find a legitimate excuse not to within its letter?

NE uses and abuses the law, just like LE. But NE also breaks it when they can get away with it and it benefits them to do so. LE...doesn't. LE bends, twists, and shapes it, disregarding ethics beyond the strictest obedience to the letter of any ethical rules that are explicitly codified, but will not break it. LE will advise others on how to perform a corrupt action within the letter of the law...as long as there's something in it for them...but will not want to be a part of actively breaking it. Many LE will be willing to let somebody else do so and look the other way, as long as it's not THEIR JOB within the law to report or act on it. But they will not violate it, themselves, and if they have any sort of reporting or enforcement duty, they will at the LEAST attempt to create a plausible deniability. "Sure, I know he's committed these crimes before, and yes, I may have left money in a location I knew he might possibly check, and I did mention to him a problem that is conveniently solved by his commission of this crime, but I didn't know for sure he'd done it, nor am I positive he ever took that money I just happened to leave lying around. I certainly never TOLD him to do it!"

LE, if it's going to break the law, is going to go out of its way to avoid technically being personally in violation. NE...will just try hard not to get caught.

[Cirrylius]

Vader is following a strict personal code, but it's a decidedly evil one, and it's allied to that of the Sith.
With respect to your clearly formidable knowledge of the SWU-EU, placing Vader in LE specifically because of his Sith philosophy may be somewhat... myopic, no offence.

The Code is a statement of core values, but those values are those of individuality and ambition- passion, power, and freedom. The Rule of Two isn't just a restatement of those goals, it was both implemented as a logistical safety to prevent the philosophy from destroying itself (an unsurprising consequence of a whole organization of training rabidly ambitious superheroes whose powers cause almost inevitable moral degradation) and a means to ensure that each new master would be stronger than those before.

Being Sith may require strict discipline and adherence, but if the most important binding principles are "follow your feelings, get s**t done, don't let anyone tell you what to do, including your master eventually, but for the LOVE OF GOD don't make more than two" that sounds more Chaotic (plus one all-important caveat) than Lawful.

[AvatarVecna]

The Jedi and the Sith are opposed to each other, although they are not necessarily Light-Dark so much as Order-Freedom.

The Jedi Code is about coming into your power slowly and carefully, so as to risk the absolute minimum damage to your psyche and moral compass. The Jedi believe that the power of the Force should not be wielded carelessly, since even the slightest ripples can have far-reaching consequences for those untrained in knowing the right time to strike. The Jedi Code encourages order, learning from the examples of others, following traditional methods, and so on. It is, at it's core, a Lawful Neutral code that, because it encourages order, peace-keeping, and justice, is widely viewed as Lawful Good. At multiple times throughout canon, whether in the original 6 films, or the extended universe (both past and future), schisms in the Jedi Order have occurred because some Neutral Good idealist wanted to do the right thing, but the Lawful Neutral Jedi Council wouldn't allow them.

On the other side of the coin is the Sith. The Sith believe that their power in the Force should not be limited; they are about giving into their emotions, letting their hearts guide them, and being the best they can be. The hypothetical perfect Sith is a being without any limitations...a lofty goal, but more one that is reached for through constantly pushing your limits, rather than one to be reached. This philosophy, at it's Core, is a decidedly Chaotic Neutral philosophy, and is the idea behind the Unfettered archetype. However, because of it's focus on personal ethics and beliefs being more important than those outside, and it's focus on pushing past limitations, it often is confused with or drifts into Chaotic Evil (The Aggro-Individualist, usually).

There have been Evil Jedi, who's desire for order, control, and tradition lead them down a dark path (Atris from KotOR 2 comes to mind). Similarly, there have been Good Sith, who pushed their limits so they could become powerful enough to do real good in the universe; I'd give an example here, but one of these guys shows up every time the Jedi become too stagnant and set in their ways (which happens quite often, in the grand scheme of things).

[Red Fel]

Let me just point out that I wasn't necessarily citing Vader as Lawful Evil. I happen to think that he fits the bill for the most part - his defining trait, from the moment the Emperor is introduced, is obedience to his Master, and his first instinct generally involves aggression, violence, and domination. So, Law (obedience) and Evil (brutality). That said, I have heard arguments that would vary his character.

No, the reason I cited Vader was that quote, combined with the imagery. The quote is one of absolute obedience, a perfect illustration of the Dragon's loyalty. The imagery is, well, it's Vader - a terrifying figure in black armor and cloak. An iconic image that inspires fear and hatred. Everyone knows he's a villain (albeit a complicated one). Combine iconic villain imagery with absolute loyalty (right up until the end, anyways) and where do you wind up? The Dragon. The Lawful Evil minion with the emphasis on the L, the obedient knight ready to serve at the direction of his dark master. That's what I was aiming for.

[Optimator]

That makes sense. :smallsmile:

[Komatik]

Just reading through the OP. It is a good mechanical dissection, but lacks some of your usual... deliciousness. It is dry, not amusingly seductive.

Using Doctor Who examples made me remember a quote I read somewhere that's stuck, despite never watching the series:

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many."


EDIT:


Magic Knight Rayearth. In addition to being an anime that watches like a self-aware RPG, this series features an amazing antagonist, Zagato.

As a bonus, just about every goddamn character apart from the three heroines is named after a car.

[Cirrylius]

Let me just point out that I wasn't necessarily citing Vader as Lawful Evil.
You distance yourself with the deftness of a third-term senator, sir. Exemplary:smallamused:

[Red Fel]

Just reading through the OP. It is a good mechanical dissection, but lacks some of your usual... deliciousness. It is dry, not amusingly seductive.

I wasn't really going for my usual fare this time. I wanted something that someone who didn't know me or my unique style could read, something that could teach a layman about how to play a character of this wonderful and diverse alignment. I was hoping my writing would be more engaging. But I'll take dry, if it was at least informative.


Using Doctor Who examples made me remember a quote I read somewhere that's stuck, despite never watching the series:

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many."

There are so many Nu!Who scenes verging on the Dark Knight archetype. The Doctor is a man of principles, not necessarily of morals.


EDIT:

As a bonus, just about every goddamn character apart from the three heroines is named after a car.

Including Eagle Vision, pilot of the FTO, and Geo Metro, pilot of the GTO. ("Yo, dawg...") Admittedly, that's the second season, and I'm not as big a fan of that one. (Ugh, how it dragged!) First season, though, brilliant.


You distance yourself with the deftness of a third-term senator, sir. Exemplary:smallamused:

You may very well think that. But I couldn't possibly comment.

[Malifice]

Let me just point out that I wasn't necessarily citing Vader as Lawful Evil. I happen to think that he fits the bill for the most part - his defining trait, from the moment the Emperor is introduced, is obedience to his Master, and his first instinct generally involves aggression, violence, and domination.

Actually no; its not. The first thing he does is betray the Emperor (as every Sith is bound to do) and conspire with Padme to overthrow him and rule alongside her. He then betrays Padme and his best friend and former master (by tyring to kill them). This was right after he betrays the Jedi order and Mace Windu. He offers the same thing to Luke (join me and together we can overthrow the Emperor and rule the galaxy as father and son.).

He of course eventually betrays and destroys the Emperor (and the Sith order) at the Emperors moment of triumph by pegging him down a shaft.

He betrays the Emperor again early on, by training a secret apprentice (and killing his own loyal soldiers in the process to hide his betrayal) in defiance of both the Emperor and breaking the only rule the Sith have (the rule of two).

He breaks his word as soon as its convenient for him to do so to Lando (Im altering the deal - pray I dont alter it any further).

He lives outside of Imperial heirarchy (and its laws), acting however as his hatred, anger and fear compell him to do. He kills without warning. He orders his whole fleet into an asteroid belt to chase Han Solo. He answers to one man (his master) and it's kind of implied that he has to or else he dies. Serving someone out of fear (and still attempting to betray him at every opportunity) isnt what I call 'LE' behaviour.

His only 'code' is the Sith code. It has one rule, which he breaks. He has no honor, follows (and is bound) to no laws but his own. He destroys the Jedi and the Sith, the Republic and the Empire and betrays (and kills) both masters and his wife.

He was CG as a Jedi (he was impossible to control, acted independently, was as likely to break an order as follow it, but acted as his conscience directed him).

As a Sith? He was just as much of a rogue agent as he was when he was a Jedi; its just this time he was also thoroughly evil.

He's as CE as you can get (barring the Joker, but he's also insane).

[Red Fel]

Actually no; its not. The first thing he does is betray the Emperor (as every Sith is bound to do) and conspire with Padme to overthrow him and rule alongside her. He then betrays Padme and his best friend and former master (by tyring to kill them). This was right after he betrays the Jedi order and Mace Windu. He offers the same thing to Luke (join me and together we can overthrow the Emperor and rule the galaxy as father and son.).

He of course eventually betrays and destroys the Emperor (and the Sith order) at the Emperors moment of triumph by pegging him down a shaft.

He betrays the Emperor again early on, by training a secret apprentice (and killing his own loyal soldiers in the process to hide his betrayal) in defiance of both the Emperor and breaking the only rule the Sith have (the rule of two).

He breaks his word as soon as its convenient for him to do so to Lando (Im altering the deal - pray I dont alter it any further).

He lives outside of Imperial heirarchy (and its laws), acting however as his hatred, anger and fear compell him to do. He kills without warning. He orders his whole fleet into an asteroid belt to chase Han Solo. He answers to one man (his master) and it's kind of implied that he has to or else he dies. Serving someone out of fear (and still attempting to betray him at every opportunity) isnt what I call 'LE' behaviour.

His only 'code' is the Sith code. It has one rule, which he breaks. He has no honor, follows (and is bound) to no laws but his own. He destroys the Jedi and the Sith, the Republic and the Empire and betrays (and kills) both masters and his wife.

He was CG as a Jedi (he was impossible to control, acted independently, was as likely to break an order as follow it, but acted as his conscience directed him).

As a Sith? He was just as much of a rogue agent as he was when he was a Jedi; its just this time he was also thoroughly evil.

He's as CE as you can get (barring the Joker, but he's also insane).

Let me repeat what I said in the portion you quoted: I wasn't necessarily citing Vader as Lawful Evil.

Now, let's review. When the Emperor is first introduced - again, look at what I said - was in the original trilogy, Episodes IV through VI. At that time, up until the last moment, everything was "My Master." Yes, My Master. He is My Master. I cannot disobey My Master. That is the epitome of loyalty, a key value of capital-L Lawfulness. Does he turn? Yes, at the last moment.

You are describing Anakin Skywalker. Prequels Anakin Skywalker. I had no desire to go into that subject, but I readily agree that he was Chaotic.

My point is this. Vader's Lawfulness is, as you point out and as I originally observed, debatable. My focus was on his loyalty. That was the point. We can debate the details of his alignment, as well as anybody else's, all day, and it wouldn't change that fact. From the moment Senator Palpatine takes a younger Anakin under his tutelage, to the moment the Younglings are massacred, to the moment that we first meet the Emperor in the original movies, right up to the Emperor ordering Vader to kill his own son, loyalty is the order of things. Does he turn at the last moment? Yes. But for what amounts to most of his life, he serves the Emperor with absolute zeal and loyalty.

I used that word a lot. There's a reason for it.

[Segev]

Loyalty is great when you can get it. But trusting in it is inviting betrayal. I prefer my minions thoroughly enslaved, though I'll settle for "interpreting everything I say in the best possible light" for the particularly intelligent ones. And always keep "thorough enslavement" as a backup option, should anybody get ... ideas.

There are, of course, drawbacks. But better unintentional failure than deliberate betrayal. The latter is usually at least twice as bad, adding to the enemy forces in equal part to what it loses you.

[denthor]

Tagging for a later read LE is one of my interest since in real life I am CG maybe NG

[Malifice]

Let me repeat what I said in the portion you quoted: I wasn't necessarily citing Vader as Lawful Evil.

Now, let's review. When the Emperor is first introduced - again, look at what I said - was in the original trilogy, Episodes IV through VI. At that time, up until the last moment, everything was "My Master." Yes, My Master. He is My Master. I cannot disobey My Master. That is the epitome of loyalty, a key value of capital-L Lawfulness. Does he turn? Yes, at the last moment.

You are describing Anakin Skywalker. Prequels Anakin Skywalker. I had no desire to go into that subject, but I readily agree that he was Chaotic.

My point is this. Vader's Lawfulness is, as you point out and as I originally observed, debatable. My focus was on his loyalty. That was the point. We can debate the details of his alignment, as well as anybody else's, all day, and it wouldn't change that fact. From the moment Senator Palpatine takes a younger Anakin under his tutelage, to the moment the Younglings are massacred, to the moment that we first meet the Emperor in the original movies, right up to the Emperor ordering Vader to kill his own son, loyalty is the order of things. Does he turn at the last moment? Yes. But for what amounts to most of his life, he serves the Emperor with absolute zeal and loyalty.

I used that word a lot. There's a reason for it.

He offers to betray the Emperor and rule the galaxy as father and wife/ son to Luke and Padme. He also betrays the Emperor (and the Sith code) by secretly training an apprentice (Starkiller).

Also, the Sith 'Code' is kinda this:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Post Bane, they temper it with the rule of two (that Vader breaks).

[Hecuba]

He offers to betray the Emperor and rule the galaxy as father and wife/ son to Luke and Padme. He also betrays the Emperor (and the Sith code) by secretly training an apprentice (Starkiller).

You and Red Fel are pretty clearly arguing past each other: he is explicitly just considering the original trilogy and how the character was presented therein, while you seem to be considering a far broader scope that includes the prequels and the Expanded Universe. As a result, there is a pretty good case for both of you being right.

The original trilogy is a far more constrained narrative. Without the decades of character and seetting development in the works since, there is a very good case for Vader as LE until he turns away from his master by killing him.

Throwing in the prequels alone makes him a very different character: he breaks a significant number of Jedi traditions and rules, shows little respect for the Jedi masters, betrays the Jedi order, and helps overthrow the government. The characterizations are incredibly different and pretty squarely chaotic

If you delve into the Expanded Universe, there is a pretty good case that a Sith can't be Lawful. Where the Light and Dark sides of the force in the Original Trilogy were largely just generic proxies for Good and Evil, a couple decades of development made them more specifically something like Stoic Good and Hedonistic Evil respectively.

[bobthehero]

Love me some Lawful Evil, such a shame we switched from Pathfinder back to Only War.

[Flesh_Engine]

While not very iconic or well known ('round these parts), I feel that the character Alarak (and the Tal'Darim society) from Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void is rather magnificently Lawful Evil and totally lives up to his "hype".

[Segev]

Tangential, but if you look at what the Dark Side really draws from vs. the Light Side, it seems to me that the Light Side is all about control, mental discipline, and intellectually directing the Force with poise and logic and training, while the Dark Side is all about "feeling" it and going with what YOU feel, letting the Force do for you what you want.

Neither is inherently good nor evil.

I've always wanted to play a Dark Side user who was a very friendly and kind soul. He just lets his emotions drive his Force-use. "Look what I can do!" is an exhultation he uses to power a lot of it. Like a sweet-hearted kid in a candy store.

[Red Fel]

Tangential, but if you look at what the Dark Side really draws from vs. the Light Side, it seems to me that the Light Side is all about control, mental discipline, and intellectually directing the Force with poise and logic and training, while the Dark Side is all about "feeling" it and going with what YOU feel, letting the Force do for you what you want.

Neither is inherently good nor evil.

I've said this many times, and I happen to agree with the sentiment. Dark Side vs. Light Side has never truly, in my mind, been about Good versus Evil, with the exception that, in the Original Trilogy, the Light Side users happened to be Good and the Emperor was personally Evil. But philosophically, that's not what they're about.

Ironically, despite espousing the Dark Side, the Emperor's methods have been very much Lawful. Using political channels to gain power, using rules and votes to secure it, manipulating the public into supporting his bid for absolute control. Rigidly controlling and manipulating each of his pawns, permitting as little deviation or disobedience as possible. His methods, rather uniquely among Dark Side users, are quite Lawful.


I've always wanted to play a Dark Side user who was a very friendly and kind soul. He just lets his emotions drive his Force-use. "Look what I can do!" is an exhultation he uses to power a lot of it. Like a sweet-hearted kid in a candy store.

A lot of fans write characters like this, actually. They refer to them as "Grey Jedi" or "The Middle Path." The idea being that the Dark Side is about freedom and power, which - as we've both said - isn't inherently Evil, so as long as you prefer to direct these intense and destructive powers towards a positive end, you're really not Dark Side per se.

[Cirrylius]

My only beef with this is all the instances we've seen of Jedi using or acknowledging their passions for anything, bad s**t happens (the fact that all the instances we've seen have been narratively important is a point I'll concede).

I've never seen the Dark Side as evil so much as it strengthens those qualities with which you touch it. If you use it with focus, and no other strong considerations, you can continue to use it neutrally with no side effects. If you use it emotionally, it drastically empowers whatever emotional processes you use to fuel it with. Love becomes flaming passion, burned across the skies of Corruscant. Tenderness becomes furious protectiveness, pride becomes gloating, even cold clinicality becomes unempathetic disregard. The human psyche doesn't seem to be capable of moderation when using the Force with anything but detachment and surrender.

Not that I'm saying the Force Witches and the Gray Jedi and the Dark Jedi can't be a thing, it would just require much, much stricter internal policing and much more infrequent force-related emotional indulgences than the Sith's "do whatever, trust yourself to do it right" abandon. The Sith's motivational and emotional mindsets should only be sociable or stable in the short run, IMO.

...either that or contact with the Force necessitates a morality of "dominating, deceiving, or committing violence beyond defensively or the barest minimum to prevent more of the same is objectively evil".

[illyahr]

Love this guide, Fel. I once played a wizard who was the alien. He was a scientist who experimented with spells and alchemy in order to become a perfect entity. He would perform horrific acts to further his studies (he once used a deceased party member's eyes as mobile scrying devices). The party loathed him but wouldn't do anything but feel guilty since his experiments provided them with potions and tonics that were extremely useful. They would down the potions and try not to think about what was required to make them. :smallamused:

[dantiesilva]

Oh Great master of evil, I humbly request your help in making my lawful evil villain all that he can be.

[Red Fel]

Oh Great master of evil, I humbly request your help in making my lawful evil villain all that he can be.

You have an audience. State your request, and be heard. What would you ask of Us?

[dantiesilva]

Oh greater taker of souls, the one who keeps us safe. I ask that you give life to Ryl Aufein. A devil summoner who was raised by Lady Fierna after his parents were brutally murderer by a group of knights who hunted down all who knew magic. His mistress saved him that day and took him to her fiery palace in Phlegethos and raised him to one day unleash her kind upon the world of men, spreading her order into the known world, and destroying all those who hunted down and killed mages like what had been done to his parents.

However after years of living with the devils in Phlegethos, Ryl began to see the world as a giant chess bored, and the pieces given to him by Lady Fierna as not really his own, but merely spies. While he still followed her wishes, and would never wish her harm, he began sending those who were not loyal only to him to be killed by mages that he had saved. Gaining new allies that would be loyal only to him, and through him, his mistress. However they would be his own. What would your greatness recommend?

Basically Ryl Aufein was a child born to a family of gifted summoners who lived on the outskirts of a small town pretending to be farmers. One day when Ryl was still a child he went with his father into town and not seeing anything wrong with magic, used it as he always had. A day later knights came and slaughtered his family, burning the house with them still alive inside. At this point Lady Fierna came and took Ryl, offering to save him in exchange for him to one day help her when she needed it. He agreed, and was taken to Phlegethos. What Ryl wasn't aware of was that his family line were very gifted summoners, and that any creature they summoned was stronger and faster then others. Lady Fierna wanted this power for her own, so that she could gain a stronger foothold in the material plane so that she could overthrow her father and rule the fourth layer of hell, using this boy as her lighting rod. As such she nurtured his powers, and fueled his hatred for those who had killed his parents, like a flame, constantly feeding it. However she also taught him to follow certain rules, this is what I mainly have a problem with. Figuring out where he would draw the line on the law. Living with creatures that embody Law and Evil all his life he would have very strong views on the matter, and abide by them just like any devil would. Honoring his word and keeping all promises he made.

On the other hand Ryl while he trusts Fierna to keep him safe, he doesn't trust her not to use him for her own goals, merely a chess piece on her board. As such he took up the game, using real life pieces (Lemur devils and such) with her, putting their wits against each other. He agrees that the material world must be brought to order, however he doesn't believe in making it like the world he grew up in. Instead he wishes to simply destroy everything he sees as wrong with the world, using the devils he has at his command, as well as the mages he saves and converts to make a new empire, in which people no longer need to live in fear of being hunted down by those that do not wield magic, and as such fear it.

The build is human Conjurer variant 3/Master specialist 10/ Malconvoker 7 (may go higher depending on how long the game last, he is intended to be a rival to the wizard or sorcerer in the party, trying to convince him to join his side, while seeing the others as chains that keep the mage bound). He also has third party feats that allow his summoned creatures to come with the elite array, bonus hp, max summoned amount possible +2, +6 to Str and Con, and an additional +1d6 fire damage on top of the fire damage from malconvoker. If you could please help me I would greatly appreciate it.

[Red Fel]

Oh greater taker of souls, the one who keeps us safe. I ask that you give life to Ryl Aufein. A devil summoner who was raised by Lady Fierna after his parents were brutally murderer by a group of knights who hunted down all who knew magic. His mistress saved him that day and took him to her fiery palace in Phlegethos and raised him to one day unleash her kind upon the world of men, spreading her order into the known world, and destroying all those who hunted down and killed mages like what had been done to his parents.

However after years of living with the devils in Phlegethos, Ryl began to see the world as a giant chess bored, and the pieces given to him by Lady Fierna as not really his own, but merely spies. While he still followed her wishes, and would never wish her harm, he began sending those who were not loyal only to him to be killed by mages that he had saved. Gaining new allies that would be loyal only to him, and through him, his mistress. However they would be his own. What would your greatness recommend?

Basically Ryl Aufein was a child born to a family of gifted summoners who lived on the outskirts of a small town pretending to be farmers. One day when Ryl was still a child he went with his father into town and not seeing anything wrong with magic, used it as he always had. A day later knights came and slaughtered his family, burning the house with them still alive inside. At this point Lady Fierna came and took Ryl, offering to save him in exchange for him to one day help her when she needed it. He agreed, and was taken to Phlegethos. What Ryl wasn't aware of was that his family line were very gifted summoners, and that any creature they summoned was stronger and faster then others. Lady Fierna wanted this power for her own, so that she could gain a stronger foothold in the material plane so that she could overthrow her father and rule the fourth layer of hell, using this boy as her lighting rod. As such she nurtured his powers, and fueled his hatred for those who had killed his parents, like a flame, constantly feeding it. However she also taught him to follow certain rules, this is what I mainly have a problem with. Figuring out where he would draw the line on the law. Living with creatures that embody Law and Evil all his life he would have very strong views on the matter, and abide by them just like any devil would. Honoring his word and keeping all promises he made.

On the other hand Ryl while he trusts Fierna to keep him safe, he doesn't trust her not to use him for her own goals, merely a chess piece on her board. As such he took up the game, using real life pieces (Lemur devils and such) with her, putting their wits against each other. He agrees that the material world must be brought to order, however he doesn't believe in making it like the world he grew up in. Instead he wishes to simply destroy everything he sees as wrong with the world, using the devils he has at his command, as well as the mages he saves and converts to make a new empire, in which people no longer need to live in fear of being hunted down by those that do not wield magic, and as such fear it.

The build is human Conjurer variant 3/Master specialist 10/ Malconvoker 7 (may go higher depending on how long the game last, he is intended to be a rival to the wizard or sorcerer in the party, trying to convince him to join his side, while seeing the others as chains that keep the mage bound). He also has third party feats that allow his summoned creatures to come with the elite array, bonus hp, max summoned amount possible +2, +6 to Str and Con, and an additional +1d6 fire damage on top of the fire damage from malconvoker. If you could please help me I would greatly appreciate it.

Interesting. My natural instinct was to go with a Dragon - he was saved by Fierna, raised by Fierna, and effectively programmed by Fierna, so he serves without question. But he has a natural cynicism that becomes manifest - he challenges himself against her, and while he doesn't openly rebel, he does push back. And it makes sense - as a summoner, he can call various Outsiders, and exert dominion over them. Fierna is an Outsider, and while the Big Names get some protection, it's a difference of magnitude, not of kind.

So let's start with building blocks of personality. We have three formative pieces - past, present, and future.
Past: He lost everything. It was taken away. So there's some hatred there. Let's make that the core of his E side. Bitterness, revenge, and so forth. You nailed down specifically what he hates - he had power, through no fault of his own, and his family was slaughtered for it. So he hates those who would kill a person for having power. This fits comfortably with an LE mindset - those with power are the killers, not the killed; might makes right, and it is unnatural for those without power to try to crush those who have it.
Present: Given his ability to summon things, coupled with his hatred for those who ruined his life and being raised by a Devil, it makes sense that he has a ruthless, basically sociopathic view of people as pawns. This needs to filter into everything. Every interaction is a chess game writ small. Saying "Good morning" to a neighbor should trigger in his mind a momentary passing of pawns. Taking out a band of Orcs should be like taking out a knight. Building trust in a party should be like castling your king and rook. And meeting the local nobles for the first time should be assessing the board for ways to claim the king. Not that he'd ever act on it, but everything in his mind should boil down to using one thing and taking another, and whether the exchange is worthwhile.
Future: He has vision. Admittedly, it's a bit delusional, but he has a vision of how he can "better" the world. And yes, I say it's delusional, because... Well, let me put it this way. He wants to build a world in which the people he prefers are protected from the "rotten" elements, right? Here's the problem with that. Say all of humanity is in two boats. The people he likes are on one boat, the people he doesn't like are on the other. Both break down, and one has to be scuttled to save the other, which would cost the lives of everyone on that boat. Obviously, he would choose the boat with disliked people to be scavenged. But later, the remaining boat needs to be evacuated as well, with everyone piling onto two boats. And the cycle continues. Point is, however, that he is guided by this misguided ideal - he believes that he can help people by using them in this manner, by deciding who lives and who dies, by moving pawns and promoting pieces. He knows best.
So, how to achieve his goals, keeping in mind his history, and through the means of his personality? Step one is almost always the same - power. He serves Fierna, partially out of gratitude, but partially because it lets him build his strength. So let him build his strength. Let him learn the ways and names of demons he can command. Let him build his army. But most importantly, let him collect favors. People may be pawns, but favors let you move bishops, rooks, and even queens.

He is trying to perform the unthinkable - put his own king in check. He must know that, right now, he is little more than a pawn himself; he needs to be promoted to queen before he can stand a chance at putting his king in check. But by collecting his own pawns, and by earning favors, he can manipulate the board. Ideally, despite playing for black, he can earn enough favors to move the white pieces into position. Put his king into check once or twice, perhaps perform a last-minute save to secure his role as a valuable piece. When the time comes, he simply trades pieces.

Let me be clear - trying to actually topple Fierna is a bad idea. She has allies and power aplenty. There is no way that disrupting the hierarchy of the Hells ends well for him. But. Chess isn't just about taking pieces. It's about trading them. You take my pawn, I take your knight. You take my bishop, I take your queen. This is how he earns his independence - not by supplanting Fierna as king, but by providing her a more valuable piece. If he can prove that he is worthy to play against his own opponents on his own board, and he can give her a pawn to use in his stead, he has earned himself the right to be a king. Not a king in place of his king, or a king opposed to his king; a king on a different board, whose victories can be attributed to his king in turn. That's the sort of exchange Fierna will value, that's the sort of exchange that gets him everything he wants without offending the Hells. Being raised by Devils, he should understand and value the need to work within the system, rather than against it.

Follow the rules. Take pawns. Trade pieces. Get promoted. Earn your own board. From square one he'll be watching all sixty-four.

[dantiesilva]

Thank you very much, this is exactly what I was looking for. Reading your posts I thought the dragon at first as well, however he showed atributes of other archtypes and as such wanted your view on it. I also agree he would never turn on her after all she saved his life and raised him. Giving him a way to channel his power. In that regard he is the very embodiment of the dragon.

Do you think I should change his views so we don't have the two boats problem? And if so how would I do so without changing the character.

[Red Fel]

Do you think I should change his views so we don't have the two boats problem? And if so how would I do so without changing the character.

There's nothing wrong with it, honestly. Most characters fueled by hatred or vengeance have the air of at least some irrationality about them. Even Inigo Montoya, anti-hero though he might be, was appallingly irrational right up until the moment he discovered that, without vengeance, he had nothing to live for. It's fine to have a goal so nebulous that he hasn't actually thought in detail about what he would have until he actually has it, if at all; most people don't. Even full-grown adults, when talking about "If I ever had a billion dollars" or "If I ever had super powers" will rarely consider the more subtle ramifications.

I think the two boats problem creates some depth and slight flaw to the character, which will have a negligible impact unless he engages in profound navel (naval? bad pun) gazing. Even if you take that away, the underlying goal - create a better world through overwhelming power and force - is still relatively straightforward and intact, and within the parameters already established. No real change in the person, even if he does become more realistic about the ultimate goal.

[dantiesilva]

Thank you for your time great master of lawful evil.

[Lagren]

To the esteemed Red Fel:
I quite enjoy disassembling my characters and putting them back together, so I was naturally intrigued by your guide. I attempted to apply it to one of my longstanding characters, and would be interested to hear what you have to say on the subject and on my results so far.

The character in question, Isabella, is a vampiric noblewoman. She was turned against her will, then killed her sire. She has a fundamental issue that stalks her everywhere she goes: this is that she was turned at a young age (12-14) and therefore very visibly does not age, as well as being permanently stuck as someone who looks of little importance.

Due to her time spent in thrall, she now possesses a vicious grudge against all those who would enslave another, and a deep-seated need for control of her life. These two motivations often come into conflict with respect to those around her: she must have absolute authority over those close to her, while being able to justify to herself that they want it that way. In practice, this manifests as a fierce loyalty and duty to 'her and hers'. She treats her allies and servants as extensions of herself: an insult to the meagerest of her minions is a personal affront to her. She also takes guest-right extremely seriously.

In the rare event that one of her servants voices disagreement with her, Isabella begins by ignoring it: after all, such complaints must be trifles. If the servant escalates and makes the issue impossible for Isabella to ignore, then she takes a moment to consider the point being made. If she agrees, she implements it: if she does not, she sits down her servant and gives them a lecture on why she feels that it's not feasible.

If the servant continues to oppose Isabella's viewpoint, then Isabella begins levying punishments - starting with 'go to your room', and ramping up continuously. Isabella will make every effort to let her servant apologize and back down - but if they press the issue for long enough, she reclassifies them mentally from 'one of mine' to 'a threat to me and mine.' Such threats are disposed of as efficiently as possible, in whichever way will ensure that they do not become a threat again. (Death is often the most convenient option in such cases.)

Due to this need to be able to deal with threats, Isabella seeks power, primarily as a shield: the more strength she has, the fewer things pose a serious threat to her. Her childish appearance actively works against her here, serving as a constant reminder of what was stolen from her when she was turned.

When Isabella is content with a position of relative strength, she then looks outwards, searching for those who she feels are abusing their power: if she has the resources to do so, she works to destroy these tyrants. She is of the opinion that there does exist absolute good and evil in the world, and that, surgeon-like, she must cut out disease when she has the means to.

Decomposing her personality, Isaballa has eight major 'voices' that conflict and argue in her head:

"The Marked":
I am broken and wrong. Becoming a vampire destroyed who I was supposed to be. I cannot heal. Everything I touch is doomed to wither and die.

"The Queen":
I am sovereign. I have a duty to my allies and servants. Others should respect and fear me. Me and mine are not to be trifled with with impunity.

"The Outcast":
I am unique. Others do not understand me. Because of this, mutual trust is impossible. I must protect myself first.

"The Bookworm":
I'm self-sufficient. Searching for power is a fool's game. Books and tea are all I really need. People are rather annoying.

"The Surgeon":
The ends justify the means. Amputate the limb if it will save the patient. In the end, people are made out of meat. Do no avoidable harm.

"The Scholar":
Knowledge is power. Learn, in order to predict, in order to control. All things can be comprehended. Magic is just another tool to master.

"The Child":
Good and evil are simple and obvious. Most people are good. Pretty things are nice, but complicated things are more fun. Pretty and complicated things are best.

"The Fury":
I will not submit. I will not surrender. To these ends, I will do anything.

In general, the Scholar, the Queen, and the Surgeon are in charge of Isabella's day-to-day descision-making, with the Marked acting as a sort of overly-gothy conscience for the three. The Outcast, the Bookworm, and the Child tend to gain more control when she's stressed, but the Fury is kept heavily-chained-down by the rest of her except in dire emergency: Isabella subconsciously associates her vampirism with the Fury, and is terrified of what might happen if it become the driving force in her life. (She's supposed to be above vengeance.)

She doesn't seem to fit neatly into any of the archetypes presented, though she uses pieces of the Prince, Dark Knight, Executive, and Zealot.

I'm intrigued by the discussion of motivations, though: all of them have at least some application to the character. Ambition and Venegance for herself: Duty and Loyalty to her allies and followers: Madness creeping in at the edges as she convinces herself that she's right and correct. The methods section also applies to her in spades.

When presented to others, she's been read as Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral, and True Neutral. What are your thoughts on the matter?

[Red Fel]

To the esteemed Red Fel:
I quite enjoy disassembling my characters and putting them back together, so I was naturally intrigued by your guide. I attempted to apply it to one of my longstanding characters, and would be interested to hear what you have to say on the subject and on my results so far.

I am intrigued. Let's take your discussion piece by piece.


The character in question, Isabella, is a vampiric noblewoman. She was turned against her will, then killed her sire. She has a fundamental issue that stalks her everywhere she goes: this is that she was turned at a young age (12-14) and therefore very visibly does not age, as well as being permanently stuck as someone who looks of little importance.

Dark.


Due to her time spent in thrall, she now possesses a vicious grudge against all those who would enslave another, and a deep-seated need for control of her life. These two motivations often come into conflict with respect to those around her: she must have absolute authority over those close to her, while being able to justify to herself that they want it that way. In practice, this manifests as a fierce loyalty and duty to 'her and hers'. She treats her allies and servants as extensions of herself: an insult to the meagerest of her minions is a personal affront to her. She also takes guest-right extremely seriously.

Hmm. Now, seeking to depose those who would dominate others is admittedly partially Chaotic, partially Good, and the need for control of her own life tends towards the Chaotic. Loyalty is traditionally seen as a Lawful trait, although Chaotic characters should be allowed to demonstrate such qualities; protection of those within your control is similarly Lawful. Guest-Right is a very Lawful principle. So there's a bit of a mix so far.


In the rare event that one of her servants voices disagreement with her, Isabella begins by ignoring it: after all, such complaints must be trifles. If the servant escalates and makes the issue impossible for Isabella to ignore, then she takes a moment to consider the point being made. If she agrees, she implements it: if she does not, she sits down her servant and gives them a lecture on why she feels that it's not feasible.

LN bordering on TN so far. There's nothing inherently Evil about wanting to disregard counsel, and while "My word is final" is a strong position, it is not quite exclusively Lawful. By contrast, permitting counsel to sway your decisions is not inherently non-Lawful, merely non-Rectal, which is an obnoxiously extreme form of Lawfulness that I don't regard as a remotely entertaining character concept.


If the servant continues to oppose Isabella's viewpoint, then Isabella begins levying punishments - starting with 'go to your room', and ramping up continuously. Isabella will make every effort to let her servant apologize and back down - but if they press the issue for long enough, she reclassifies them mentally from 'one of mine' to 'a threat to me and mine.' Such threats are disposed of as efficiently as possible, in whichever way will ensure that they do not become a threat again. (Death is often the most convenient option in such cases.)

Here's the thing. Punishing those who act out of line isn't LE, or else no disciplinarian parent could ever be considered Good. Having strict rules and strict guidelines on how to deal with them is certainly Lawful, but not necessarily Evil. Even going so far as to reclassify a thoroughly insubordinate underling as a threat, and to have them executed, isn't necessarily Evil; in fact, her desire to refrain from killing them veers gently away from Evil, generally.


Due to this need to be able to deal with threats, Isabella seeks power, primarily as a shield: the more strength she has, the fewer things pose a serious threat to her. Her childish appearance actively works against her here, serving as a constant reminder of what was stolen from her when she was turned.

An appreciation for power, as I've stated, is commonly an Evil trait, but it is not exclusively one. Particularly in this character's case, where she has a very real and specific reason to need power - namely, the fact that she is a mentally ancient person in a physically juvenile body, and thus power is the only way she can feel on the outside the way she does on the inside. It's more desperation than ambition.


When Isabella is content with a position of relative strength, she then looks outwards, searching for those who she feels are abusing their power: if she has the resources to do so, she works to destroy these tyrants. She is of the opinion that there does exist absolute good and evil in the world, and that, surgeon-like, she must cut out disease when she has the means to.

This may actually classify her as Good, depending on her methods. Destroying the cruel and unjust is a popular G pastime, particularly CG. So unless her methods are particularly savage and cruel, it's hard to pin this down as LE.


Decomposing her personality, Isaballa has eight major 'voices' that conflict and argue in her head:

"The Marked":
I am broken and wrong. Becoming a vampire destroyed who I was supposed to be. I cannot heal. Everything I touch is doomed to wither and die.

Dark.


"The Queen":
I am sovereign. I have a duty to my allies and servants. Others should respect and fear me. Me and mine are not to be trifled with with impunity.

Strongly L ("I have a duty"), moderately E ("Others should respect and fear me").


"The Outcast":
I am unique. Others do not understand me. Because of this, mutual trust is impossible. I must protect myself first.

Neutral ("I must protect myself first").


"The Bookworm":
I'm self-sufficient. Searching for power is a fool's game. Books and tea are all I really need. People are rather annoying.

Neutral (self-explanatory).


"The Surgeon":
The ends justify the means. Amputate the limb if it will save the patient. In the end, people are made out of meat. Do no avoidable harm.

Moderately Lawful ("Amputate the limb if it will save the patient"), strongly Neutral ("The ends justify the means . . . Do no avoidable harm").


"The Scholar":
Knowledge is power. Learn, in order to predict, in order to control. All things can be comprehended. Magic is just another tool to master.

Neutral.


"The Child":
Good and evil are simple and obvious. Most people are good. Pretty things are nice, but complicated things are more fun. Pretty and complicated things are best.

Juvenile. Also Neutral.


"The Fury":
I will not submit. I will not surrender. To these ends, I will do anything.

Mildly Evil, but only mildly; this could easily pass as Neutral as well.


In general, the Scholar, the Queen, and the Surgeon are in charge of Isabella's day-to-day descision-making, with the Marked acting as a sort of overly-gothy conscience for the three. The Outcast, the Bookworm, and the Child tend to gain more control when she's stressed, but the Fury is kept heavily-chained-down by the rest of her except in dire emergency: Isabella subconsciously associates her vampirism with the Fury, and is terrified of what might happen if it become the driving force in her life. (She's supposed to be above vengeance.)

See, that part? Keeping her vampirism in check? Fearing indulging in her power? Trying to be above vengeance? That's non-Evil. Evil readily indulges in power. Revels in it. Evil isn't above vengeance, it delights in it.


She doesn't seem to fit neatly into any of the archetypes presented, though she uses pieces of the Prince, Dark Knight, Executive, and Zealot.

The archetypes I've presented are ways to see LE, but the concepts behind them aren't exclusively LE. You can have a ruthlessly efficient LN Executive, a strong and charismatic LG Prince, a madly loyal LN Dark Knight, a crusading LG Zealot. The concepts have to be adapted somewhat - as I've listed them, I've explained them with an E component - but it's not a reach.

Nor is any one archetype meant to be exclusive. Characters frequently overlap. The goal of presenting those archetypes was to present a way to view a character, in general, in a more human, comprehensible, complete light. As a person, as a group of motivations and traits and methodologies, instead of a vast nebulous storm of ideas centered around two enigmatic letters.

So, yes, she can feature parts of each without being a contradiction in terms. But even so, that doesn't guarantee that she's LE.


I'm intrigued by the discussion of motivations, though: all of them have at least some application to the character. Ambition and Venegance for herself: Duty and Loyalty to her allies and followers: Madness creeping in at the edges as she convinces herself that she's right and correct. The methods section also applies to her in spades.

I'm not sure I agree. First off, you haven't shown me an Ambition. She has goals, of course - secure power and overthrow tyrants - but these aren't personal. They're general, and non-specific. Ambition can be described in terms of "I want." "I want the world to cower at my feet." "I want more wealth than I know what to do with." "I want to show those fools at the academy." At best, you've described her desire to control her own destiny, but that's not particularly unique; most intelligent creatures, particularly Chaotic ones, share that same dream.

Second, I haven't seen Vengeance. She killed her sire. That's done. Her vendetta against tyrants isn't really vengeance, or even personal. Vengeance is personal. It rises from hatred, from personal slight, from rage that the cosmos has allowed this indignity to go - wait for it - unavenged. What she has is a philosophical disagreement with tyrants, one which she solves with violence.

Duty and Loyalty, you've shown in fair measure. Madness, perhaps, although really it's just Denial. But that's fair.


When presented to others, she's been read as Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral, and True Neutral. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Honestly? She doesn't read as that Evil. I don't see torture or brutality, I don't see excess or debauchery or immorality, I don't see ravenous greed or blind ambition or heartless ruthlessness with a tendency towards unnecessary severity. I see a desperate woman in the body of a child, with a mind fraying from the disconnect, who seeks to control her world by controlling others. And yet, despite dominating them, she cares for them, listens to them, and protects them. And when she's done doing that, she goes out into the world to make bad men pay.

Aside from her own tyranny - and it's not clear that she's even that much of a tyrant - she reads as almost Chaotic Good in some ways. Yes, some of her inner voices are Lawful, but not overwhelmingly so, and it's her actions that speak volumes. She wants to be free and control her own fate. She wants to free others. She has a philosophical objection to tyranny which manifests in a desire to - and the act of - overthrow tyrants.

Can a Lawful character be opposed to tyranny? Certainly. But a Lawful character also takes comfort in knowing his role. Tradition, obligation, and duty are sources of calm, predictability, and safety. A character who fears having a role imposed, as opposed to relishing it, veers away from that tradition.

[Lagren]

*snip*


Isabella was originally developed as a 'relatable monster', and has since been tweaked and prodded and edited over a period of... Years now, I guess. Some readers of her have asked how different versions of her stem from the same root, since her position on the alignment grid has shifted between iterations, as does the ways she expresses it.

Isabella is definitely a woman who is fighting a hard battle, both with herself and with the world: and I believe her alignment is to some degree dependent on wether she's winning or losing.

Let me give you a few examples:

Isabella is in a city where the purchase of slaves is legal. She wishes to prevent some of this injustice, so she purchases a slave to be one of her household servants. She fancies that this servant will act as a footman for her.

The slave proves rebellious and unwilling to adapt to his new role as a household servant. He only wishes to be free.

An Isabella who is winning her battle listens. She sees that her servant is unhappy. She understands that he wishes to be free. Rather than bending her servant to her will, she gives him a small purse of gold and transport to a place where he can have a good life.

An Isabella who is losing her battle refuses to see the truth. She belittles him and insists that she knows better. She 'gently nudges' him with Suggestions and Charms. When he proves resistant, she resorts to physical punishment. If her new servant discards three or four chances for reform, she is likely to curse his insubordination and cut his throat in an indignant rage. After all, any servant who knows what she is and rebels is too large a threat to her to be allowed to live.

This is also reflected in her methodology: while a 'winning' Isabella can be expressed as having 'philosophical differences' with tyrants, one who is 'losing' is absolutely driven by vengeance. It's not enough for her to have killed the person responsible for holding her in thrall: all others who would do the same as equally as deserving of her fury. All methods are acceptable in the pursuit of their destruction, including torture, assassination, etc, even of uninvolved parties.

As for her ambition: Isabella's core ambition can be expressed as "I want to never kneel again." It's more than a desire for self-determination: it's an active rejection of any authority greater than her own. For some iterations of her, this drive could very well lead her on a quest for godhood - should some god feel inclined to interfere in her life.



The archetypes I've presented are ways to see LE, but the concepts behind them aren't exclusively LE. You can have a ruthlessly efficient LN Executive, a strong and charismatic LG Prince, a madly loyal LN Dark Knight, a crusading LG Zealot. The concepts have to be adapted somewhat - as I've listed them, I've explained them with an E component - but it's not a reach.

Nor is any one archetype meant to be exclusive. Characters frequently overlap. The goal of presenting those archetypes was to present a way to view a character, in general, in a more human, comprehensible, complete light. As a person, as a group of motivations and traits and methodologies, instead of a vast nebulous storm of ideas centered around two enigmatic letters.

We understand each other, then: I use magic colors, alignments, houses, zodiac signs, etc, etc, etc as ways of further exploring my characters, and their not belonging to any single category feels more to me like a sign of success than a failing. :smallamused:

[Red Fel]

Isabella was originally developed as a 'relatable monster', and has since been tweaked and prodded and edited over a period of... Years now, I guess. Some readers of her have asked how different versions of her stem from the same root, since her position on the alignment grid has shifted between iterations, as does the ways she expresses it.

Isabella is definitely a woman who is fighting a hard battle, both with herself and with the world: and I believe her alignment is to some degree dependent on wether she's winning or losing.

Let me give you a few examples:

Isabella is in a city where the purchase of slaves is legal. She wishes to prevent some of this injustice, so she purchases a slave to be one of her household servants. She fancies that this servant will act as a footman for her.

The slave proves rebellious and unwilling to adapt to his new role as a household servant. He only wishes to be free.

An Isabella who is winning her battle listens. She sees that her servant is unhappy. She understands that he wishes to be free. Rather than bending her servant to her will, she gives him a small purse of gold and transport to a place where he can have a good life.

An Isabella who is losing her battle refuses to see the truth. She belittles him and insists that she knows better. She 'gently nudges' him with Suggestions and Charms. When he proves resistant, she resorts to physical punishment. If her new servant discards three or four chances for reform, she is likely to curse his insubordination and cut his throat in an indignant rage. After all, any servant who knows what she is and rebels is too large a threat to her to be allowed to live.

This is also reflected in her methodology: while a 'winning' Isabella can be expressed as having 'philosophical differences' with tyrants, one who is 'losing' is absolutely driven by vengeance. It's not enough for her to have killed the person responsible for holding her in thrall: all others who would do the same as equally as deserving of her fury. All methods are acceptable in the pursuit of their destruction, including torture, assassination, etc, even of uninvolved parties.

Okay. At this point, I can see her moving towards Evil, if only due to her mental instability. Let's be clear, though - much of it stems from instability. When she is "winning," as you put it, she seems almost benevolent. Almost. Now, I find that there are two great tests of a person's character - when they are at their worst, and when they are on top. When they are at their worst, you can see what a character resorts to on instinct, as opposed to when they have time to plan or compose. Her tendency, as you describe, is to lash out and demand obedience and obeisance. There's certainly Evil there, but even Chaotic people can require others to bend the knee, so I'm not sure how Lawful we're looking there.

When they are on top, you can see what a character does when granted absolute power, and the inevitable corruption that comes with it. Here, when granted authority and independence, she... listens to others, acknowledges their concerns, and sometimes makes concessions. She opposes tyranny and domination of others (except her own). Hypocritical, but... Actually kind of decent.

Again, there's this inconsistency, which can best be explained in an oversimplification: She's coo-coo pants. Basically, your character as described is highly mentally unstable, oscillating between two emotional poles in an attempt to maintain a veneer of control and order. She strives for self-control (Law) but, when losing, gives in to outbursts of destructive rage (Chaos). She seeks to subjugate others (Law) but at the same time ignores this while seeking to end the subjugation of others (Chaos). And this makes sense; she is a deeply disturbed individual because nobody can or will see her as she sees herself, and over the centuries this has eroded her sense of self.

This tells me more about her mental state, however, than her alignment, as her alignment appears almost mutable as a result of her madness.


As for her ambition: Isabella's core ambition can be expressed as "I want to never kneel again." It's more than a desire for self-determination: it's an active rejection of any authority greater than her own. For some iterations of her, this drive could very well lead her on a quest for godhood - should some god feel inclined to interfere in her life.

Now, this is actually a very good ambition. And nicely framed. Rather uniquely, this is one of those ambitions that isn't distinctly Lawful or Chaotic, and thus it's a bit harder to pin down. But her dedication to her ambition can certainly lean in a Lawful direction.


We understand each other, then: I use magic colors, alignments, houses, zodiac signs, etc, etc, etc as ways of further exploring my characters, and their not belonging to any single category feels more to me like a sign of success than a failing. :smallamused:

Oh, absolutely. I relish writing characters who defy single labels. If one of my characters can be summarized in a word or a reference, I feel I've failed to create a dynamic, detailed person.

As an aside, one of the hardest parts of creating a "relatable monster" is that we tend to overemphasize one part or the other. If the character becomes too relatable, it may result in a partial or complete abandonment of monstrosity; by the same token, too monstrous a character is unrelatable. So we find a happy medium. Here, I worry that - until she goes into wackyland - your character is too relatable. She keeps slaves and servants, and is a bit of a hypocrite, but as long as she feels like her world is within her control, she's a surprisingly decent person whose only real crime is being the "Upstairs" part of "Upstairs, Downstairs." Then something pushes her, and she goes into Hyde mode. The problem I have - and I don't mean to be critical, because this really is a matter of taste - is that I find Jekyll/Hyde divisions too jarring. I've always enjoyed a relatable monster who is both at all times - affable and decent, but constantly predatory; bloodthirsty and cold, but well-mannered as a rule. This character is more of one or the other - she is relatable, if hypocritical, or she is a frothing blood-soaked lunatic.

I'm reminded of the Malkavians in the World of Darkness setting. In old World of Darkness (oWoD), Malkavians were their own clan of vampire, each possessed of a varying degree of mental illness taking varying forms. Some might talk to plants, others might be scatterbrained, still others might have strange obsessive behaviors, and still others might have a fondness for peeling the skin off of strangers and turning it into dresses. They were regular (for vampires), but slightly off in their own unique ways. In new World of Darkness (nWoD), Malkavians are a branch bloodline of the Ventrue clan, basically the gentry of the vampire world. Malkavians are basically Jekyll and Hyde - perfectly normal Ventrue one moment, then snap, they black out, and they come to and discover they've done something horrible and oh the angst, the tragedy.

I'm not fond of nWoD Malkavians, but that's not my point. My point is that oWoD Malkavians could be the relatable monster - as pleasant as any other character, but possessing some mild off-putting or monstrous tendency, some persistent and constant sign that reminds you that this person is not normal this person is dangerous you should run you should run NOW. By contrast, nWoD Malkavians were the snap characters - perfectly normal and relatable, or monsters, but not relatable monsters. And the latter, to my tastes, simply isn't as satisfying as the former.

Again, it's a matter of taste. But it's part of what's putting me off about this particular character. I can frequently point to one aspect of a character and say "That's naughty," and another and say "That's nice," then look at the whole and say "That's a person." But in this character's case, it's almost like I'm looking at two distinct characters with a common history, rather than one character with two aspects.

[Lagren]

But in this character's case, it's almost like I'm looking at two distinct characters with a common history, rather than one character with two aspects.

I'm sorry, I was absolutely not clear about this: the reason you're feeling this way is because you are looking at two different characters with the same history. Isabella has many variants, and I'm describing the ways she is different, given different pressures shaping her life from that common history.

If she's forced to fight tooth and nail, if she's unable to find allies she can trust, if she doesn't have the ability to relax and let down her guard - then she starts to 'lose' the slow battle. The Outcast displaces the Scholar in her everyday life: she becomes increasingly paranoid, her paranoia isolates her, her isolation makes her lonely and harms her ability to empathize, which makes her more suspicious and unstable, which isolates her, and eventually she's replacing all her servants with totally obedient bone golems that she builds from hapless travellers.

On the contrary, if she's able to find an anchor, something solid to hold on to, a safe retreat - then she starts to 'win', and the Bookworm eventually replaces the Queen as her need for control fades.

In either case, the Marked eventually dissipates: in the first case, because she's become so used to ignoring it: in the second case, because she's realized that she needs to let go of her self-hatred and fear.

Until either of these things happen, Isabella is left somewhere between the two extremes - neither completely delusional nor completely whole.

[Segev]

In Jim Butcher's most recent novel, mages all have some form of madness, which seems mostly to come in the form of some sort of obsessiveness.

One character is obsessed with manners and politeness. She insists on them being rigidly adhered to at all times. She is unfailingly, perfectly polite, and will act with utter genteelity towards anybody who similarly exhibits good manners and proper behavior. But everything about her politeness screams that it is...not a veneer, but a delicate state that is the tip of a very dangerous iceberg. She is utterly off-putting if you have to spend more than a few moments interacting with her, as you can almost taste how badly she hopes you give her an excuse. As long as you're well-mannered, she will be well-mannered, and is no danger to you. But manners are precise, and if she wants to, she will start going to rather extreme lengths to catch you in something rude or insufficiently polite.

She is terrifying because she fits what I've described in other threads on the topic as an excellent example of a horror monster: the rules to be safe are knowable, but they don't inherently make you FEEL safe. There's no obvious reason they should KEEP you safe. And they're...fallible. You can screw up; you can screw up easily. It's often a sense that it's only a matter of time before you make a mistake. So you're maintaining an air of calm, you're desperately adhering to rules which require you to not appear desperate at all, you're having to fight your emotions and instincts...and you know it's RIGHT THERE. The danger can SEE you. And your protections from it are so very, very fragile.

[Lagren]

...the rules to be safe are knowable, but they don't inherently make you FEEL safe. There's no obvious reason they should KEEP you safe. And they're...fallible. You can screw up; you can screw up easily. It's often a sense that it's only a matter of time before you make a mistake. So you're maintaining an air of calm, you're desperately adhering to rules which require you to not appear desperate at all, you're having to fight your emotions and instincts...and you know it's RIGHT THERE. The danger can SEE you. And your protections from it are so very, very fragile.

There are one or two manifestations of this with Isabella, but as it stands I may have them dialed back too much. As it stands, there's only one incident so far that I can call to mind: Isabella was hosting a party when a pair of her guests started arguing heatedly. Isabella was standing across the room, talking to someone else - then she was standing about a foot away from the arguing pair, politely asking what the issue was.

That kind of hypervigilance might work as Isabella's 'tell', but then again, maybe not. Hmm. :smallconfused:

[Segev]

If you want Isabella to be an unsettling horror-being that is "safe" to be around enough that people would reasonably want to, then I would make sure that first, YOU know her rules. What constrains her, and what sets her off?

Then, have some ignorant, possibly "******* victim" NPC break her rules, and have her publicly deal with him. It should be terrifying. And then she should return to being the benevolent-seeming being that you have had her being, the relatable "side" showing in full force.

Don't treat it like a Jekyl/Hyde thing; she is this ALL THE TIME. The "Jekyl side" is not a side at all; it's how she behaves if you follow her rules, and to her it's not a shift in behavior at all. It's just the appropriate way to act under the "follow the rules" circumstances. The "Hyde side" is, likewise, not a "side" at all. It's how she acts when her rules are broken. And she isn't shifting between them any more than somebody who smiles and laughs at a joke and offers a sincere condolence to a sad anecdote is "shifting sides" to their personality.

It's just that her rules are a little...different...and the appropriate behaviors can be extreme, violent, and utterly terrifying. And, because they're no different in level of appropriateness nor discretion than her seemingly-kind behaviors, she goes right back to being "safe and friendly" (or whatever) with those who are not deserving of chastisement.

In fact, she could possibly continue to have a perfectly polite conversation with one person while torturing somebody else, and only feel a need to apologize for her rudeness in dividing her attention, and possibly for the mess.

Others should react...appropriately. "Walking on eggshells" is a fair behavioral trait. Taboos and ritual behaviors in her presence should be emphasized as ways of staying on the "safe" ground, so as not to invite the always-present danger. Like holding a ball in a room full of horrors that eat anybody who raises their voice, it's totally safe...as long as you remember ever rule about staying safe.

[Buufreak]

Oh RF, you never fail to please with your great evil ways. I loved every bit of the read, especially a laugh at Vegeta's expense. And now it even seems we are throwing ideas of evil at the wall and seeing what sticks in the big book of bad. Care if I take a crack at it with a fellow I have been throwing around a little over a year? Sadly, he will likely never see the light of day, based heavily on crunch and RP convictions, but I feel a little bit of myself in him, so maybe some acknowledgement will bring the both of us joy.

[Red Fel]

If you want Isabella to be an unsettling horror-being that is "safe" to be around enough that people would reasonably want to, then I would make sure that first, YOU know her rules. What constrains her, and what sets her off?

Then, have some ignorant, possibly "******* victim" NPC break her rules, and have her publicly deal with him. It should be terrifying. And then she should return to being the benevolent-seeming being that you have had her being, the relatable "side" showing in full force.

Don't treat it like a Jekyl/Hyde thing; she is this ALL THE TIME. The "Jekyl side" is not a side at all; it's how she behaves if you follow her rules, and to her it's not a shift in behavior at all. It's just the appropriate way to act under the "follow the rules" circumstances. The "Hyde side" is, likewise, not a "side" at all. It's how she acts when her rules are broken. And she isn't shifting between them any more than somebody who smiles and laughs at a joke and offers a sincere condolence to a sad anecdote is "shifting sides" to their personality.

This. Playing two distinct personalities is hard; playing one who is basically constantly borderline is not only much easier, it's much scarier. That hypervigilance you've outlined is a step in that direction. Basically, what you want to see is a character that conveys a veneer of civility draped over a form of hostility. The "Hyde" aspect, as Segev points out, should be always there and just barely visible. Rather than the "good princess" and the "angry monster," she's an angry monster who plays at princess until someone oversteps the line. Then as soon as things are back in order, the princess mask comes right back on, as if nothing happened, even though we all saw it, seriously, what even was that. I think you're trying too hard to make the two sides distinct, as if to say, "No, she's not that wicked monster, she's the nice person keeping the monster in check." Ideally, she should be both.


Oh RF, you never fail to please with your great evil ways. I loved every bit of the read, especially a laugh at Vegeta's expense. And now it even seems we are throwing ideas of evil at the wall and seeing what sticks in the big book of bad. Care if I take a crack at it with a fellow I have been throwing around a little over a year? Sadly, he will likely never see the light of day, based heavily on crunch and RP convictions, but I feel a little bit of myself in him, so maybe some acknowledgement will bring the both of us joy.

Fire away.

[backwaterj]

I always knew this day would come, but it's finally here... I just can't believe it!

Now I want to do one of these for LG; honestly, they need some love.
People need to learn that it doesn't always mean being a self-righteous lecturer, dagnabit!

Make it so!

...Seriously, to plumb the depths of order and benevolence as Red Fel has stricture and depravity is a consummation devoutly (pun intended) to be wished.

[Lagren]

Make it so!

...Seriously, to plumb the depths of order and benevolence as Red Fel has stricture and depravity is a consummation devoutly (pun intended) to be wished.

Fortunately, two such handbooks already exist. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread)

[Buufreak]

Fire away.

Very well, fluff then crunch, I suppose. It all begins with a question: where does life begin? One could argue the idea of at conception, or even at birth. I, however, have always felt that until certain points that truly mold a person into the the form they will take for the greatest portion of their life is where it truly begins. With that thought in mind, I created this fellow with a soul purpose and thought: Nothing will stop him of his convictions, and there can never be order until humans stop trying to live by the preconceived notions created by some sort of higher power that cares little to nothing about their pitiful lives. Also, I got tired of Mary Sue anti-heroes that turned out to be paladins with a black smudge, so I took it as a challenge to see if I could find a way that someone who was perfectly within all sorts of evil guidelines could still manage to better the world. Mr. Fel, I give you my Harbinger.

From the earliest of ages, the boy was cursed. Classic (and perhaps cliche) birth into a family that was destroyed in one of many orcish raids that plague the lands. Abandoned and left for dead, he was "rescued" by a band of grey dwarves, who over years sent him through the slave trade. As often as twice a year, he found himself another home, under a new master, usually more cruel than the last. The torture and torment was physical and mental, as they convinced him the horrors of his life befell him of his own accord. Finally, nearing the age of 12, he found his last dwarven home, as a passing through gold dwarf traded his life for a healthy sum. For the first time ever, he saw a sign of compassion that he never knew could come from these short, stout folk. For the next 7 months, he spent the best, and perhaps safest moments of his life to this point, but was ever cautious of its impending end.

Soon, talk came of his impending departure from his quiet mountain home, but unbeknownst to his owner, the boy grew privy to the information. He gathered everything he could carry that he thought was of value or could be used to survive, and he made way to the woods. He traveled, long and far, but his life to this point made him hard and cold to the world, and he took no pause in killing any man or animal if it meant his survival over theirs.

He eventually made it to town, his hands soiled in ways he never thought possible. He found, almost immediately, interactions with others, mostly street children like he would soon become. However, due to knowing nothing else, he turned to sheer cruelty. Quickly, he turned fear into his personal weapon, making his way to the top of the food chain amongst the riffraff. Soon he drew the attention of larger, much more organized groups, including rivaled gangs. With some quick witted thinking, he managed to pit them against each other, even orchestrating the death of a major member of each group, and planting evidence implicating the rival.

Feeling the high of life was short lived, however, as with all power comes a superior. All his social and physical prowess meant little to nothing against even the simplest of arcanist. Disgraced, and with a bruised ego, he set out to see what ways he could discover spellcraft and mix it with his cruelty so that he may continue to shape the world into one that follows his own twisted ideals. He gathered his gained small fortunes, and began tutelage in spell casting. However, petty gangs can only afford so much, and he gained only the rudiments of magic, but it was still enough. He found a way to take his horrible misfortune in life and turn it against his foes. He had done it now: loyalty, power, even magic. But he still felt empty. He still felt cheated for his entire life of pain. He wanted far more than this life had dealt to him. He was longing for so much more, especially retribution for the crimes committed against him.

He thought time away from the world could calm his mind and help him to see the greater picture of things. He wasn't sure where to look, but he knew it wasn't in the city. Time passed, and he was a young man. He discovered a small town of elves, and quickly work his way into their society, just as he did before. However, it felt different. There wasn't some undercity, nor was there thugs that could be manipulated. No, this place was different, in society, in practice, even down to the town's very soul. The people were genuinely nice, cared about one another, even practiced helping one another for no benefit to be gained by doing so. He was confused, even lost in this society. For what seemed like only the second time, he felt a warmth in his stomach where ice has always pulsed.

In this town he stayed, living at least 3 years, but what felt far more like an entire lifetime, learning the elven ways, taking in their many blessing, and even having an adoptive family. They gave him a home, a place to truly call home that wasn't a simple cot in a shed, or a gutter on the street. He had the comforts of a family, a roof over his head, and it was great. He even grew to know a young (comparatively) elven girl, and soon the two became lovers. Within the coming months, he was told he would sire a child, and his joy grew. But it seemed that his misfortune, the great driving point of his life, needed a vent, and without him directing it towards others, it grew within himself until it was able to lash out at him once more.

The same orcs, that once destroyed his entire life, came again, waving the same banner that haunted his many dreams, to wage conquest onto the elf village. He fought off as many as he could, but many were dragged away, and far more were slaughtered. The orcs had won the day, and again left him without a home. He rushed in to his home, finding his family untouched. He smiled, but quickly grimaced at their lack of rejoining rejoice. He knew, before they could speak, what had transpired. In the midst of the hidden room, where she tried to hide, was his beloved, ran through, and gasping for air as she choked on her own blood. Her sobs were masked by his screams of terror as she left this world, clutched close to his chest.

He set out, taking from the armory the best suit of armor he could find and the sword given to him by his adoptive parents. He swore to come back with the orcish banner, or never come back at all. The orcs were reckless, and left an obvious trail, thinking no elf would dare to follow. They were right, no elf did follow, but a man, scorned with vengeance and fire in his soul did. Under the cover of night, he slit throat after throat of orcs, taking care to brutalize the bodies of any that looked even remotely official. Then, in a tent that seemed to belong to a shamanistic leader, he found parchment, giving orders from a gray dwarf community to slave and slay, leaving the land barren, as a message from the underworld that the surface never was, nor will it ever be safe. He returned home after slaughtering the last of the orcs, leaving behind the banner and note on his family's door, held by knife, and left without a word.

He had a new target, and a new purpose. He didn't blame the dwarves, though he did hate them. He didn't blame the orcs, though he would never suffer one. He blamed those who set all things in motion, then sat back as if to watch a twisted theatrical performance laid out before them: the Gods themselves. He returned to his city, learned what had transpired in his absence, and reestablished dominance in a manner of a week. He was colder and more cruel than ever, but this was nothing compared to what would follow. He strongarmed every order he could, blackmailed diplomats and nobility, and gained greater and more powerful followers all the way. But this would not sate him. Nothing short of absolute order through the rule of man, and not by the rule of some absentee Gods would satisfy him.

He settled in for the long haul, and learned of two orders: one that scorned the Gods, and took from them their powers to use for their own selfish needs. He liked the idea of taking power from a God, and no longer being a play thing, but the other order appealed to him far more: The Athars. They studied the blind eternities, in search of a true source of power, and with it could manifest the same power any cleric could, but without the middle man of a God. Regardless of his personal choices, though, he worked together with both orders, for the sake of ever more influence and power. Ultimately, his power would grow until the destruction of churches would be an almost guarantee. His method was systematic, and exact: destroy the house of worship, and there will be none. Without worship, followings will crash. Without any following, no one will remember the Gods, and they will fade away into nothingness. He had only to destroy evidence, and his plan would be complete, something he was well versed in due to his street living days. All he needed was time, because he certainly had the conviction.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________

Right, for some crunch. We are looking at human Paladin (Despot) 5/ Hexblade 3/ Ruathar 1/ Ur-Priest 1/ Athar 10, for final levels, with a bit of a CODzilla melee feel. Using Oppression and Curse to cripple the biggest and most apparent targets, while also using fear/debuff tactics to tear apart the troops. He strictly and fully follows these tenants, and expects (with force if needed) that all follows do the same.

-Suffer not an Orc
-Unless they make the first gesture, show no kindness to a Dwarf
-Despite their airy ways, Elves can be readily trusted
-Above all else, never say a prayer, for doing so is an acknowledgement of the power of our greatest enemy

[Red Fel]

Very well, fluff then crunch, I suppose. It all begins with a question: where does life begin? One could argue the idea of at conception, or even at birth. I, however, have always felt that until certain points that truly mold a person into the the form they will take for the greatest portion of their life is where it truly begins. With that thought in mind, I created this fellow with a soul purpose and thought: Nothing will stop him of his convictions, and there can never be order until humans stop trying to live by the preconceived notions created by some sort of higher power that cares little to nothing about their pitiful lives. Also, I got tired of Mary Sue anti-heroes that turned out to be paladins with a black smudge, so I took it as a challenge to see if I could find a way that someone who was perfectly within all sorts of evil guidelines could still manage to better the world. Mr. Fel, I give you my Harbinger.

Reading.


From the earliest of ages, the boy was cursed. Classic (and perhaps cliche) birth into a family that was destroyed in one of many orcish raids that plague the lands. Abandoned and left for dead, he was "rescued" by a band of grey dwarves, who over years sent him through the slave trade. As often as twice a year, he found himself another home, under a new master, usually more cruel than the last. The torture and torment was physical and mental, as they convinced him the horrors of his life befell him of his own accord. Finally, nearing the age of 12, he found his last dwarven home, as a passing through gold dwarf traded his life for a healthy sum. For the first time ever, he saw a sign of compassion that he never knew could come from these short, stout folk. For the next 7 months, he spent the best, and perhaps safest moments of his life to this point, but was ever cautious of its impending end.

Let's ignore the cliche comment, because cliches are cliche for a reason - when used properly, they work well within a narrative framework. No, instead let's focus on how your setting seems to equate "slavery" with "truly terrible foster home." You'll have to explain to me how a person is "sent through the slave trade," because my understanding is that a slave is sold to a master, who then works the slave, releases the slave, sells the slave, or has the slave killed. The implication is that this kid got sold from one master to the next, although little explanation is given as to why. In my mind, that why - being an unanswered question - is somehow more important to me than the fact that the kid spent as much as a decade of his early life in slavery.

You're leaving fruit on the vine, is my point.

Also, is this kid Human? Just curious. Isn't really answered.


Soon, talk came of his impending departure from his quiet mountain home, but unbeknownst to his owner, the boy grew privy to the information. He gathered everything he could carry that he thought was of value or could be used to survive, and he made way to the woods. He traveled, long and far, but his life to this point made him hard and cold to the world, and he took no pause in killing any man or animal if it meant his survival over theirs.

"Impending departure?" See, there you go, leaving questions again. Was the Gold Dwarf going to sell him as a slave? Find a new home? Was he heading to the beach for the winter? Was this a tragic misunderstanding, or was the kid simply being proactive?

Also, how does someone raised as a slave to Grey Dwarves - who dwell underground - for almost all of his life have any idea how, or ability for that matter, to survive in the woods, above ground?

Also, he actually killed dudes? Not just animals, but people? How? He was a kid, right? A battered, broken, abused former slave? He had been on the mend for seven months, then dove right into the wild - and somehow successfully fought and killed adults who - I must assume - were better armed? How?


He eventually made it to town, his hands soiled in ways he never thought possible. He found, almost immediately, interactions with others, mostly street children like he would soon become. However, due to knowing nothing else, he turned to sheer cruelty. Quickly, he turned fear into his personal weapon, making his way to the top of the food chain amongst the riffraff. Soon he drew the attention of larger, much more organized groups, including rivaled gangs. With some quick witted thinking, he managed to pit them against each other, even orchestrating the death of a major member of each group, and planting evidence implicating the rival.

Tricky. Gangs are usually formed by people with common experiences. The guy on top not only uses fear, but also mutual respect, to unite his followers. That's why they're frequently formed of kids from the same neighborhood. A half-starved stranger shows up in town and manages to beat all the other urchins in line? And somehow, despite having no knowledge of the local street politics - because, again, new kid in town - managed to orchestrate gang wars and pick off rivals? How long did this take, exactly? A year, a decade?


Feeling the high of life was short lived, however, as with all power comes a superior. All his social and physical prowess meant little to nothing against even the simplest of arcanist. Disgraced, and with a bruised ego, he set out to see what ways he could discover spellcraft and mix it with his cruelty so that he may continue to shape the world into one that follows his own twisted ideals. He gathered his gained small fortunes, and began tutelage in spell casting. However, petty gangs can only afford so much, and he gained only the rudiments of magic, but it was still enough. He found a way to take his horrible misfortune in life and turn it against his foes. He had done it now: loyalty, power, even magic. But he still felt empty. He still felt cheated for his entire life of pain. He wanted far more than this life had dealt to him. He was longing for so much more, especially retribution for the crimes committed against him.

Hold on, you're leaving food at the table again. Bruised ego? What, did he get womped by a Wizard? You kind of omitted the juicy bits here.

Also, he gathered small fortunes? How? Isn't he the leader of a gang of street rats? When did he turn into Wilson Fisk? And how much power was he able to acquire, exactly, magic-wise? A spellbook? Did he actually have a proper tutor, or simply learn to read arcane script? Did he rob some Magic-Marts? Details, man, details.

Also, crimes committed against him? Last I checked, he was enslaved, then purchased, then fled into the woods and murdered people, made his way to town and took over a gang, killed more people and stole stuff. Aside from the Grey Dwarves, at whom exactly is he angry?


He thought time away from the world could calm his mind and help him to see the greater picture of things. He wasn't sure where to look, but he knew it wasn't in the city. Time passed, and he was a young man. He discovered a small town of elves, and quickly work his way into their society, just as he did before. However, it felt different. There wasn't some undercity, nor was there thugs that could be manipulated. No, this place was different, in society, in practice, even down to the town's very soul. The people were genuinely nice, cared about one another, even practiced helping one another for no benefit to be gained by doing so. He was confused, even lost in this society. For what seemed like only the second time, he felt a warmth in his stomach where ice has always pulsed.

Okay, I really need a better chronology here. I am thoroughly confused as to how many years it takes him to do these improbable things. Also, he's in an Elf town, and I still don't know his race - Human? Dwarf? Elf? Thri-Keen? Helpful detail.

Also, purple prose is purple.


In this town he stayed, living at least 3 years, but what felt far more like an entire lifetime, learning the elven ways, taking in their many blessing, and even having an adoptive family. They gave him a home, a place to truly call home that wasn't a simple cot in a shed, or a gutter on the street. He had the comforts of a family, a roof over his head, and it was great. He even grew to know a young (comparatively) elven girl, and soon the two became lovers. Within the coming months, he was told he would sire a child, and his joy grew. But it seemed that his misfortune, the great driving point of his life, needed a vent, and without him directing it towards others, it grew within himself until it was able to lash out at him once more.

At least three years? You're the omniscient narrator; do you not know? Could it have been five, ten, seventeen?


The same orcs, that once destroyed his entire life, came again, waving the same banner that haunted his many dreams, to wage conquest onto the elf village. He fought off as many as he could, but many were dragged away, and far more were slaughtered. The orcs had won the day, and again left him without a home. He rushed in to his home, finding his family untouched. He smiled, but quickly grimaced at their lack of rejoining rejoice. He knew, before they could speak, what had transpired. In the midst of the hidden room, where she tried to hide, was his beloved, ran through, and gasping for air as she choked on her own blood. Her sobs were masked by his screams of terror as she left this world, clutched close to his chest.

Wait, now it's the Orcs who destroyed his life? I thought it was the Grey Dwarves. Or whoever committed those crimes against him. Seriously, the prose is overwhelmingly gushy here. Also, how did he survive the Orc onslaught? Did they just decide to let him live? How did he survive the first time? Also, how did his family survive, but his beloved - in a hidden room - not survive?


He set out, taking from the armory the best suit of armor he could find and the sword given to him by his adoptive parents. He swore to come back with the orcish banner, or never come back at all. The orcs were reckless, and left an obvious trail, thinking no elf would dare to follow. They were right, no elf did follow, but a man, scorned with vengeance and fire in his soul did. Under the cover of night, he slit throat after throat of orcs, taking care to brutalize the bodies of any that looked even remotely official. Then, in a tent that seemed to belong to a shamanistic leader, he found parchment, giving orders from a gray dwarf community to slave and slay, leaving the land barren, as a message from the underworld that the surface never was, nor will it ever be safe. He returned home after slaughtering the last of the orcs, leaving behind the banner and note on his family's door, held by knife, and left without a word.

http://49.media.tumblr.com/025c3551a142bac4fbdf6dbf8b3cbca6/tumblr_ncq7dgne9Z1turpgro2_500.gif
http://49.media.tumblr.com/e738b72809115310cffcb354cace99b8/tumblr_ncq7dgne9Z1turpgro3_500.gif


He had a new target, and a new purpose. He didn't blame the dwarves, though he did hate them. He didn't blame the orcs, though he would never suffer one. He blamed those who set all things in motion, then sat back as if to watch a twisted theatrical performance laid out before them: the Gods themselves.

Wait, what?


He returned to his city, learned what had transpired in his absence, and reestablished dominance in a manner of a week. He was colder and more cruel than ever, but this was nothing compared to what would follow. He strongarmed every order he could, blackmailed diplomats and nobility, and gained greater and more powerful followers all the way. But this would not sate him. Nothing short of absolute order through the rule of man, and not by the rule of some absentee Gods would satisfy him.

Okay, hold it, how does this even work? He ran a gang back in the day, then got bored and left. For "at least three years." And then he comes back, all Dark Emo Anakin, and they just hand the reins back to him? You were dismissive of this city earlier, yet now it's powerful enough to contain diplomats and nobility? I'm confused by how that even happens.


He settled in for the long haul, and learned of two orders: one that scorned the Gods, and took from them their powers to use for their own selfish needs. He liked the idea of taking power from a God, and no longer being a play thing, but the other order appealed to him far more: The Athars. They studied the blind eternities, in search of a true source of power, and with it could manifest the same power any cleric could, but without the middle man of a God. Regardless of his personal choices, though, he worked together with both orders, for the sake of ever more influence and power. Ultimately, his power would grow until the destruction of churches would be an almost guarantee. His method was systematic, and exact: destroy the house of worship, and there will be none. Without worship, followings will crash. Without any following, no one will remember the Gods, and they will fade away into nothingness. He had only to destroy evidence, and his plan would be complete, something he was well versed in due to his street living days. All he needed was time, because he certainly had the conviction.

Hold up, what setting is this? In some settings, the Athar are based in Sigil, so without planar travel he has no reason to know of them. If Faerun, okay, the Athar are about, but being associated with them is pretty dangerous at the best of times. And in other settings, they might not exist at all.

Also, is this a setting where a lack of worship actually kills gods? Kind of important, given that in settings that aren't like that, habitual desecration of holy sites tends to earn a smiting.


Right, for some crunch. We are looking at human Paladin (Despot) 5/ Hexblade 3/ Ruathar 1/ Ur-Priest 1/ Athar 10, for final levels, with a bit of a CODzilla melee feel. Using Oppression and Curse to cripple the biggest and most apparent targets, while also using fear/debuff tactics to tear apart the troops. He strictly and fully follows these tenants, and expects (with force if needed) that all follows do the same.

Ooh, look, answers. So he is Human. This of course raises a bunch of questions (why Grey Dwarves would keep a weak human child as a slave, why a Gold Dwarf would buy one, why Elves would adopt or marry one).

Paladin (Despot)? Do you mean the LE Paladin of Tyranny?


-Suffer not an Orc
-Unless they make the first gesture, show no kindness to a Dwarf
-Despite their airy ways, Elves can be readily trusted
-Above all else, never say a prayer, for doing so is an acknowledgement of the power of our greatest enemy

So, we've taken "hate Grey Dwarves because they're evil enslaving jerkfaces" and transitioned into "you know what? Let's kill all of those bearded bastards," because one showed your PC kindness for seven months and then he ran away? And we've taken "Elves took me in and I learned to love because of them" and switching over to "you know what? Screw those pointy-eared tree-huggers too," because... what, exactly?

I'll be honest, your fluff has some gaping holes in it. Most lacking is how his motivation evolved. Genocidal hatred for Orcs or Grey Dwarves, I could understand. Raging against fate, I could understand. Opposing the gods is... Strange, a bit stretched, but possible. But there's just so much else missing. You've given me a lovely biography, but no personality, no person, just a convenient pile of explanations for why he's a Ruathar and an Ur-Priest and an Athar.

You have a start. But you have a ways to go.

[Buufreak]

Not a formatting wizard, and having no idea how to quote bits at a time, I will attempt this as best I can. Bear with me.

Understandable that things came off vague. I somewhat meant them to be that way. Did you notice the lack of name? It is my strange sense of making him somewhat relate-able. You like elves? Imagine him one. Humans? Sure, why not. (You, in this point is the plural of the word, and is directed at any and all readers).

I also had a much more detailed background with his life as a slave, and how he was constantly traded from one family to the next. However, it was noted by a friend who I was making this character for's campaign that once a certain R word came up, I should tone it down. Honestly he was sold back and forth for a mixture of more trouble than he was worth, or his inability to work as hard as others, being non-dwarf.

Impending departure, again, an open thought. I also thought deeply about this one, and that gold dwarves tend to lean far closer to the good side of the spectrum. This would go down as a misunderstanding, as he wasn't buying a slave, but a boy's freedom, giving him a home, and eventually sending him off to a more human-ized civilization. However, a history such as his left him to mistrust the dwarf, and take this as a potential negative action, so he booked it.

The murderous thing was simply a mentality, not a practiced actuality. Much like, in my experience, you have many kids in the early to mid teens that tend to puff up but in the end run from a fight. (As an aside, it is at this exact moment that I realize that I had barely a skeleton of a character, and am going to thank you again if I haven't already for the help.)

Yup. Gangs. I was kinda feeding off of the idea of hooking them young with dreams of grandeur, and chances are watching season 1 of Gotham with Ozwald got the mind fixed in a direction. How DID he manage all those shenanigans in just a few months? If I had to put a number on it, I would say his arrival at 12-13, and no sooner, and took him until 20, at the earliest. That is minimum 7 years to work his way around, doing the thug thing.

Okay, this one is totally on me, I thought I covered that better, but whoops. Its something along the lines of running a gang =/= being a caster, and someone definitely proved it to him. I like the idea of hubris getting the best of him, shooting off at the mouth, then getting his ass handed to him to teach him a lesson.

Fortune was a bit of a stretch. We are talking whatever he could scrounge up from the gang on the spot. Call it a few silver, maybe even 20 gold. But nothing world shattering. I might want to also note that I struggle with the 3.5 cash system when it comes to smaller things. +2 sword? 8k. Bread? No idea. Spell services? Didn't even know you could do until about 6 months ago, and even still struggling with it.

As for the magic tutor itself, I'll admit, I put very little into that thought. Put on the spot though, I would say he learned what he could from paying his way into whatever academy he could find, especially if it meant one aforementioned ass-handing-mage did not attend, so as to study in secret, challenge him again, and reassert his dominance of the streets with new found power.

Crime, here, is all in his head. He got ktfo. Its a scar on his ego, sorry if I didn't paint that well enough.

Timeline. Got it. Will work that out, post at end.

Purple......? What?

3. Going with 3.

You raise damn good points. Half tempted to scrap anything elf related now. Was leaning towards the idea that... yea, no. The more I think about it, the worse it gets.

Gif. Love it. Gotta learn how these things work sometime.

If, at this point, you would be so inclined, I'm gonna skip ahead. I admit the sloppy writing, plot holes, and perhaps ideas inspired by too much star wars. The gif struck home perfectly. I'm generally thinking of going completely back to the drawing board after these last few questions.

Pulled Athar and Despot from DrMags. AFB at moment or I would hand out numbers. The hate of all dwarves came from the grays, of course, but also a twisted mind over years combined with a misunderstanding with the gold. I saw it as time having a funny way of ruining the mind, and something as simple as sending away by a gold dwarf was molded into "its not just greys, its all of them." Did that come off as elven hatred too? That was never an intent. And yes, the DM had his own world where lack of faith would work.

Again, thank you for your time, I appreciate everything you said. I feel... Less than my best, possibly because I might not have given this my best. I will look back over everything, do much of rewriting, and as you said, explain more with much less left unanswered. Until next time, thank you sir.

Edit: Completely forgot the timeline (for what it is still worth.)

Birth
Age 6 - Village attacked by orc clan, found by scouting gray dwarfs coming for land reclamation.
6-12 - Traded back and forth between numerous grey dwarf families (clans?).
13 - Purchased for the last time by elderly gold dwarf.
13 - Runs away from his dwarven home under thought of being sold again.
13-20 - Begins association with gang related children, in hopes of rising through ranks and eventually running the streets.
20 - Disgraced by spellcaster on street in front of fellow gang members.
20 - Begins study of magic.
21 - Seeks revenge against spellcaster.
22 - Mild existential crisis. Seeks meaning in his life besides power.
22-? Scrapped until further notice.

I hope that clears it up for you, it at least put things more in perspective for myself.

[Lagren]

If you want Isabella to be an unsettling horror-being that is "safe" to be around enough that people would reasonably want to, then I would make sure that first, YOU know her rules. What constrains her, and what sets her off?

Triggers, in descending order of foolishness to violate:
- Never mention Isabella's sister. (Included for completeness, but this is unlikely to be relevant unless the party's been really diving into her history.)
- Never do anything that Isabella could interpret as an attempt to control or manipulate her.
- Never do anything that could cause Isabella to lose face in front of another.
- Never question Isabella's taste or aesthetic sense.
- Never mention Isabella's former sire.

Protections, in descending order of strength:
- Be Isabella's guest within the walls of her residence.
- Be Isabella's ally or servant.
- Say that you were mistaken and didn't know what you were talking about.
- Apologize.
- Offer blood as recompense. (Be exceedingly careful with this one, as it can be a slight in the wrong situation. Best combined with a sincere apology.)
- Have been Isabella's guest or servant at some point in the past.

[Red Fel]

Understandable that things came off vague. I somewhat meant them to be that way. Did you notice the lack of name? It is my strange sense of making him somewhat relate-able. You like elves? Imagine him one. Humans? Sure, why not. (You, in this point is the plural of the word, and is directed at any and all readers).

I get that. And having read to the end, where you say the race, I get that too. Thing is, when you're painting an identity, race - like gender and such - is part of the complete picture. Particularly when it involves interactions with other races, some of which are known for their xenophobic tendencies. It doesn't have to be central, but it's hard to get a clear image without that detail.


I also had a much more detailed background with his life as a slave, and how he was constantly traded from one family to the next. However, it was noted by a friend who I was making this character for's campaign that once a certain R word came up, I should tone it down. Honestly he was sold back and forth for a mixture of more trouble than he was worth, or his inability to work as hard as others, being non-dwarf.

See, I always figured a slave who is "more trouble than he worth" or one who can't "work as hard as others" eventually ceases to be a "slave" and becomes a "corpse." Funny thing about people-as-property, they become more disposable. The fact that he keeps getting resold doesn't sit as well with me for that reason. That said, you had your reasons to set him up that way, so hey, small detail.


Impending departure, again, an open thought. I also thought deeply about this one, and that gold dwarves tend to lean far closer to the good side of the spectrum. This would go down as a misunderstanding, as he wasn't buying a slave, but a boy's freedom, giving him a home, and eventually sending him off to a more human-ized civilization. However, a history such as his left him to mistrust the dwarf, and take this as a potential negative action, so he booked it.

This makes more sense. A tragic misunderstanding makes sense in the character's development, and - as you point out later - would explain how his mistrust of Grey Dwarves eventually spreads to all of them.


The murderous thing was simply a mentality, not a practiced actuality. Much like, in my experience, you have many kids in the early to mid teens that tend to puff up but in the end run from a fight. (As an aside, it is at this exact moment that I realize that I had barely a skeleton of a character, and am going to thank you again if I haven't already for the help.)

So, in other words, he thought he was willing to kill, but didn't quite get there? Then why do you describe "his hands soiled in ways he never thought possible"? Is that from killing Bambi? Does he become a heartless sociopath because he had to eat a bunny?


Yup. Gangs. I was kinda feeding off of the idea of hooking them young with dreams of grandeur, and chances are watching season 1 of Gotham with Ozwald got the mind fixed in a direction. How DID he manage all those shenanigans in just a few months? If I had to put a number on it, I would say his arrival at 12-13, and no sooner, and took him until 20, at the earliest. That is minimum 7 years to work his way around, doing the thug thing.

See, this makes a lot more sense. He shows up on the scene and joins the bottom of the ladder. Works his way up, has a small but loyal gang in a few years. By age 20, he might even be a respected mid-rank thug. Hard to visualize him as the leader of a highly successful gang, but perhaps a small one.


Okay, this one is totally on me, I thought I covered that better, but whoops. Its something along the lines of running a gang =/= being a caster, and someone definitely proved it to him. I like the idea of hubris getting the best of him, shooting off at the mouth, then getting his ass handed to him to teach him a lesson.

Fair.


Fortune was a bit of a stretch. We are talking whatever he could scrounge up from the gang on the spot. Call it a few silver, maybe even 20 gold. But nothing world shattering. I might want to also note that I struggle with the 3.5 cash system when it comes to smaller things. +2 sword? 8k. Bread? No idea. Spell services? Didn't even know you could do until about 6 months ago, and even still struggling with it.

Basically, whatever scraps he was able to put together, got himself some second-hand scrolls. Got it. Problem: Aside from Hexblade, none of the classes you list are arcane casters. Nor is Hexblade a prepared caster. In fact, pretty much all of the spellcasting in your progression is either "divinely" (or anti-divinely) inspired, or somehow innate. So, really, studying magic seems a bit odd.


Crime, here, is all in his head. He got ktfo. Its a scar on his ego, sorry if I didn't paint that well enough.

Fair.


Purple......? What?

Purple prose. When in the course of an author's endeavors, he finds his soul too burdened by verbage to communicate his thoughts with simplicity, then turns he to his keyboard with intent and newfound purpose, and places he upon the page a salad of words the likes of which are scarce to be found in the works of sane men; yea, he spreads his ham and cheese thickly 'pon the sandwich that is his work, that the affectations should thicken the air as the mosquitos in the summer night skies.

What I'm saying is, you've got some style, but you're laying it on pretty thick. There's detail, and then there's... Excess.


3. Going with 3.

Definite numbers are good.


You raise damn good points. Half tempted to scrap anything elf related now. Was leaning towards the idea that... yea, no. The more I think about it, the worse it gets.

It's not a bad idea. It does feel like you're trying to hit me with a lot of cliches - slave childhood, series of betrayals, the rise to power, the lost love, the return to childhood vendetta. Maybe pick a few themes on which you want to focus, rather than all of them. A child thug who rises to power and wants to control the streets. A child slave who wants to show the world that he and he alone will stand above others. A man whose life was crushed by Orcs, who seeks to crush them in return. A man who lost his love, and will now do horrific things to bring her back. Any one of these ideas is a great core motivator. Any five feel schizophrenic.


Gif. Love it. Gotta learn how these things work sometime.

Google image search. Copy and paste, yo.


Pulled Athar and Despot from DrMags. AFB at moment or I would hand out numbers. The hate of all dwarves came from the grays, of course, but also a twisted mind over years combined with a misunderstanding with the gold. I saw it as time having a funny way of ruining the mind, and something as simple as sending away by a gold dwarf was molded into "its not just greys, its all of them." Did that come off as elven hatred too? That was never an intent. And yes, the DM had his own world where lack of faith would work.

Yeah, the hatred for all Dwarves makes more sense now, and bonus points for tragic misunderstanding. The Elf thing was a misread on my part - I mistook your principle thing to say [I]don't trust Elves, my bad. And if the DM's world allows for faithless, go for it.


Again, thank you for your time, I appreciate everything you said. I feel... Less than my best, possibly because I might not have given this my best. I will look back over everything, do much of rewriting, and as you said, explain more with much less left unanswered. Until next time, thank you sir.

S'how we improve. We see our work, warts and all, and say, "Okay, good. Next time, better."


Edit: Completely forgot the timeline (for what it is still worth.)

Birth
Age 6 - Village attacked by orc clan, found by scouting gray dwarfs coming for land reclamation.
6-12 - Traded back and forth between numerous grey dwarf families (clans?).
13 - Purchased for the last time by elderly gold dwarf.
13 - Runs away from his dwarven home under thought of being sold again.
13-20 - Begins association with gang related children, in hopes of rising through ranks and eventually running the streets.
20 - Disgraced by spellcaster on street in front of fellow gang members.
20 - Begins study of magic.
21 - Seeks revenge against spellcaster.
22 - Mild existential crisis. Seeks meaning in his life besides power.
22-? Scrapped until further notice.

I hope that clears it up for you, it at least put things more in perspective for myself.

Timelines are important. I try to put them in my backrounds - at least for personal reference - as precisely as I can. It really helps to assess what's going on in a character's life. So, let's review yours. Up until 6, he's raised by people. That means he remembers his parents, and probably remembers watching them die. That's important and formative. 6-12, a slave, okay. Dark. Purchased and runs away at age 13, so he's already adolescent, brash, and a bit stupid, as they tend to be. 13-20, his formative young adult years are spent building a gang. This is a great time to learn LE. Disgraced by spellcaster, seeks revenge against spellcaster... Sure, a year is a bit long for a thug to hold a vendetta, but maybe it was an eye-opening experience or something.

Here's the break. He seeks meaning aside from power. Why? That's important. Thing about Evil is that power is meaning. Power for the purpose of achieving your goals, or power for its own sake. Being the strongest, or just being strong enough. And what should cause him to give up on the quest for power? Because he got trounced by a caster? Become a caster. Become an anti-caster. Remember that most casters sleep, and kill him while he's doing that. There are options other than giving up, is the point.

But stepping back, perhaps the most important concept this character needs is a central theme. A motif. An ideal. Something around which his mind is building. Perhaps it started when he saw his parents mowed down by Orcs. Perhaps when he suffered abuse at the hands of his Grey masters. Perhaps when he ate Thumper, or perhaps when he formed his gang and was surrounded by followers for the first time. Perhaps when he suffered his loss at the hands of that caster, or perhaps when he got even. But some event triggered a realization in him, and this realization formed the central theme to his narrative. That's the question you have to answer: What is that central theme? Revenge? Power? Control? The quest for personal agency? The struggle to crush one's emotions? The longing for acceptance? Figure out what he wants most of all, and then get on with it.

[HeadAcheron]

Red Fel, would it be OK if I sold my soul to you? You're my new favorite Lawful Evil :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Regarding the slave angle and the repeated changing of masters, "each crueler than the last," I think it would be best done by having it be theft/capture rather than sales.

Perhaps his first set of masters were harsh, but fair, and saw competence in the young boy, just enough that he confused their abusive drive to better himself (for their own ends) with paternalistic interest, earning them a hint of affection as well as fear from so young a child. Then, they're raided/conquered/killed, their property (including him) taken. Nevertheless, what potential he'd shown before is still visible, so his new masters put him to work, and he gains some value in their eyes. The cycle repeats, a lot. He moves from master to master, from one set of comfortable cruelties to a new set of unfamiliar ones, just as he's starting to make a place for himself and earn a little respect. Under each master, he learns new ways to manipulate as well as excel, new ways to undermine and sabotage rivals as well as to garner attention to move up whatever ranks are available.

The gold dwarf, being more good, took him on as a slave, sure, but gave him far more freedom to grow, and may even have been grooming him for, if he couldn't find a "better" place for the slave-child, a high position of authority, as his work ethic demanded. Unfortunately, the youth is not quite as clever as he thinks he is at hiding his more duplicitous means of undermining perceived rivals for his master's approval, and it is with this in mind that the gold dwarf is considering sending him away. The dwarf's intent may be to get him some training in a place where that behavior will backfire, and get the right habits beaten into him (metaphorically if not literally) before he is too old to un-learn the bad ones.

Unfortunately, knowing he'd been caught out (again) at something "bad," he misinterprets what he overhears.

Perhaps he didn't kill anybody outright "in the wild," but he learned some of his survival skills from a not-so-kind soul who would have been his next master...if he hadn't sabotaged something critical and made his escape. More were learned, maybe, from a genuinely kind person who he then betrayed as well, out of habit and fear that the other guy would get him first if he didn't. More sabotage, an abandonment, a theft, when it very well could cost the one he betrays his life.

This is what sparks his time on his own. It is this vicious, conniving, brilliant, and hard-working mentality that leads him to move up the social and political ranks of the street-dwellers when he gets to "civilization."

This cunning, brilliant, deceitful, manipulative youth has everybody convinced he's their friend, their patsy, or their ally as they need to, and uses them until it's cleaner to betray them and leave them to quietly vanish, taking the secret of his betrayal with them. As he develops enemies, they learn the hard way that he plans AROUND them. That he knows their organization, methods, and capabilities better than they do, and wins by sabotage and undermining until nothing works right to oppose him.

This, naturally, leads to a Batman Wizard build if he goes for magic. How he learns it may be suggested by the above, or may be related in some other way. A male Nimue to a female Merlin, perhaps, or maybe he does it via other means less in line with the betrayal MO.

Just some thoughts, anyway.

[Buufreak]

Regarding the slave angle and the repeated changing of masters, "each crueler than the last," I think it would be best done by having it be theft/capture rather than sales.

Perhaps his first set of masters were harsh, but fair, and saw competence in the young boy, just enough that he confused their abusive drive to better himself (for their own ends) with paternalistic interest, earning them a hint of affection as well as fear from so young a child. Then, they're raided/conquered/killed, their property (including him) taken. Nevertheless, what potential he'd shown before is still visible, so his new masters put him to work, and he gains some value in their eyes. The cycle repeats, a lot. He moves from master to master, from one set of comfortable cruelties to a new set of unfamiliar ones, just as he's starting to make a place for himself and earn a little respect. Under each master, he learns new ways to manipulate as well as excel, new ways to undermine and sabotage rivals as well as to garner attention to move up whatever ranks are available.

The gold dwarf, being more good, took him on as a slave, sure, but gave him far more freedom to grow, and may even have been grooming him for, if he couldn't find a "better" place for the slave-child, a high position of authority, as his work ethic demanded. Unfortunately, the youth is not quite as clever as he thinks he is at hiding his more duplicitous means of undermining perceived rivals for his master's approval, and it is with this in mind that the gold dwarf is considering sending him away. The dwarf's intent may be to get him some training in a place where that behavior will backfire, and get the right habits beaten into him (metaphorically if not literally) before he is too old to un-learn the bad ones.

Unfortunately, knowing he'd been caught out (again) at something "bad," he misinterprets what he overhears.

Perhaps he didn't kill anybody outright "in the wild," but he learned some of his survival skills from a not-so-kind soul who would have been his next master...if he hadn't sabotaged something critical and made his escape. More were learned, maybe, from a genuinely kind person who he then betrayed as well, out of habit and fear that the other guy would get him first if he didn't. More sabotage, an abandonment, a theft, when it very well could cost the one he betrays his life.

This is what sparks his time on his own. It is this vicious, conniving, brilliant, and hard-working mentality that leads him to move up the social and political ranks of the street-dwellers when he gets to "civilization."

This cunning, brilliant, deceitful, manipulative youth has everybody convinced he's their friend, their patsy, or their ally as they need to, and uses them until it's cleaner to betray them and leave them to quietly vanish, taking the secret of his betrayal with them. As he develops enemies, they learn the hard way that he plans AROUND them. That he knows their organization, methods, and capabilities better than they do, and wins by sabotage and undermining until nothing works right to oppose him.

This, naturally, leads to a Batman Wizard build if he goes for magic. How he learns it may be suggested by the above, or may be related in some other way. A male Nimue to a female Merlin, perhaps, or maybe he does it via other means less in line with the betrayal MO.

Just some thoughts, anyway.

Wow. That is way better than anything I managed to muster. I love it, and I am sure Patrick (DM) will too. Thanks for the helpful ideas.

Didn't forget you, Mr. Fel, oh great dark one. When I looked into Hexblade, it mentioned that most did have a small amount of formal study before their own talents blossomed. I thought that would be best: a foundation of magic, then his tenacity warps his learnings into what it is, curses and the such. Also, I thought about the theme idea. I like luck, or rather unluck. Its unlucky he is pulled from his family by their slaughter. Unlucky that he can't keep a home longer than a year. Unlucky he got his butt handed too him for running his mouth. And then with magic he learns to turn it into others unluck, not just with curse and spell, but I see the mettle ability as turning his unluck on others, causing their magic to fail. Solid idea? If so, thinking I could drop all the prestige, and do far more Hex, if not some theurge that could progress his meager divine and arcane powers. Because he learns to love this new talent of magic. He wants to amass it all. Why? Why the hell not! I like the idea of power for its own sake, but also status. Sure, he won't ever beat out the best wizards (looking at you, Tippy), but in a city ran by street rats, he would be the end all beat all.

[illyahr]

In Jim Butcher's most recent novel, mages all have some form of madness, which seems mostly to come in the form of some sort of obsessiveness.

One character is obsessed with manners and politeness. She insists on them being rigidly adhered to at all times. She is unfailingly, perfectly polite, and will act with utter genteelity towards anybody who similarly exhibits good manners and proper behavior. But everything about her politeness screams that it is...not a veneer, but a delicate state that is the tip of a very dangerous iceberg. She is utterly off-putting if you have to spend more than a few moments interacting with her, as you can almost taste how badly she hopes you give her an excuse. As long as you're well-mannered, she will be well-mannered, and is no danger to you. But manners are precise, and if she wants to, she will start going to rather extreme lengths to catch you in something rude or insufficiently polite.

She is terrifying because she fits what I've described in other threads on the topic as an excellent example of a horror monster: the rules to be safe are knowable, but they don't inherently make you FEEL safe. There's no obvious reason they should KEEP you safe. And they're...fallible. You can screw up; you can screw up easily. It's often a sense that it's only a matter of time before you make a mistake. So you're maintaining an air of calm, you're desperately adhering to rules which require you to not appear desperate at all, you're having to fight your emotions and instincts...and you know it's RIGHT THERE. The danger can SEE you. And your protections from it are so very, very fragile.

Oooooh, spooky. This appeals to my sense of drama. :smallcool:

[dantiesilva]

That reminds me of the grand games in dragon age that the orliesan's (?) play with politics.

[denthor]

I wish to pose a question what would you consider James Bond? Are different versions of James Bond different alignments ?

[Red Fel]

I wish to pose a question what would you consider James Bond? Are different versions of James Bond different alignments ?

An unstable sociopath who envelops himself in the veneer of the law in order to indulge his dark vices. For kicks, I call him a Bad Cop, LE with NE/LN tendencies. (Occasional acts of heroism do not a hero make, Mr. Bond.) The modern incarnation I'm much more comfortable calling CE, and would never hire.

I may or may not be joking.

[FocusWolf413]

What do you think of Wolfram and Hart?

[Red Fel]

What do you think of Wolfram and Hart?

Senior partner. :smallamused:

[Segev]

Senior partner. :smallamused:

Just remember not to mock the "little girl" weeping over the do-gooder you just killed.

[Red Fel]

Just remember not to mock the "little girl" weeping over the do-gooder you just killed.

Amateur mistake. Mocking one's enemies comes when you are alone, in your secure office, behind vaulted doors and reinforced walls. After your enemies are not only broken, but completely destroyed, publicly executed, their remains and personal effects (including possibly mystical objects and "purely sentimental" miscellany) incinerated.

Then comes the mocking. So much mocking.

[Anlashok]

Obviously there's a lot of variance here, but I've noticed in general most LE characters are schemers, plotters and manipulators... or the associates of siad schemers, plotters and manipulators.



So I'm curious, does anyone have any advice on playing a dumb (or at least not particularly forward-thinking or scheming) LE character without going the henchman route?

[Troacctid]

An evil warlord would be a good example: a villain focused on subjugation and control through brutal violence rather than crafty schemes. Think of a Knight of Hextor who bludgeons you into submission with the business end of a flail, because he is strong and you are weak, and your rightful place is on your knees, at his feet.

Slavery in particular is an especially Lawful Evil tradition, and most slavers aren't known for their cunning.

[Segev]

So I'm curious, does anyone have any advice on playing a dumb (or at least not particularly forward-thinking or scheming) LE character without going the henchman route?

The mercenary who will do anything he's paid to do, focuses exclusively on the job, and will not break his contract.

The loan shark who handles his own tough-work, but is absolutely up front about his terms. He just has his clients over a barrel and he knows it.

The protection racketeur; he set up the rules he makes others live by, but he lives by them, himself (and does, in fact, provide protection against other ne'er-do-wells for those who pay up).

The slimy but strangely ethical lawyer who knows the law inside and out, exploits every loophole, and is perfectly happy to stop you from saying something at the point he can infer it while maintaining plausible deniability, but won't actually lie, cheat, or steal. It's not theft if the law says he has a right to it, after all. Then it's just properly discovering the legal owner (who is him...or his client).

The stupid thug who never internalized morality but instead relies on external rules about what he will and will not do, and as long as it's not against the rules, will act totally selfishly. (May wind up a henchman, but doesn't have to.)

A PC who is totally selfish and willing to exploit every weakness and destroy his every enemy (and even innocent obstacles), but who insists on a party charter to protect himself and guarantee to his allies what protections they have from him, works out a defined distribution of loot (which he'll seek to exploit, but will adhere to without complaint even if it runs against him a few times), and sticks to his word because he's a jerk, but not a liar.


But, as a general rule, Lawful types tend to aggregate into hierarchies. It's just their nature to want to band together, and to find order in that banding. Evil types tend to want power. Banding together and seeking power means you want to be at the top of that band's heap. Hence: masterminds and henchmen.

[Red Fel]

Obviously there's a lot of variance here, but I've noticed in general most LE characters are schemers, plotters and manipulators... or the associates of siad schemers, plotters and manipulators.

There's a reason for that. "Lawful" suggests structure, order, hierarchy. And usually, we think of LE as the person who put that structure in place, which means cunning and intellect, or conspires to place and keep himself at the top of that structure, which means scheming and manipulating.

Usually.


So I'm curious, does anyone have any advice on playing a dumb (or at least not particularly forward-thinking or scheming) LE character without going the henchman route?

Did you see, for example, the Bad Cop? She's a perfect illustration. Scumbridge is not presented as particularly intelligent, or scheming. She is paranoid (particularly in later books), but not brilliant. What she is, however, is loyal to the party line, particularly because of the power that brings her.

Another illustration is the Dark Knight. His virtue is his loyalty, not his cunning. I don't think anyone would accuse Vader of particular brilliance. However, if we accept that he is LE (debatable, see upthread, please don't start again), he becomes an excellent illustration. Loyal, cruel, merciless - but not scheming or cunning.


An evil warlord would be a good example: a villain focused on subjugation and control through brutal violence rather than crafty schemes. Think of a Knight of Hextor who bludgeons you into submission with the business end of a flail, because he is strong and you are weak, and your rightful place is on your knees, at his feet.

Slavery in particular is an especially Lawful Evil tradition, and most slavers aren't known for their cunning.

Excellent illustrations.


The mercenary who will do anything he's paid to do, focuses exclusively on the job, and will not break his contract.

The loan shark who handles his own tough-work, but is absolutely up front about his terms. He just has his clients over a barrel and he knows it.

The protection racketeur; he set up the rules he makes others live by, but he lives by them, himself (and does, in fact, provide protection against other ne'er-do-wells for those who pay up).

The slimy but strangely ethical lawyer who knows the law inside and out, exploits every loophole, and is perfectly happy to stop you from saying something at the point he can infer it while maintaining plausible deniability, but won't actually lie, cheat, or steal. It's not theft if the law says he has a right to it, after all. Then it's just properly discovering the legal owner (who is him...or his client).

The stupid thug who never internalized morality but instead relies on external rules about what he will and will not do, and as long as it's not against the rules, will act totally selfishly. (May wind up a henchman, but doesn't have to.)

A PC who is totally selfish and willing to exploit every weakness and destroy his every enemy (and even innocent obstacles), but who insists on a party charter to protect himself and guarantee to his allies what protections they have from him, works out a defined distribution of loot (which he'll seek to exploit, but will adhere to without complaint even if it runs against him a few times), and sticks to his word because he's a jerk, but not a liar.

Also excellent illustrations.


But, as a general rule, Lawful types tend to aggregate into hierarchies. It's just their nature to want to band together, and to find order in that banding. Evil types tend to want power. Banding together and seeking power means you want to be at the top of that band's heap. Hence: masterminds and henchmen.

This, to an extent. The point is not necessarily that you plan or scheme, but (1) that you appreciate hierarchy, and your place in it, even if that place isn't at the top; (2) that you appreciate power, and what it can bring you, including your place in the hierarchy; and (3) that you are willing to use power to secure and protect your place.

You can also substitute "principles" for "hierarchy," if you want, but principles don't always bring power.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Red Fel, I have to ask. Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that you didn't mix up the descriptions for Superior and Underling is section VII? Because it looks like they're mixed up.

[Red Fel]

Red Fel, I have to ask. Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that you didn't mix up the descriptions for Superior and Underling is section VII? Because it looks like they're mixed up.

Well, here's how I meant it to read.

VII-3 was intended to read "Seeing another person as an underling." Not that the LE is an underling; that they see the person as an underling.

VII-4 was intended to read "Seeing another person as a superior." Same thing; the LE character isn't the superior, but rather the other person is the superior.

The entire section was intended to read this way. "Seeing another person... as an X." Otherwise the "as a nobody" section wouldn't make much sense.

Try re-reading it with this intention in mind. Perhaps I should make it more clear, but that's how I intended it to read.

[Sgt. Cookie]

See, now that I read it like that, it makes a LOT more sense. I agree, it should be clearer in that regard.

[Red Fel]

See, now that I read it like that, it makes a LOT more sense. I agree, it should be clearer in that regard.

A slight change to better reflect that. The aesthetic isn't the best, but let me know if it's clearer now.

[Sgt. Cookie]

It's like the difference between 420p and 1080p it's that much clearer.

I... also like the new aesthetic.

[Slithery D]

I wonder if this was Red Fel.

https://twitter.com/sadgirlkms/status/826547648505184258

[khadgar567]

I wonder if this was Red Fel.

https://twitter.com/sadgirlkms/status/826547648505184258
I dont know what red fel says but to me its smells like lawful idiot to me you jack a car with hostage and you drop the f ing hostage at the kids own school that's stupid on new level. If the kid gonna have ounce of brain in his skull he will report the crime to first to his teacher then police. since morons who jack the car forget the golden opportunity to kidnap the boy and get some ransom at same this is deffinetly lawful idiot situation.

[Red Fel]

I wonder if this was Red Fel.

https://twitter.com/sadgirlkms/status/826547648505184258

It wasn't, but clearly someone read my handbook.

You don't mess with kids. That's just a given. It never ends well. You do whatever it is you do, but you leave kids out of it. Be Evil, not a monster.

[Inevitability]

You don't mess with kids. That's just a given. It never ends well. You do whatever it is you do, but you leave kids out of it. Be Evil, not a monster.

What about the Armor of the Dread Emperor? That gives an actual bonus for involving children. It also makes it harder for do-gooders to attack you. :smalltongue:

[Segev]

It wasn't, but clearly someone read my handbook.

You don't mess with kids. That's just a given. It never ends well. You do whatever it is you do, but you leave kids out of it. Be Evil, not a monster.I am a fan of slaymates. A trio of them makes chain extended command undead so much more economical to prepare. Admittedly, it's usually easiest to find some naturally-generated ones than to orchestrate their creation.


What about the Armor of the Dread Emperor? That gives an actual bonus for involving children. It also makes it harder for do-gooders to attack you. :smalltongue:

Technically, you don't have to have children attached. They're just really good for demoralizing (and infuriating) goody two-shoes heroes. But any age will do. I believe you can even use animals as your hp batteries.

[Red Fel]

What about the Armor of the Dread Emperor? That gives an actual bonus for involving children. It also makes it harder for do-gooders to attack you. :smalltongue:

That item is idiot-bait. First off, what kind of imbecile puts himself in a scenario where people are even able to attack him, human shields or no? Second, what do you think happens to a guy who uses child shields, as opposed to one who does not?

I prefer, if I must be captured, to be held, alive, in a cell, until such time as I see fit to escape, rather than to be executed thoroughly before I can make my exit.

Look, it's one thing if the children are incidental damage. If you destroy an entire village, you'll probably kill some children along with everyone else. But to specifically target children is not only truly vile, it's also a profoundly stupid way to draw the ire of heroes. Oh, sure, anyone can be a villain, but the ones who mess with kids get immediate attention. And frankly, I'd rather the heroes who face me first exhaust themselves murdering child-killers.

Also, to everyone, welcome back to the thread.

[Segev]

The BEST use for children in evil schemes is as recruits. Perhaps some mild child labor, but nothing that could be construed as abusive; keep it "reward for voluntary service" level. On the one hand, you can build yourself a reputation as a philanthropist for all those orphans you take care of (so what if you may have been responsible for some of them becoming orphans?). On the other, you can indoctrinate them with your philosophies (or with philosophies you find useful, if you're willing to teach them one thing while practicing another) and loyalty to you. Exploit their adorable natures and use them as spies. Make it a game.

When the heroes object to your villainy in this regard, those kids will be your loudest and proudest defenders. You aren't using them as human shields; you're begging (perhaps disingenuously) the heroes to let them go and face you without them as collateral damage. You're begging (perhaps disingenuously) those kids to get out of the way so they don't get hurt. Now you're the noble one, facing the monsters who would harm kids.

The key is to make sure that you are in no way leaving yourself open to accusations that you're hurting them. At least, not without those accusations sounding suspiciously like Knight Templar Zealotry that will kill those whose only crime is not agreeing with their every word.

[dantiesilva]

That item is idiot-bait. First off, what kind of imbecile puts himself in a scenario where people are even able to attack him, human shields or no? Second, what do you think happens to a guy who uses child shields, as opposed to one who does not?

I prefer, if I must be captured, to be held, alive, in a cell, until such time as I see fit to escape, rather than to be executed thoroughly before I can make my exit.

Look, it's one thing if the children are incidental damage. If you destroy an entire village, you'll probably kill some children along with everyone else. But to specifically target children is not only truly vile, it's also a profoundly stupid way to draw the ire of heroes. Oh, sure, anyone can be a villain, but the ones who mess with kids get immediate attention. And frankly, I'd rather the heroes who face me first exhaust themselves murdering child-killers.

Also, to everyone, welcome back to the thread.

Oh great evil one this is why you are the leader of all LE creatures and Jamgretor Swordhand always answers your call.

[Red Fel]

The BEST use for children in evil schemes is as recruits. Perhaps some mild child labor, but nothing that could be construed as abusive; keep it "reward for voluntary service" level. On the one hand, you can build yourself a reputation as a philanthropist for all those orphans you take care of (so what if you may have been responsible for some of them becoming orphans?). On the other, you can indoctrinate them with your philosophies (or with philosophies you find useful, if you're willing to teach them one thing while practicing another) and loyalty to you. Exploit their adorable natures and use them as spies. Make it a game.

When the heroes object to your villainy in this regard, those kids will be your loudest and proudest defenders. You aren't using them as human shields; you're begging (perhaps disingenuously) the heroes to let them go and face you without them as collateral damage. You're begging (perhaps disingenuously) those kids to get out of the way so they don't get hurt. Now you're the noble one, facing the monsters who would harm kids.

The key is to make sure that you are in no way leaving yourself open to accusations that you're hurting them. At least, not without those accusations sounding suspiciously like Knight Templar Zealotry that will kill those whose only crime is not agreeing with their every word.

And if I hadn't written this guide first, Segev probably would have done so. Bravo.

Also:

If I have children and subsequently grandchildren, I will keep my three-year-old granddaughter near me at all times. When the hero enters to kill me, I will ask him to first explain to her why it is necessary to kill her beloved grandpa. When the hero launches into an explanation of morality way over her head, that will be her cue to pull the lever and send him into the pit of crocodiles. After all, small children like crocodiles almost as much as Evil Overlords and it's important to spend quality time with the grandkids.

[Strigon]

I must say, my plans for the kids are quite different.
Yes, you could use them as meat shields to stop an offensive. Unfortunately, as Red Fel points out, heroes tend not to like you if you do this.
Yes, you could start the Segev/Red Fel Youth, and indoctrinate them. Unfortunately, even if you do take care of them, they grow up. And - because what Evil Overlord doesn't have some plan for immortality - they inevitably become your followers, all grown up, and perfectly reasonable targets. Which means, once this gets out - and it will get out - no matter how well you argue for your own moral position, you're raising kids to kill and be killed. Sure, they might not still be kids at that point, but does that matter to a hero? Well, yes. But it doesn't let you off the hook.

What I propose is that you play The Long Game. Genuinely take care of them. Don't indoctrinate them; find them a home, and if you can't, then make them a home. Now you're the philanthropist, like in the previous suggestion, but it's genuine. It can't be argued with.
Even better, instead of having loyal followers (anyone can get those), you have people from all walks of life who owe you their lives, and think you're a great humanitarian. If you put them through a good enough education, within a generation or two, you can have these "sleeper agents" in every high-ranking position you could ever need. And they won't even know it! Any time you need one more piece to fall into place - a law passed or repealed, a door left unlocked, whatever you need, you've got the favours to call in.

And not even the most Holier-than-thou Paladin in the universe can claim you didn't give them a better life. Heck, some of them might even be those Paladins - unless you're a complete fool, you could practically guarantee you'd never be identified in that case.

[Segev]

I must say, my plans for the kids are quite different.
Yes, you could use them as meat shields to stop an offensive. Unfortunately, as Red Fel points out, heroes tend not to like you if you do this.
Yes, you could start the Segev/Red Fel Youth, and indoctrinate them. Unfortunately, even if you do take care of them, they grow up. And - because what Evil Overlord doesn't have some plan for immortality - they inevitably become your followers, all grown up, and perfectly reasonable targets. Which means, once this gets out - and it will get out - no matter how well you argue for your own moral position, you're raising kids to kill and be killed. Sure, they might not still be kids at that point, but does that matter to a hero? Well, yes. But it doesn't let you off the hook.

What I propose is that you play The Long Game. Genuinely take care of them. Don't indoctrinate them; find them a home, and if you can't, then make them a home. Now you're the philanthropist, like in the previous suggestion, but it's genuine. It can't be argued with.
Even better, instead of having loyal followers (anyone can get those), you have people from all walks of life who owe you their lives, and think you're a great humanitarian. If you put them through a good enough education, within a generation or two, you can have these "sleeper agents" in every high-ranking position you could ever need. And they won't even know it! Any time you need one more piece to fall into place - a law passed or repealed, a door left unlocked, whatever you need, you've got the favours to call in.

And not even the most Holier-than-thou Paladin in the universe can claim you didn't give them a better life. Heck, some of them might even be those Paladins - unless you're a complete fool, you could practically guarantee you'd never be identified in that case.

Technically, this is one of the ways of implementing the plan I outlined. If the philosophy you wish to indoctrinate them with is one that only makes them grateful to you, not fanatically loyal, that's fine and dandy. Just be careful not to let them find out that you're doing evil. They might view that as a betrayal, and your plucky young heroes may well be Luke Skywalkering your Lord Vader.

[Flickerdart]

The best thing about children is that the PCs will always suspect them of being creepy horror children, because children always turn out to be ghosts or monsters or something dumb. Then they will murder the children for you. Drop curtain, cue vicious mockery. Maybe you can even make the paladin fall, if he hasn't managed to lose his powers already.

[Particle_Man]

So is the OOTS Tarquin definitionally a cartoon LE character (what, no :tarquin: smilie icon for Tarquin?)? Redcloak? :redcloak:

What about Nale? :nale:

[denthor]

That item is idiot-bait. First off, what kind of imbecile puts himself in a scenario where people are even able to attack him, human shields or no? Second, what do you think happens to a guy who uses child shields, as opposed to one who does not?

I prefer, if I must be captured, to be held, alive, in a cell, until such time as I see fit to escape, rather than to be executed thoroughly before I can make my exit.

Look, it's one thing if the children are incidental damage. If you destroy an entire village, you'll probably kill some children along with everyone else. But to specifically target children is not only truly vile, it's also a profoundly stupid way to draw the ire of heroes. Oh, sure, anyone can be a villain, but the ones who mess with kids get immediate attention. And frankly, I'd rather the heroes who face me first exhaust themselves murdering child-killers.

Also, to everyone, welcome back to the thread.

I find your lack of faith disturbing. The fifth layer of hell has a being that only eats good align children. He is the servant of the the true ruler who is trapped in ice in 3.5 if you can do it and not be a monster so can we

[Grand Arbiter]

I took a short break from homework to come poke around in the forum and saw this:


Also:
If I have children and subsequently grandchildren, I will keep my three-year-old granddaughter near me at all times. When the hero enters to kill me, I will ask him to first explain to her why it is necessary to kill her beloved grandpa. When the hero launches into an explanation of morality way over her head, that will be her cue to pull the lever and send him into the pit of crocodiles. After all, small children like crocodiles almost as much as Evil Overlords and it's important to spend quality time with the grandkids.
I almost did a spit take all over my laptop. :smallbiggrin:

Red Fel, you never cease to amaze. :smallcool:

[flappeercraft]

Everyone here is hiding behind kids as their defense, what I think is why not hide between kids. Instead of having many kids protect you, make yourself young and get one of these guys who hide behind kids to hide behind you while you manipulate him into doing as you wish. That way was he ever vanquished from power, were the kids to leave him, leaving him vulnerable to goody two shoes you can just find another person to hide behind you, have them be your decoys without them knowing. The villain you hide behind is only but a pawn here. In reality he does not hide behind you vut you hide behind him while he thinks he works for himself he is actually doing your work for you without you needing to spill the blood on your hands or having to order someone to do so, you only need to act as if you were trying to protect the villain while in actuality he is protecting you with his defenses and him being the target everyone searches for instead of yourself.

[khadgar567]

I dont know what red fel says but aply kiss rule to evil every time make simple plans with several layers not ultra complex ones even you cant understant. As for using kids in plans i will go free semi biased education for kids sleeper and manchurian agents are always useful

[Frosty]

Red Fel I'd like your help in evaluating my character again. I had talked about him when this thread was in its infancy, and more stuff has happened since, and I've thought about his plans and motivations more. :smallsmile:

[Pleh]

All of these points people are making about children raises another point in my mind that I don't think your guide actually addressed (not directly, at least). To be fair, the other alignment guides referenced in this guide didn't seem to make note of them either.

You went over how LE interacts with the other alignments, but what about how they operate within various social environments?

Does the essential behavior of LE characters change if they are in Feudal Japanese settings (like OA or L5R) versus being in a Drow campaign versus a Pelor/Heironeous worshiping human city?

For example, in the Drow society, using children as a shield might not be so outrageous, but it also might not be as effective of a defense to begin with.

[Seto]

Oh. Ooooooh.

I've been watching Agents of SHIELD for the last month. I just got the title and the first illustration.

[Inevitability]

All of these points people are making about children raises another point in my mind that I don't think your guide actually addressed (not directly, at least). To be fair, the other alignment guides referenced in this guide didn't seem to make note of them either.

You went over how LE interacts with the other alignments, but what about how they operate within various social environments?

Does the essential behavior of LE characters change if they are in Feudal Japanese settings (like OA or L5R) versus being in a Drow campaign versus a Pelor/Heironeous worshiping human city?

For example, in the Drow society, using children as a shield might not be so outrageous, but it also might not be as effective of a defense to begin with.

D&D morality is pretty black-and-white (and why wouldn't it be, if there's places and people consisting of literal, tangible Good and Evil?), so what a given nation/culture/individual considers 'good' doesn't actually affect the morality of an act.

Sure, there may be people who feel like 'Good' is a misnomer, and in the best of all possible worlds everyone should be CE, or TN, or LE, or LN (I'm amongst them, of course), but even so these people aren't Good, they're CE/TN/LE/LN people who think their morality is best.

[Red Fel]

I find your lack of faith disturbing. The fifth layer of hell has a being that only eats good align children. He is the servant of the the true ruler who is trapped in ice in 3.5 if you can do it and not be a monster so can we

And of the two, which do you think is the more appealing target for a bunch of holy-retribution-type heroes?

And of the two, which is the "true ruler" of that layer?


I took a short break from homework to come poke around in the forum and saw this:

I almost did a spit take all over my laptop. :smallbiggrin:

Red Fel, you never cease to amaze. :smallcool:

I do what I do.


Red Fel I'd like your help in evaluating my character again. I had talked about him when this thread was in its infancy, and more stuff has happened since, and I've thought about his plans and motivations more. :smallsmile:

Bring it.


All of these points people are making about children raises another point in my mind that I don't think your guide actually addressed (not directly, at least). To be fair, the other alignment guides referenced in this guide didn't seem to make note of them either.

You went over how LE interacts with the other alignments, but what about how they operate within various social environments?

Does the essential behavior of LE characters change if they are in Feudal Japanese settings (like OA or L5R) versus being in a Drow campaign versus a Pelor/Heironeous worshiping human city?

For example, in the Drow society, using children as a shield might not be so outrageous, but it also might not be as effective of a defense to begin with.

In a Drow society, LE has to tread very, very carefully, because the last thing Lolth wants is for her children misbegotten spawn playthings to come together into a semblance of organized society as opposed to a teeming mass of backstabbing idiots.

The fact is, there is no "essential behavior" of LE characters. LE is a mindset, a perspective, not a behavioral trait. It's hard to say, "This is how an LE character will behave in X setting," because there are so many ways that could play out. It's why I put out more generalized personality archetypes; it's up to the player or DM to figure out how one of those archetypes might fit into a setting.

For example, in an OA or L5R-style setting, the Dragon would probably be a Samurai. The Dark Knight would probably be Ronin, with Samurai training but devotion to a cause instead of a master. The Bureaucrat and Bad Cop would both be ranking officials of some kind. The Prince could be a literal noble, or a general, or any other person in a position of power. But then you get to some of the other archetypes, and it falls apart. The Cartoon could be a Samurai, or bandit, or noble, or bureaucrat, or angry cabbage vendor. The Alien could be some kind of hermit sorcerer, or demon-pledged noble, or something else. The Zealot or Executive could be anything. And that's just in Generic Asian Setting #17; in another setting, it would be an entirely different ball of wax.

The point is, there's no hard-and-fast rule, or even general guideline, as to where LE fits into any given setting.


Oh. Ooooooh.

I've been watching Agents of SHIELD for the last month. I just got the title and the first illustration.

Compliance will be rewarded.


Sure, there may be people who feel like 'Good' is a misnomer, and in the best of all possible worlds everyone should be CE, or TN, or LE, or LN (I'm amongst them, of course), but even so these people aren't Good, they're CE/TN/LE/LN people who think their morality is best.

And with the exception of LE, they're all quite mistaken on that point. :smallamused:

[Frosty]

Okay, a summary of the setting and what has been going on with my character, Nexas. How evil would you say he is? And which of the LE archetypes is he?

General attitudes in the kingdom of Talingarde:

Talingarde is currently effectively a theocracy. Although technically the dominant church is not supposed to get involved in politics, it is in fact joined at the hip to the current dynasty. This is due to the fact that the current dynasty, the Markadian line, came to power via civil war, and his side was backed by the Mitran church, and Markadian the 1st was a very devout Mitran.

Talingarde is in most respects a very LG kingdom. Even the poor don't starve because of charity works, and health services are often provided for free because of the prevalence of clerics. Its citizens almost exclusively worship a LG deity named Mitra. As far as the mortal world understands it, Mitra is a trinity deity with LN, LG, and NG aspects, but is overall LG. There are two areas in which Talingarde is not LG, from my character's point of view.

1) The church, and by extension, the royal family, are by and large very religiously intolerant. Before the Markadians took over some 80 years ago, an entire pantheon of gods were worshipped widely, amongst them were both Mitra and Asmodeus (who are rivals). After the Markadians took over, Mitra was made the official religion, and all other religious were heavily discouraged or "soft banned". "Oh, you want to build a temple to your god over in that area? Sorry, we are currently not issuing permits. Check back next year." It wasn't just rival faiths. Even the faiths of allied races during the war, such as the dwarves in Talingarde who worshipped Father Mountain, were discouraged. In fact, Markadian the 4th jailed dwarves who claimed that Father Mountain forged the world instead of Mitra. The common huma people mostly share this sentiment. The silves and the dwarves grumble slightly but accept it as society is very good to the, otherwise.

2) The nation is very human-centric, and is very biased against certain races, like tieflings. Tieflings and also monstrous races get treated terribly, but my character sees this as a lesser problem than the religious intolerance (still a problem that needs to be addressed)


Specific events that caused my character to choose villainy
Markadian the 3rd was bat-**** insane, and ordered all sort of crazy edicts like "open a portal to hell so that I may lead the celestial hosts and defeat Asmodeus once and for all." It got so bad a bunch of Paladins murdered him him throwing him off the tallest tower of his castle, just so a more sane king would ascend the throne. Everything had to be hush hush, of course, and Markadian the 4th (the brother of the 3rd), was worried about his line losing political power because e erroné saw how insane his predecessor was. So, he did something politically savvy, yet horrifically evil in order to consolidate power. He blamed the insanity of Markadian the 3rd on witchcraft and dark magics from worshippers of Asmodeus, and ordered a pogrom. The common people believed him, and the dynasty reputation was secure.

The result? All worshippers of Asmodeus were to be purged from their island nation. They can converted to Mitran worship, or die being burnt at the stake. The inquisition arm of the Mitran church was only too happy to do this, as this was a chance to wipe out their rivals forever from the island. Of course, some innocents got burnt as well, but the inquisition didn't care too much as long as the Asmodeans died or were driven out. My character was a low ranking acolyte (he was a scribe who recorded the raids and other activities. He did not participate directly) in the Mitran church at the time, and began to question the morality of the purges, but he was just told to do his job.

One day, one of his friends became a victim in the conflict. His friend was an orphan that one of the Asmodean orphanages took in. The inquisition raided that orphanage, and it was just so convenient that all of them died "resisting arrest." This wasn't the first time something like this had happened, and my character just about had enough! He spoke up again, and when he was ignored he tried to go over his superiors and report these incidents to the top. For that, he was kicked out of the church. Angry at the hypocrisy of the Mitran church, and also at his friend's death, my character decided he needed fight the church. To that end. He stole a forbidden scroll from th church's vault before he was shut out, and used it to bind and enslave to himself a celestial (this is his eidolon. My character is a summoner).

For years he tried to fight the church (stopping the Purge) and tried to expose their evil activities, but his luck eventually ran out. He was caught, and sentenced to death for heresy. The adventure path begins as he awaits in jail for his execution in 3 days. He escapes with the others, and it turns out the person who helped them escape is a powerful Asmodean cleric, one of the last Asmodeans in the island (the purge was very successful). The cleric offered them a chance to vengeance and a chance to conquer this nation, and my character eagerly agreed to work for this cleric.

Major campaign actions and events thus far:

1. Slaughter the prison guards as he fought his way out with the other PCs.

2. Ally with and work for a cleric of an evil deity (the cleric is actually a Lich as well, we later learned)

3. Using guérilla tactics, slowly kill the defenders of a border fort so we could throw open the gates and allow in a barbarian horde of bugbears in from the savage north. This is part of the plans of the cleric boss. Create an external threat to the nation that will slaughter the nation's defenders (they can't do it themselves, but with the PCs' help throughout the campaign the army of Talingarde would be weakened enough to lose to this barbarian horde). That way a mercenary army led by an Asmodean and swoop in, clean up, claim credit for saving the nation, and claim the throne too.

These are major events in book 1. Thus far, Nexas feels this is a bit distafeful, but he also considers this necessary evil in order to override the hypocritical current government. Also at this point vengeance still drives him. Although to be fair to the government, the current king, Markadian the 5th, isn't as bad as the 4th. The Purges are over, but the king doesn't feel any need to correct the actions of his predecessors. Still. He is a part of the problem in Nexas's eyes.

4. The PCs are ordered to find a supernaturally virulent plague created by a daemon. In order to do so, they set up shop at a site of a former daemon cult base, and perform a ritual over many months in order to summon the daemon and ask for the plague. The base is in a forest, a day or two walk from the closest town.

5. During this time, they PCs do kill some innocent townsfolk to keep their secrets. Also, the group slaughters all the adventurers (may of them good aligned) that come to investigate or stop them. This includes a good aligned silver dragon. And also some friends and relatives of their victims in the first book, who formed an adventuring group to get revenge on the PCs.

That's the summary of book 2. Nexas once again feels that these deaths are necessary, but the feelings of vengeance fade away slowly over the course of this book. By the end of this book, the PCs successfully get this super plague, and they hand it over to the boss to spread around Talingarde to weaken the nation and plunge it further into despair. This is the first time a Nexas begins to have real doubts. He feels that the plague will cause too much collateral damage and that they can find other ways to weaken the army of Talingarde. He does NOT feel that using the plague was a necessary course of action, but he doesn't disobey because the Lich is way stronger than he is and would kill him if he disobeyed.

Beginning of book 3, The PCs are ordered to invade the valley where the Order of St. Macarius, the NG order of clerics who provide both spellcastingsuppprt for the army and also goes around healing the peasantry of their ills. Their orders are to kill all the clerics and also kill the celestial leader of that order (an actual angel named Ara Mathra) because that angel guards an artifact that effective imbues clerical powers within the worthy. Without it, the number of priests becoming actual Clerics would lower drastically. The reason for this invasion is simple: deny the army as much healing support as possible so the bugbears can defeat them easier.

6. The PCs gather a small bugbear army from their bugbear allies, invade the valley, slaughter the defenders, and take control of the only town within the valley. In order to kill the head celestial and destroy the artifact they must still venture into an extradimensional cathedral within the valley, where many angels dwell. The bugbears and some of the other PCs (who are hardcore Asmodean worshippers) wanted to slaughter the villagers (a few hundred of them) who were captured. Nexas argued that it's not necessary because the villagers think that it's part of the bugbear invasion, and not part of an Asmodean plot, so letting them live still keeps the overall scheme safe. Ultimately, some of the villagers tried to get a message out to the rest of the nation (the entrance to the valley is very hard to traverse during winter so normally during winter months there is no traffic. That's why secrecy is even possible in the first place), and many of the villagers are slaughtered as punishment. However, Nexas managed to spare some of them (especially the children) by having his medusa cohort turn them into stone instead, knowing that they can be turned back to normal by Mitran clerics later. Nexas wants a better Talingarde, not a dead one.

7. Around this time, Nexas begins considering the possibility that he is being hypocritical himself. He hates the Mitran Church for supposedly being lawful good but then doing all these evil deeds and not letting the nation have the freedom to choose their religion, but Nexas himself has used magic to force another into his servitude. He knows he is causing the celestial that serves as his eidolon great emotional pain, making her fight for him against the people of Talingarde and against other celestials. Nexas is uncomfortable with the fact that he is enslaving another, and begins contemplating setting her free and finding another eidolon instead. He also secretly starts his own research into a cure for the plague, regretting more and more his decision to give the plague to his boss.

8. The PCs invade the cathedral, and kill most of the defenders. There was an aasimar oracle the group fought, that said she had forseen this calamity coming. Nexas replied, "Why haven't your oracular powers showed you the hypocrisy of the Mitran church?" and to which the oracle replied, "I have seen the hypocrisy, and I have asked both Ara Mathra and prayed to Mitra for answers, but I have receive none." Nexas is curious about this, and was hoping to keep her alive for more discussion after the PCs' victory, but a disintegrate from the party wizard turned her to ashes. When they reach the high abbot, who is the highest mortal leader of the Order of St. Macarius (only the angel leader outranks him), Nexas engages in some discussion with him as well before the fight. When Nexas again accused the church of hypocrisy, the abbot showed Nexas that while the other branches may have acted against (what the abbot interprets) as the scriptures of Mitra, the Order of St. Macarius never aided the inquisition nor participated in the purges. Nexas is greatly troubled by this, and wishes he weren't ordered to exterminate the Order of St. Macarius. These people aren't his enemy, he realizes. The fight happens anyways of course because the Abbot will give his life to defend this cathedral against desecration, and the abbot is killed.

9. The PCs finally reach the inner sanctum, where Ara Mathra awaits. Through more dialogue, one of the revelations the celestial reveals to the villains is that there is some sort of competition going on between Mitra and Asmodeus. Although the exact terms were not revealed, the nature of the competition involves seeing whether the people would choose good or evil. There are many rules against direct interference. In other words, it is implied that Mitra manifesting to the church leaders or to the Markadians and telling them, "This is wrong, don't do this.", or answering similar questions from Communes and such, would effectively be cheating. There is also a small hint dropped that there may be some kind of civil war going on in the heavens between different Mitra factions (remember Mitra is a trinity deity) on what is the right way to interpret the wishes of Mitra and what is right and wrong in the fight against evil. At this point, Nexas really does not want to fight and kill Ara Mathra, because that would be destroying the Material Plane version of the Mitra faction that he actually agrees with (non-political. Help and heal others. Don't persecute others based on religion, etc). Technically, his orders are to "leave no one alive in the cathedral" so if he could convince the rest of the group to just let Ara Mathra leave forever, that would be fulfilling the letter of the law. The artifact can still be shut down and the mission would be accomplished. Unfortunately, he was unable to convince enough of his team to do so, and with a heavy heart, he fought.

10. Ara Mathra has a trick up his sleeve, and temporarily frees Nexas's eidolon from Nexas's control (this was GM fiat, but I was ok with the timing). The fight is difficult as the eidolon is very strong and hard-hitting. She goes after Nexas with a vengeance, hating him with every fiber in her body, and Nexas only survives due to luck (a few horrible rolls in a roll for the eidolon) but eventually the PCs win the fight against Ara Mathra and against the eidolon. As Ara Mathra lays there dying (technically, in this cosmology, death of the celestial only banishes him back to the upper planes for a long time), Nexas regains control of his eidolon. She lies on the floor, expecting pain and retribution, but all Nexas does is pull out his sword, and (symbolically) cut the chains of magic binding her to him, freeing her in front of Ara Mathra. Nexas apologizes for what he did to her, and for having to fight Ara Mathra. His former eidolon doesn't attack Nexas, and instead just flies away.

11. The lich cleric shows up, and rewards the party for a job well done so far, but also punishes Nexas for trying to go against the spirit of his orders. Nexas wisely doesn't say that being lawful evil is all about twisting the rules to one's own advantage, and is only punished moderately, since he did end up fighting and winning.

That is the summary for book 3. Throughout the book, Nexas realizes more and more that if he really is in it to create a better Talingarde, he should be minimizing casualties, and using violence as a last resort. The current government must be taken down, yes, but if Talingarde is destroyed in the process, what good does it do? Nexas wants to become a benevolent dictator, and that means not viewing the country as the enemy. Only specifics parts and organizations of Talingarde is his enemy. it is in this book that he really starts to examine the consequences of his own actions, and tries to use as little cruelty and force as possibly to achieve his ends. He doesn't want to hurt those that don't deserve it. While many of the things he has done so far has been necessary to topple the government, and he would do it again if he had to, the plague is the one of the things he truly regrets. It wasn't necessary, and it's going to hurt and kill tens of thousands of people (the plague cannot be cured naturally. Remove Disease is required. It does con damage on a failed save and is extremely infectious. Very nasty stuff.). Nexas hates himself for not being strong enough both to prevent the plague from being used, and to prevent Ara Mathra from being defeated. He wishes he had the inner fortitutde to disobey orders and let the angel get away, but he also knew he wasn't strong enough to take on the lich yet, much less the lich AND the party members that may then view him as a traitor.

12. Book 4 begins with the king's army reaching the valley at the end of winter (they used an artifact to be able to marsh during the winter), and the PCs having to run. In a spot where he knows the Mitrans can find it, Nexas secretly drops his notes he has developed so far on his quest to research a cure. Then he leaves with the others. Sometime during this book, the PCs visit Hell for their own reasons, and they actually see the soul of Markadian the 4th (the one who false blamed the Asmodeans for using dark magics on the 3rd, and ordered the Purge) suffering, being tortured. This greatly affirms Nexas's beliefs that he is on the right path. What Markadian the 4th did was very wrong, and Nexas must do whatever it takes to prevent anything like thagt from happening again.

13. The PCs must ally with an ancient black dragon in order to attack the palace in the capital. The goal is to threaten the princess so that the king would teleport back to save his daughter, at which point the PCs can ambush and kill the king. In order to secure this alliance, the black dragon demands that the PCs slay a copper dragon and his 3 consorts (all 3 of which are good outsiders but not celestials). The dragon and his consorts are not involved in Talingarde events, and Nexas takes no pleasure in killing them, but it must be done in order to secure the alliance. During this time, one of the PCs' devil allies warn the PCs that their lich cleric boss plans on betraying them soon, and that they need to be careful.

14. The PCs secure the alliance and go to the capital to infiltrate the palace and wait for the black dragon's attack. During this, the PCs run into an envoy of druids from a more primitive people (barbarians living in jungles in Talingarde). Nexas wants to better the lives of all people of Talingarde, and also know that having good relationships with these barbarian tribes in the future would be a good idea, and thus he warns them that there will be great danger coming soon and that they should leave immediately.

15. The dragon attacks the palace, and the king recalls magically back to save his daughter. The PCs fight him and kill him. The princess was supposed to be eaten by the black dragon, but turns out to be a half-dragon sorceress herself capable of 9th level spells. She and an important paladin NPC defeat the black dragon, and escape, likely to return later as enemies and leaders of the Resistance after the PCs take over the kingdom. One of the favored servants of the boss (and a relatively powerful one) shows up and invites the PCs to teleport with her back to the boss's personal sanctum. This has never happened before, and between this and the warning, the PCs know this is the time to fight back against their former master. That will happen in the next book.

This is the summary of book 4. Nexas doesn't have anything personal against the current king, but since the current king doesn't seem to realize the errors of religious persecution, and since the current King has to die before the next step of the plan to take over can happen, Nexas fights the king and kills him, and his bodyguards. The party wizard uses a spell to consign the soul to hell even if the soul wouldn't go to hell normally. Nexas is already considering launching a rescue mission in the future, after taking control of talingarde, to retrieve the soul and offer it to the princess as a peace offering.


Nexas's plans going forward...
Nexas is actually happy that he will get a chance to destroy his former boss, and have the rest of the PCs helping. He knows his vision for Talingarde is likely different from that of the cleric lich of Asmodeus. He plans to destroy the lich, and then finish the plan to swoop in and rescue the nation from the threat of the bugbears, find a way to wipe out the plague, and thereby being heralded as the saviors of the land and have one of the PCs being crowned the new king. Nexas imagine that whomever the king is, in reality the power will be shared amongst them and they would govern collectively in a council. Nexas knows that at least one of his compatriots, an antipaladin of Asmodeus, is very bloodthirsty, and would likely want to implement very draconian and harsh measures on the people. Luckily, the antipaladin isn't much in the sense motive department, and Nexas plans on running circles around the antipaladin, using both logic and trickery to convince the members of the group to adopt policies that are lenient, magnanimous, and promote the welfare of the people. He will convince them that it's part of a long-game strategy that will get Asmodeus more souls. After all, if the Talireans see the church of Asmodeus as a cartoon evil that cares nothing for the people, then the whole point of the elaborate deception to get into power by using a mercenary army to destroy the bugbears would be gone. The people wouldn't want to convert to the church of Asmodeus. No, better to govern well and be loved by the people, and slowly lure them away from Mitra. That would be what he tels the others.

In reality, Nexas cares not for one religion or another. His overall goals are simple:

1. Promote religious freedom. He sided with the forces of Asmodeus at first because he didn't have a choice (he was going to get executed), and because the Asmodeans were being bullied by the dominant religion in the land. Once the tables have turned, Nexas will do everything he can to make sure that the Asmodeans don't turn around and do the same evil religious persecution crap that was done to them years ago. He wants every religion to be able to compete fairly for worshippers, and not for any one to oppress the others. This will probably make the dwarves happy.

2. Promote the welfare of the people of Talingarde. Nexas won't let the others implement needlessly cruel policies. After all, now that they're in charge, the people of Talingarde is "their people" and why would they want to hurt their own people and power base right? Nexas will make sure that taxes are raised, but not to build pleasure palaces (well, maybe only very small percentages of the funds will go towards pleasure palaces. Even the previous king had luxury), but instead of rebuild the land after the devastation of the war and the plague. To set up charities. To do anything and everything to better the lives of Talireans. He's not grabbing power to live large at the expense of the people. He will sacrifice his own wealth-by-level if necessary to help. Nexas hopes to defeat any rebellion not by force of arms, but by running the country so well that people don't really want to join the rebellion. He would primarily resort to diplomacy and non-lethal attacks when dealing with the rebellion, in order to try to convince them to work within the system if they have any legitimate complaints. And then he would actually try to address those complaints if possible.

3. Restore the Order of St. Macarius, and then try to make that group as powerful as possible within the Mitran church. This is good for a few reasons. First, Nexas believe this version of Mitra worship is terrific for the people of Talingarde. Second, as the Order of St. Macarius is non-political, they won't get in the way of the new regime. This is how he'll sell the idea of reviving the order to the other PCs. Of course in order to do this he must risk travelling to the heavens, finding Ara Mathra and that oracle up there, and convince them of his good intentions. As well as find a ritual to bring Ara Mathra back to the material plane. As this order also specializes in fighting diseases, it would also be a boon in their fight against the plague, if it has not already been defeated.

4. If he can find a way, restore to life everybody that died from the plague. This gnaws at him daily.

Final thoughts: He is doing all that he is doing because he believes overthrowing the government and implementing the policies he wants will ultimately be better for Talingarde, and prevent much suffering in the future. He realizes he is causing much suffering now (between the army that will be destroyed, and both the bugbears and the plague killing tens of thousands of civilians), but he believes that persecution and prejudice are bigger evils that he must defeat at almost any cost. He will try to make up for the suffering he has caused by improving the lives of his citizens as much as possible in the future.

DONE.

[Uncle Pine]

Red Fel, I've recently watched the anime Overlord. If you've seen it, do you think the protagonist makes a decent job at being a good LE?

[Svata]

So, I recently met someone who says that laws are what defines good and evil, right and wrong. How do I explain that this isn't so, or, failing that, exploit the nine hells out of it?

[Inevitability]

So, I recently met someone who says that laws are what defines good and evil, right and wrong. How do I explain that this isn't so, or, failing that, exploit the nine hells out of it?

How do you mean, explain that it isn't so? :smalltongue:

[Uncle Pine]

So, I recently met someone who says that laws are what defines good and evil, right and wrong. How do I explain that this isn't so, or, failing that, exploit the nine hells out of it?
There are good laws and evil laws, but they're both laws. They exist for a reason and that's what's important. Respect and follow said Rules, As Written if necessary or handy, and you'll never be at fault.

[khadgar567]

There are good laws and evil laws, but they're both laws. They exist for a reason and that's what's important. Respect and follow said Rules, As Written if necessary or handy, and you'll never be at fault.
Laws are for greedy to legitimately rob the poor and call it what ever the f they want.

[Red Fel]

Okay, a summary of the setting and what has been going on with my character, Nexas. How evil would you say he is? And which of the LE archetypes is he?

General attitudes in the kingdom of Talingarde:

1) The church, and by extension, the royal family, are by and large very religiously intolerant. Before the Markadians took over some 80 years ago, an entire pantheon of gods were worshipped widely, amongst them were both Mitra and Asmodeus (who are rivals). After the Markadians took over, Mitra was made the official religion, and all other religious were heavily discouraged or "soft banned". "Oh, you want to build a temple to your god over in that area? Sorry, we are currently not issuing permits. Check back next year." It wasn't just rival faiths. Even the faiths of allied races during the war, such as the dwarves in Talingarde who worshipped Father Mountain, were discouraged. In fact, Markadian the 4th jailed dwarves who claimed that Father Mountain forged the world instead of Mitra. The common huma people mostly share this sentiment. The silves and the dwarves grumble slightly but accept it as society is very good to the, otherwise.

Intolerance tends Evil. The xenophobic human deity Zarus (also known as pre-Pelor) was LE. Racism bad, yo. That said, this isn't ethnic intolerance, it's religious intolerance, and since religion is concrete and explicitly powerful, this is a slightly different thing in a D&D world. (Still bad in real life, if you ask me, which you sort of did.) Aside from the jailing of some heretics, you haven't shown me any active oppression in this kingdom, just a general sense of "We have one State religion, and you follow it, the end." And given how you depict it as generally LG, I imagine the prisoners were treated reasonably well, and no scorpions whatsoever were involved in their incarceration.

So, not particularly Good, but not exactly the most hideously Evil dictatorship I've ever seen.


2) The nation is very human-centric, and is very biased against certain races, like tieflings. Tieflings and also monstrous races get treated terribly, but my character sees this as a lesser problem than the religious intolerance (still a problem that needs to be addressed)


Ironic, because in D&D morality, the racism is probably a bigger problem. But whatever. Again, racism bad, yo, but bigotry against the more monstrous races is at least understandable to a certain degree. Unlike, say, Elves and Dwarves, whose cardinal sins are obnoxious pretense and body hair that makes you feel less manly, respectively, some monstrous races are legitimately dangerous and frightening, whether it's from natural weapons or particular dietary needs. (Unless, by "monstrous," you mean things like Orcs, in which case you're horrible.)

Also, it's odd that you spring this - "treated horribly" means what, exactly? You say everyone is treated well, the poor don't starve, everyone gets health care, things are pretty idyllic... Oh, and also monstrous races are treated terribly. What does that mean? How does that work? Are they slaves? Beaten? Branded outlaws? Or do people just not like them much?


Specific events that caused my character to choose villainy
Markadian the 3rd was bat-**** insane, and ordered all sort of crazy edicts like "open a portal to hell so that I may lead the celestial hosts and defeat Asmodeus once and for all." It got so bad a bunch of Paladins murdered him him throwing him off the tallest tower of his castle, just so a more sane king would ascend the throne. Everything had to be hush hush, of course, and Markadian the 4th (the brother of the 3rd), was worried about his line losing political power because e erroné saw how insane his predecessor was. So, he did something politically savvy, yet horrifically evil in order to consolidate power. He blamed the insanity of Markadian the 3rd on witchcraft and dark magics from worshippers of Asmodeus, and ordered a pogrom. The common people believed him, and the dynasty reputation was secure.

The result? All worshippers of Asmodeus were to be purged from their island nation. They can converted to Mitran worship, or die being burnt at the stake. The inquisition arm of the Mitran church was only too happy to do this, as this was a chance to wipe out their rivals forever from the island. Of course, some innocents got burnt as well, but the inquisition didn't care too much as long as the Asmodeans died or were driven out. My character was a low ranking acolyte (he was a scribe who recorded the raids and other activities. He did not participate directly) in the Mitran church at the time, and began to question the morality of the purges, but he was just told to do his job.

One day, one of his friends became a victim in the conflict. His friend was an orphan that one of the Asmodean orphanages took in. The inquisition raided that orphanage, and it was just so convenient that all of them died "resisting arrest." This wasn't the first time something like this had happened, and my character just about had enough! He spoke up again, and when he was ignored he tried to go over his superiors and report these incidents to the top. For that, he was kicked out of the church. Angry at the hypocrisy of the Mitran church, and also at his friend's death, my character decided he needed fight the church. To that end. He stole a forbidden scroll from th church's vault before he was shut out, and used it to bind and enslave to himself a celestial (this is his eidolon. My character is a summoner).

For years he tried to fight the church (stopping the Purge) and tried to expose their evil activities, but his luck eventually ran out. He was caught, and sentenced to death for heresy. The adventure path begins as he awaits in jail for his execution in 3 days. He escapes with the others, and it turns out the person who helped them escape is a powerful Asmodean cleric, one of the last Asmodeans in the island (the purge was very successful). The cleric offered them a chance to vengeance and a chance to conquer this nation, and my character eagerly agreed to work for this cleric.

Okay, I'll bite... How is he a villain? Aside from the fact that you just went from "everything's pretty great, really," to "and then they murdered the orphans," your guy is basically just fighting a totalitarian regime. Aside from the fact that he has enslaved a Celestial and is fighting an ostensibly LG (but not really, because orphan murder) government, he's not exactly a villain per se. More of an antihero.

I hate those guys.


Major campaign actions and events thus far:

1. Slaughter the prison guards as he fought his way out with the other PCs.

Self-defense.


2. Ally with and work for a cleric of an evil deity (the cleric is actually a Lich as well, we later learned)

Friends of convenience are friends of convenience. You're not a Paladin, what do you care?


3. Using guérilla tactics, slowly kill the defenders of a border fort so we could throw open the gates and allow in a barbarian horde of bugbears in from the savage north. This is part of the plans of the cleric boss. Create an external threat to the nation that will slaughter the nation's defenders (they can't do it themselves, but with the PCs' help throughout the campaign the army of Talingarde would be weakened enough to lose to this barbarian horde). That way a mercenary army led by an Asmodean and swoop in, clean up, claim credit for saving the nation, and claim the throne too.

These are major events in book 1. Thus far, Nexas feels this is a bit distafeful, but he also considers this necessary evil in order to override the hypocritical current government. Also at this point vengeance still drives him. Although to be fair to the government, the current king, Markadian the 5th, isn't as bad as the 4th. The Purges are over, but the king doesn't feel any need to correct the actions of his predecessors. Still. He is a part of the problem in Nexas's eyes.

Playing kingmaker and facilitating a war, while probably not Good (although a great way to get rid of a dictatorship) isn't inherently Evil.

Stop confusing revolution for villainy.


4. The PCs are ordered to find a supernaturally virulent plague created by a daemon. In order to do so, they set up shop at a site of a former daemon cult base, and perform a ritual over many months in order to summon the daemon and ask for the plague. The base is in a forest, a day or two walk from the closest town.

Investigation. No charge.


5. During this time, they PCs do kill some innocent townsfolk to keep their secrets. Also, the group slaughters all the adventurers (may of them good aligned) that come to investigate or stop them. This includes a good aligned silver dragon. And also some friends and relatives of their victims in the first book, who formed an adventuring group to get revenge on the PCs.

That's the summary of book 2. Nexas once again feels that these deaths are necessary, but the feelings of vengeance fade away slowly over the course of this book. By the end of this book, the PCs successfully get this super plague, and they hand it over to the boss to spread around Talingarde to weaken the nation and plunge it further into despair. This is the first time a Nexas begins to have real doubts. He feels that the plague will cause too much collateral damage and that they can find other ways to weaken the army of Talingarde. He does NOT feel that using the plague was a necessary course of action, but he doesn't disobey because the Lich is way stronger than he is and would kill him if he disobeyed.

Beginning of book 3, The PCs are ordered to invade the valley where the Order of St. Macarius, the NG order of clerics who provide both spellcastingsuppprt for the army and also goes around healing the peasantry of their ills. Their orders are to kill all the clerics and also kill the celestial leader of that order (an actual angel named Ara Mathra) because that angel guards an artifact that effective imbues clerical powers within the worthy. Without it, the number of priests becoming actual Clerics would lower drastically. The reason for this invasion is simple: deny the army as much healing support as possible so the bugbears can defeat them easier.

Now, at this point, the question is the necessity of those deaths. You're pretty clearly no longer Good (if you ever were), but for it to be Evil, they'd have to be senseless, in my mind. Killing those who are trying to stop you, when you're trying to achieve a positive outcome, washes. Killing people for kicks, on the other hand, pretty Evil.

Similarly, attacking the enemy's logistical assets is less black-and-white. Yes, you're killing a proper Celestial, which is an Always Evil act, if memory serves. But the thing is, actions taken during war are more morally ambiguous than those taken by your typical band of adventurers. If this is an extended campaign of war, and your party is tasked with neutralizing key assets, that's less objectively Evil than it could be. Absent the war, setting the Clerics and Celestial to the sword would be pretty freaking Evil; in this context, it's just dark.


6. The PCs gather a small bugbear army from their bugbear allies, invade the valley, slaughter the defenders, and take control of the only town within the valley. In order to kill the head celestial and destroy the artifact they must still venture into an extradimensional cathedral within the valley, where many angels dwell. The bugbears and some of the other PCs (who are hardcore Asmodean worshippers) wanted to slaughter the villagers (a few hundred of them) who were captured. Nexas argued that it's not necessary because the villagers think that it's part of the bugbear invasion, and not part of an Asmodean plot, so letting them live still keeps the overall scheme safe. Ultimately, some of the villagers tried to get a message out to the rest of the nation (the entrance to the valley is very hard to traverse during winter so normally during winter months there is no traffic. That's why secrecy is even possible in the first place), and many of the villagers are slaughtered as punishment. However, Nexas managed to spare some of them (especially the children) by having his medusa cohort turn them into stone instead, knowing that they can be turned back to normal by Mitran clerics later. Nexas wants a better Talingarde, not a dead one.

See, here's what I'm talking about. This is someone actively trying to minimize the innocent casualties. That's a lot less Evil than it could be.


7. Around this time, Nexas begins considering the possibility that he is being hypocritical himself. He hates the Mitran Church for supposedly being lawful good but then doing all these evil deeds and not letting the nation have the freedom to choose their religion, but Nexas himself has used magic to force another into his servitude. He knows he is causing the celestial that serves as his eidolon great emotional pain, making her fight for him against the people of Talingarde and against other celestials. Nexas is uncomfortable with the fact that he is enslaving another, and begins contemplating setting her free and finding another eidolon instead. He also secretly starts his own research into a cure for the plague, regretting more and more his decision to give the plague to his boss.

See above.


8. The PCs invade the cathedral, and kill most of the defenders. There was an aasimar oracle the group fought, that said she had forseen this calamity coming. Nexas replied, "Why haven't your oracular powers showed you the hypocrisy of the Mitran church?" and to which the oracle replied, "I have seen the hypocrisy, and I have asked both Ara Mathra and prayed to Mitra for answers, but I have receive none." Nexas is curious about this, and was hoping to keep her alive for more discussion after the PCs' victory, but a disintegrate from the party wizard turned her to ashes. When they reach the high abbot, who is the highest mortal leader of the Order of St. Macarius (only the angel leader outranks him), Nexas engages in some discussion with him as well before the fight. When Nexas again accused the church of hypocrisy, the abbot showed Nexas that while the other branches may have acted against (what the abbot interprets) as the scriptures of Mitra, the Order of St. Macarius never aided the inquisition nor participated in the purges. Nexas is greatly troubled by this, and wishes he weren't ordered to exterminate the Order of St. Macarius. These people aren't his enemy, he realizes. The fight happens anyways of course because the Abbot will give his life to defend this cathedral against desecration, and the abbot is killed.

See above.


9. The PCs finally reach the inner sanctum, where Ara Mathra awaits. Through more dialogue, one of the revelations the celestial reveals to the villains is that there is some sort of competition going on between Mitra and Asmodeus. Although the exact terms were not revealed, the nature of the competition involves seeing whether the people would choose good or evil. There are many rules against direct interference. In other words, it is implied that Mitra manifesting to the church leaders or to the Markadians and telling them, "This is wrong, don't do this.", or answering similar questions from Communes and such, would effectively be cheating. There is also a small hint dropped that there may be some kind of civil war going on in the heavens between different Mitra factions (remember Mitra is a trinity deity) on what is the right way to interpret the wishes of Mitra and what is right and wrong in the fight against evil. At this point, Nexas really does not want to fight and kill Ara Mathra, because that would be destroying the Material Plane version of the Mitra faction that he actually agrees with (non-political. Help and heal others. Don't persecute others based on religion, etc). Technically, his orders are to "leave no one alive in the cathedral" so if he could convince the rest of the group to just let Ara Mathra leave forever, that would be fulfilling the letter of the law. The artifact can still be shut down and the mission would be accomplished. Unfortunately, he was unable to convince enough of his team to do so, and with a heavy heart, he fought.

You keep calling them "villains." This isn't a villain campaign. It's arguably an Evil campaign, but more accurately, it's a war campaign, and a lot of the rules of morality are more flexible in that context.


10. Ara Mathra has a trick up his sleeve, and temporarily frees Nexas's eidolon from Nexas's control (this was GM fiat, but I was ok with the timing). The fight is difficult as the eidolon is very strong and hard-hitting. She goes after Nexas with a vengeance, hating him with every fiber in her body, and Nexas only survives due to luck (a few horrible rolls in a roll for the eidolon) but eventually the PCs win the fight against Ara Mathra and against the eidolon. As Ara Mathra lays there dying (technically, in this cosmology, death of the celestial only banishes him back to the upper planes for a long time), Nexas regains control of his eidolon. She lies on the floor, expecting pain and retribution, but all Nexas does is pull out his sword, and (symbolically) cut the chains of magic binding her to him, freeing her in front of Ara Mathra. Nexas apologizes for what he did to her, and for having to fight Ara Mathra. His former eidolon doesn't attack Nexas, and instead just flies away.

This is just stupid heroing. Congratulations, your guy is officially heroic stupid. Yes, free your minion that's your major source of power, to be symbolic. Nice going, hero.


11. The lich cleric shows up, and rewards the party for a job well done so far, but also punishes Nexas for trying to go against the spirit of his orders. Nexas wisely doesn't say that being lawful evil is all about twisting the rules to one's own advantage, and is only punished moderately, since he did end up fighting and winning.

That is the summary for book 3. Throughout the book, Nexas realizes more and more that if he really is in it to create a better Talingarde, he should be minimizing casualties, and using violence as a last resort. The current government must be taken down, yes, but if Talingarde is destroyed in the process, what good does it do? Nexas wants to become a benevolent dictator, and that means not viewing the country as the enemy. Only specifics parts and organizations of Talingarde is his enemy. it is in this book that he really starts to examine the consequences of his own actions, and tries to use as little cruelty and force as possibly to achieve his ends. He doesn't want to hurt those that don't deserve it. While many of the things he has done so far has been necessary to topple the government, and he would do it again if he had to, the plague is the one of the things he truly regrets. It wasn't necessary, and it's going to hurt and kill tens of thousands of people (the plague cannot be cured naturally. Remove Disease is required. It does con damage on a failed save and is extremely infectious. Very nasty stuff.). Nexas hates himself for not being strong enough both to prevent the plague from being used, and to prevent Ara Mathra from being defeated. He wishes he had the inner fortitutde to disobey orders and let the angel get away, but he also knew he wasn't strong enough to take on the lich yet, much less the lich AND the party members that may then view him as a traitor.

See, the problem is, he skipped some of his classes.

Yes, it's possible to be an arguably LE benevolent dictator. Really, you'd drop either "LE" or "benevolent," but it's technically possible to meet somewhere in the middle. The problem is that getting there requires profound ruthlessness, and your guy simply lacks it.


12. Book 4 begins with the king's army reaching the valley at the end of winter (they used an artifact to be able to marsh during the winter), and the PCs having to run. In a spot where he knows the Mitrans can find it, Nexas secretly drops his notes he has developed so far on his quest to research a cure. Then he leaves with the others. Sometime during this book, the PCs visit Hell for their own reasons, and they actually see the soul of Markadian the 4th (the one who false blamed the Asmodeans for using dark magics on the 3rd, and ordered the Purge) suffering, being tortured. This greatly affirms Nexas's beliefs that he is on the right path. What Markadian the 4th did was very wrong, and Nexas must do whatever it takes to prevent anything like thagt from happening again.

Oh my me, there's more of this novel. Smite me now.


13. The PCs must ally with an ancient black dragon in order to attack the palace in the capital. The goal is to threaten the princess so that the king would teleport back to save his daughter, at which point the PCs can ambush and kill the king. In order to secure this alliance, the black dragon demands that the PCs slay a copper dragon and his 3 consorts (all 3 of which are good outsiders but not celestials). The dragon and his consorts are not involved in Talingarde events, and Nexas takes no pleasure in killing them, but it must be done in order to secure the alliance. During this time, one of the PCs' devil allies warn the PCs that their lich cleric boss plans on betraying them soon, and that they need to be careful.

Okay, see, here, he's doing something Evil, in order to ally with something Evil, in order to accomplish something arguably Good. Are you dizzy yet?


14. The PCs secure the alliance and go to the capital to infiltrate the palace and wait for the black dragon's attack. During this, the PCs run into an envoy of druids from a more primitive people (barbarians living in jungles in Talingarde). Nexas wants to better the lives of all people of Talingarde, and also know that having good relationships with these barbarian tribes in the future would be a good idea, and thus he warns them that there will be great danger coming soon and that they should leave immediately.

No charge.


15. The dragon attacks the palace, and the king recalls magically back to save his daughter. The PCs fight him and kill him. The princess was supposed to be eaten by the black dragon, but turns out to be a half-dragon sorceress herself capable of 9th level spells. She and an important paladin NPC defeat the black dragon, and escape, likely to return later as enemies and leaders of the Resistance after the PCs take over the kingdom. One of the favored servants of the boss (and a relatively powerful one) shows up and invites the PCs to teleport with her back to the boss's personal sanctum. This has never happened before, and between this and the warning, the PCs know this is the time to fight back against their former master. That will happen in the next book.

This is the summary of book 4. Nexas doesn't have anything personal against the current king, but since the current king doesn't seem to realize the errors of religious persecution, and since the current King has to die before the next step of the plan to take over can happen, Nexas fights the king and kills him, and his bodyguards. The party wizard uses a spell to consign the soul to hell even if the soul wouldn't go to hell normally. Nexas is already considering launching a rescue mission in the future, after taking control of talingarde, to retrieve the soul and offer it to the princess as a peace offering.


Adorable.


Nexas's plans going forward...
Nexas is actually happy that he will get a chance to destroy his former boss, and have the rest of the PCs helping. He knows his vision for Talingarde is likely different from that of the cleric lich of Asmodeus. He plans to destroy the lich, and then finish the plan to swoop in and rescue the nation from the threat of the bugbears, find a way to wipe out the plague, and thereby being heralded as the saviors of the land and have one of the PCs being crowned the new king. Nexas imagine that whomever the king is, in reality the power will be shared amongst them and they would govern collectively in a council. Nexas knows that at least one of his compatriots, an antipaladin of Asmodeus, is very bloodthirsty, and would likely want to implement very draconian and harsh measures on the people. Luckily, the antipaladin isn't much in the sense motive department, and Nexas plans on running circles around the antipaladin, using both logic and trickery to convince the members of the group to adopt policies that are lenient, magnanimous, and promote the welfare of the people. He will convince them that it's part of a long-game strategy that will get Asmodeus more souls. After all, if the Talireans see the church of Asmodeus as a cartoon evil that cares nothing for the people, then the whole point of the elaborate deception to get into power by using a mercenary army to destroy the bugbears would be gone. The people wouldn't want to convert to the church of Asmodeus. No, better to govern well and be loved by the people, and slowly lure them away from Mitra. That would be what he tels the others.

In reality, Nexas cares not for one religion or another. His overall goals are simple:

1. Promote religious freedom. He sided with the forces of Asmodeus at first because he didn't have a choice (he was going to get executed), and because the Asmodeans were being bullied by the dominant religion in the land. Once the tables have turned, Nexas will do everything he can to make sure that the Asmodeans don't turn around and do the same evil religious persecution crap that was done to them years ago. He wants every religion to be able to compete fairly for worshippers, and not for any one to oppress the others. This will probably make the dwarves happy.

2. Promote the welfare of the people of Talingarde. Nexas won't let the others implement needlessly cruel policies. After all, now that they're in charge, the people of Talingarde is "their people" and why would they want to hurt their own people and power base right? Nexas will make sure that taxes are raised, but not to build pleasure palaces (well, maybe only very small percentages of the funds will go towards pleasure palaces. Even the previous king had luxury), but instead of rebuild the land after the devastation of the war and the plague. To set up charities. To do anything and everything to better the lives of Talireans. He's not grabbing power to live large at the expense of the people. He will sacrifice his own wealth-by-level if necessary to help. Nexas hopes to defeat any rebellion not by force of arms, but by running the country so well that people don't really want to join the rebellion. He would primarily resort to diplomacy and non-lethal attacks when dealing with the rebellion, in order to try to convince them to work within the system if they have any legitimate complaints. And then he would actually try to address those complaints if possible.

3. Restore the Order of St. Macarius, and then try to make that group as powerful as possible within the Mitran church. This is good for a few reasons. First, Nexas believe this version of Mitra worship is terrific for the people of Talingarde. Second, as the Order of St. Macarius is non-political, they won't get in the way of the new regime. This is how he'll sell the idea of reviving the order to the other PCs. Of course in order to do this he must risk travelling to the heavens, finding Ara Mathra and that oracle up there, and convince them of his good intentions. As well as find a ritual to bring Ara Mathra back to the material plane. As this order also specializes in fighting diseases, it would also be a boon in their fight against the plague, if it has not already been defeated.

4. If he can find a way, restore to life everybody that died from the plague. This gnaws at him daily.

Final thoughts: He is doing all that he is doing because he believes overthrowing the government and implementing the policies he wants will ultimately be better for Talingarde, and prevent much suffering in the future. He realizes he is causing much suffering now (between the army that will be destroyed, and both the bugbears and the plague killing tens of thousands of civilians), but he believes that persecution and prejudice are bigger evils that he must defeat at almost any cost. He will try to make up for the suffering he has caused by improving the lives of his citizens as much as possible in the future.

DONE.

He's not that Evil. He's probably technically E, simply because of what he's done - he's very Dark Knight material - but he is doing it for what are absolutely Good aims. He's definitely not LE, given his emphasis on freedom of all things, and his desire to betray allies. I'd peg him at NE, maybe CE, trending TN/CN. He's bad, but not a monster. He wants to free and help everybody, indiscriminately - that's arguably Good. He's just picked some mean ways to do it, and constantly questions himself, because you wrote him as a hero.

Look. The hero sits there questioning his actions, and has to remind himself of the positive outcome. The villain embraces the outcome, and disregards the morality of the actions. Your guy is a stained, dirty antihero, not a villain.

And you didn't need a novel to show me that.


Red Fel, I've recently watched the anime Overlord. If you've seen it, do you think the protagonist makes a decent job at being a good LE?

Eh, decent. His actions are in the right place, but his heart isn't quite set on the whole "cover the land with the sword" thing. He's mostly moved by nostalgia and loyalty. True, he's pretty brutal, but the series does a decent job of saying, "No, you guys, it's cool, this horrible person totally deserved it," so it's a bit of a mixed bag.

Overall, though, love the series.


So, I recently met someone who says that laws are what defines good and evil, right and wrong. How do I explain that this isn't so, or, failing that, exploit the nine hells out of it?

If you have to ask how to exploit it, your first instinct isn't to exploit it; go with that instinct.

Instead, find laws that justify or require, or even allow, absolutely horrible things. Show these laws to this person. Declare your intent to do them. If he changes his position, mock his hypocrisy. If he doesn't change, do them. (You know, assuming they're also legal where you are.)

Funny thing about laws. As a general rule, if something isn't illegal, it's legal. So find things you can do - legally, but not necessarily morally or ethically - to this person, declare your intent, and then do them.

Until he breaks.


How do you mean, explain that it isn't so? :smalltongue:

How adorable that you think that the fact that we agree means good things for the world.

[Buufreak]

Snippity snip snip

Don't feel too bad, Frosty. He tore my character apart in similar ways. It was heartbreaking, but also a learning experience, which leads me too...

Buu's Second Attempt at The VillainyTM

Honestly, I think the best way to go about this when dealing with someone as seasoned as Red Fel has to do with playing to strengths, ignoring weaknesses (at least for me that helps), and bringing a real wow factor. Second of importance is ass-kissing...

Oh great Evil one, maker of all that is dark and definer of great villainy the multiverse over, allow me another chance of pleasing your eyes!

Great, now that is out of the way, lets move onto what strengths I can manage here. I'm not inventive. I'm not creative. So screw trying to be those. What I do have going for me is a tendency to research for hours or days at a time, a very limited need for sleep, and a photographic memory. On paper, that doesn't seem like much, but in practice I honestly believe it will at the very least allow me to do a great many things. Sure, I won't come up with original concepts, and I generally suck at creating names. However, I see creativity as overrated when compared against proper information and preparation.

At this point you might wonder "Yes, all fine and good. The villain, please?" Well, I want to gradually work on that. Last time I took way too much up front, threw it against a wall, saw that it could stick for a mere moment, and called it a day. None of that this time. I want to gradually bake this evil cake, properly mixing in all the right ingredients so that there will be no mistakes or second guessing myself.

I suppose at this moment it is best to ask if you would be willing to help with some designing from what I have found, but also if yes would it be preferred in thread or PM?

[Red Fel]

Don't feel too bad, Frosty. He tore my character apart in similar ways. It was heartbreaking, but also a learning experience, which leads me too...

Buu's Second Attempt at The VillainyTM

Honestly, I think the best way to go about this when dealing with someone as seasoned as Red Fel has to do with playing to strengths, ignoring weaknesses (at least for me that helps), and bringing a real wow factor. Second of importance is ass-kissing...

No, the best way to go about this is to be direct, be concise, make your points, and bring your A-Game. When you fall short, look at it as an opportunity to improve; when you succeed, look at it as the first step on the path to True Villainy.

And I don't need my butt kissed. I have minions for that, and no, I'm not hiring.


Oh great Evil one, maker of all that is dark and definer of great villainy the multiverse over, allow me another chance of pleasing your eyes!

Bring it.


Great, now that is out of the way, lets move onto what strengths I can manage here. I'm not inventive. I'm not creative. So screw trying to be those. What I do have going for me is a tendency to research for hours or days at a time, a very limited need for sleep, and a photographic memory. On paper, that doesn't seem like much, but in practice I honestly believe it will at the very least allow me to do a great many things. Sure, I won't come up with original concepts, and I generally suck at creating names. However, I see creativity as overrated when compared against proper information and preparation.

At this point you might wonder "Yes, all fine and good. The villain, please?" Well, I want to gradually work on that. Last time I took way too much up front, threw it against a wall, saw that it could stick for a mere moment, and called it a day. None of that this time. I want to gradually bake this evil cake, properly mixing in all the right ingredients so that there will be no mistakes or second guessing myself.

I suppose at this moment it is best to ask if you would be willing to help with some designing from what I have found, but also if yes would it be preferred in thread or PM?

However you prefer. Obviously, if you want to handle it in private, or in great detail, PMs are better, but if you want to share with the class, that works to. If it goes on at length, though, I'd ask to go to PMs.

Again, don't sell yourself short. Evil isn't always about creativity. Yes, PRESENTATION! is important, but a lot of work goes into that. Putting in the hours counts. Let's see what you've got.

[King539]

and i don't need my butt kissed. I have minions for that, and no, i'm not hiring.


Nooooooo!!!!

[Segev]

How adorable that you think that the fact that we agree means good things for the world.

Since when did the state of the world matter beyond how much benefit it can give to me us?



As to those asking about villainy... I would concentrate less on being "good" (as in high-quality) villains in terms of pure evil (and lawfulness, if you really feel it lends you style), but rather on being INTERESTING. Because, as far as I'm aware, you're asking here how to make interesting fictional characters. (If you're asking how to achieve your aims in your own lives through evil, that does go a slightly different direction. Step one: clearly know your goals. Step two: evaluate everything in terms of usefulness to those goals. Step three: ruthlessly pursue that which leads to them, and ruthlessly prune all things from your life which do not.)

For instance, while that anti-hero is not a villain, as Red Fel demonstrated, that doesn't mean he can't be an interesting character. I confess, the wall of text was more than I wished to wade through, so I can't say for certain whether he is or not. I would leave that to those who read the novella summary (e.g. Red Fel) to give advice on.

Generally, pure villains - true, effective evil - are only interesting because they're different from how we normally see things. Even the Good amongst us admire, on some level, dedication to a goal, and ability to make hard choices. Interesting black-hearted villains tend to be the sorts who take that to a refined level.

Eobart Thawne, in the first season of Flash, is interesting because he does this, and does it so well that even as we see his conflicts, he doesn't waver. And yet, he's LIKABLE despite being despicable. And fascinating. (In fact, the other actor who plays him for a couple of scenes for spoilerific reasons does a much poorer job of selling it, so I have to give some serious kudos to Tom Cavanagh's talents in that regard. Name whited out due to mild, albeit first-episode, spoilers.)

[Pleh]

So where does chaos theory fit in? At what point does law need to be enforced and at what point does law simply enforce itself karma style?

I suppose this is somewhat setting dependent, but I guess we can assume a generic, out of the box setting for the purpose of the question.

[Frosty]

Intolerance tends Evil. The xenophobic human deity Zarus (also known as pre-Pelor) was LE. Racism bad, yo. That said, this isn't ethnic intolerance, it's religious intolerance, and since religion is concrete and explicitly powerful, this is a slightly different thing in a D&D world. (Still bad in real life, if you ask me, which you sort of did.) Aside from the jailing of some heretics, you haven't shown me any active oppression in this kingdom, just a general sense of "We have one State religion, and you follow it, the end." And given how you depict it as generally LG, I imagine the prisoners were treated reasonably well, and no scorpions whatsoever were involved in their incarceration.

So, not particularly Good, but not exactly the most hideously Evil dictatorship I've ever seen.
This isn't supposed to be an evil dictatorship. The AP presents Talingarde as an absolutely LG nation. I saw the history and pointed out to the GM, "No, this kingdom absolutely has dark spots. Blaming a religious minority for the ills of the nation and then purging them is NOT in any way shape or form GOOD."


Ironic, because in D&D morality, the racism is probably a bigger problem. But whatever. Again, racism bad, yo, but bigotry against the more monstrous races is at least understandable to a certain degree. Unlike, say, Elves and Dwarves, whose cardinal sins are obnoxious pretense and body hair that makes you feel less manly, respectively, some monstrous races are legitimately dangerous and frightening, whether it's from natural weapons or particular dietary needs. (Unless, by "monstrous," you mean things like Orcs, in which case you're horrible.)

Also, it's odd that you spring this - "treated horribly" means what, exactly? You say everyone is treated well, the poor don't starve, everyone gets health care, things are pretty idyllic... Oh, and also monstrous races are treated terribly. What does that mean? How does that work? Are they slaves? Beaten? Branded outlaws? Or do people just not like them much? Tieflings will probably be shunned socially and never be offered any jobs above menial jobs because they would never be trusted. Hell, Nexas is a Peri-blooded aasimar and there was some distrust of him (Peri are celestials who are descendants of Fallen angels, but they themselves are good). Races like orcs, kobolds, goblins, etc are mostly killed on sight. Not pretty. One of our PCs is a kobold oracle, whose entire tribe was massacred by the soldiers of Talingarde. The kobold PC worships Asmodeus to gain power for vengeance.



Okay, I'll bite... How is he a villain? Aside from the fact that you just went from "everything's pretty great, really," to "and then they murdered the orphans," your guy is basically just fighting a totalitarian regime. Aside from the fact that he has enslaved a Celestial and is fighting an ostensibly LG (but not really, because orphan murder) government, he's not exactly a villain per se. More of an antihero.

I hate those guys.
Yes, my character is, from his point of view, fighting a totalitarian regime. How do you define antihero, and why do you hate them?


Playing kingmaker and facilitating a war, while probably not Good (although a great way to get rid of a dictatorship) isn't inherently Evil.
Stop confusing revolution for villainy.
It is a terrific strategy to topple the government. Unfortunately, lots of civilians do end up getting killed because the bugbear horde kills or eats all everyone in their way. I thought one of the hallmarks of Good is that they never kill innocents? Nexas isn't thrilled, but he understands this is the method with a high chance of success.



Now, at this point, the question is the necessity of those deaths. You're pretty clearly no longer Good (if you ever were), but for it to be Evil, they'd have to be senseless, in my mind. Killing those who are trying to stop you, when you're trying to achieve a positive outcome, washes. Killing people for kicks, on the other hand, pretty Evil.
I though good intentions + evil deeds = Evil alignment? Or am I not understanding the alignment system of Pathfinder correctly?



Similarly, attacking the enemy's logistical assets is less black-and-white. Yes, you're killing a proper Celestial, which is an Always Evil act, if memory serves. But the thing is, actions taken during war are more morally ambiguous than those taken by your typical band of adventurers. If this is an extended campaign of war, and your party is tasked with neutralizing key assets, that's less objectively Evil than it could be. Absent the war, setting the Clerics and Celestial to the sword would be pretty freaking Evil; in this context, it's just dark.
I would probably agree, except this particular group of clerics and the celestial specifically never participated (and in fact, likely frowned upon) in all of the deed that Nexas thinks made this government evil. This particular group is unambiguously Good in Nexas's eyes, and didn't deserve to be killed. He only found out about this after almost all of them had been killed unfortunately.


See, here's what I'm talking about. This is someone actively trying to minimize the innocent casualties. That's a lot less Evil than it could be. Is there something wrong with that? I'm not going for maximum evil here. I'm writing a complex character who is willing to do evil things for (what he sees as) good ends. I'm sure a LG paladin would still consider my character a villain who needs to be put down.



This is just stupid heroing. Congratulations, your guy is officially heroic stupid. Yes, free your minion that's your major source of power, to be symbolic. Nice going, hero.
Nexas spent one level without an eidolon. His Summon Monsters were still powerful. He summoned another eidolon soon enough, and this time, it is an aspect of his fallen angel ancestor.



See, the problem is, he skipped some of his classes.

Yes, it's possible to be an arguably LE benevolent dictator. Really, you'd drop either "LE" or "benevolent," but it's technically possible to meet somewhere in the middle. The problem is that getting there requires profound ruthlessness, and your guy simply lacks it.
My character is willing put down rebellions and even use torture if he really really has to. But he would vastly prefer diplomacy and subterfuge first, and only use violence and cruelty as an absolute last resort. Heroes wouldn't use cruelty right?



Oh my me, there's more of this novel. Smite me now. I'm sorry for not being concise. Please accept my apologies. :smallfrown:



He's not that Evil. He's probably technically E, simply because of what he's done - he's very Dark Knight material - but he is doing it for what are absolutely Good aims. He's definitely not LE, given his emphasis on freedom of all things, and his desire to betray allies. I'd peg him at NE, maybe CE, trending TN/CN. He's bad, but not a monster. He wants to free and help everybody, indiscriminately - that's arguably Good. He's just picked some mean ways to do it, and constantly questions himself, because you wrote him as a hero.

Look. The hero sits there questioning his actions, and has to remind himself of the positive outcome. The villain embraces the outcome, and disregards the morality of the actions. Your guy is a stained, dirty antihero, not a villain.

What's the difference between a dirty antihero and a villain? In the eyes of the people Nexas has killed or perhaps the surviving members of their families, Nexas would undoubtedly be considered a villain (if those people ever found out the truth of course. Nexas plans on running an efficient Ministry of Propaganda).



For instance, while that anti-hero is not a villain, as Red Fel demonstrated, that doesn't mean he can't be an interesting character. I confess, the wall of text was more than I wished to wade through, so I can't say for certain whether he is or not. I would leave that to those who read the novella summary (e.g. Red Fel) to give advice on.

Generally, pure villains - true, effective evil - are only interesting because they're different from how we normally see things. Even the Good amongst us admire, on some level, dedication to a goal, and ability to make hard choices. Interesting black-hearted villains tend to be the sorts who take that to a refined level. I will be condensing my novella into short form soon.

[Strigon]

So where does chaos theory fit in?

I don't remember anyone saying anything about dinosaurs escaping or Sam Fisher, so I'm guessing it doesn't.

[danielxcutter]

Oh, so this is still a thing? Good, this was the first alignment guide I read and I've been taking notes ever since.

Also, I have a question about this character from a Korean webcomic I'm reading - is he LE or LN?

-Made a foreign emperor think his most strongest(as in walked into a trap with a thousand knights and walked out alive after killing them all) and loyal knight was going to rebel, because if he didn't the knight would have told his liege that the character had set up a plan to kill him and the empire would have attacked his country, and to weaken the empire. Result: Knight forced to run with the soul of the Earth King(a powerful demon), Grey Tower forced to take the peasants he ruled over and run. Note: Emperor was grossly incompetent and Knight was absolutely LG.

-Set up a plan to make the son of a queen think that his own mother had abandoned him and had tried to kill him, when she had only given him away to protect him because of a false prophecy that he would destroy the kingdom, and had even sent a knight to watch over him - but the character had threatened to kill his family so he'd go with the plan. Result: Son kills queen, and becomes drug addict from guilt. Character tells son's foster father and makes him go along with his plans by threatening to spread the news that son is "the cursed child".


There are others, but they run along those lines. It should be noted that he only does that to protect the kingdom he rules or to make it stronger, and he genuinely cares about the people he rules and his servants/knights/assassins. On the other hand, he doesn't give a crap about anyone from other countries unless it benefits his kingdom.

[Pleh]

I don't remember anyone saying anything about dinosaurs escaping or Sam Fisher, so I'm guessing it doesn't.

Oh, please. This is a thread concerning the finer nuances between morality (good vs evil) and structure (law vs order). Morality is by itself a kind of law system, which is part of why LE can readily manipulate CG characters. Even with their disregard for social regulation leaves them bound by the laws of morality, thus manipulable to anyone familiar with the intricacies of that system of law.

Chaos Theory is the notion that even Chaos itself follows certain laws (typically represented by laws of Averages explained by Statistics), making even completely random systems at least partially predictable and, thus, manipulable.

For example, Red Fel mentioned that the true enemy of the LE alignment is the CE alignment. The reasoning seemed to be largely predicated by the way that CE is the most difficult to control while also being the least profitable minus said controls.

But Chaos theory suggests that while a single Demon might be unpredictable, statistically speaking, what a group of demons will do is known.

My point being that the only reason that CE isn't lumped with CG in the "useful idiot" category is because it lacks a predictive power that makes the group manipulable.

But Chaos theory stands as a predictive system even for the truly random group of CE characters. Chaos theory says, "Never hire a Demon. They are too fickle. Hire a Demon Posse and keep them focused on their interactions with each other. This will normalize their behavior."

It's the principle we apply in Thermodynamics. Trying to predict the instantaneous actions of a group of air particles is not only next to impossible, but is also highly unprofitable.

However, constrain the air molecules to the same space and they cease acting as independent particles. Rather they begin behaving as a gas, which we can reliably predict how it will behave with changes in temperature, pressure, volume, population, etc.

In essence, this means that a LE character may have several CE underlings as long as the underlings are sufficiently less powerful on the chaotic scale as the master is powerful on the lawful scale. To that degree, the master can just predict their chaotic behavior and build a few contingencies when the CE plays Chaotic Stupid every once in a while.

The problem with CE is when it starts growing into the Joker level of Chaotic power, or even the Far Realm levels. Once you start slipping so deeply into chaos it starts to become maddening and otherworldly, that's when the LE tyrant is left little alternative than to exterminate the little demon. Up to that point, it can be advantageous to have a few minor CE characters around, as they victimize the population, make Freedom look like a bad thing, and encourage the tightening of security over the population.

To sum up: Law vs Order is a conversation about Law consciously applied in society regarding behaviors that benefit or harm the society as a whole. Morality is a separate system (typically reflected in the societal laws) that more universally governs beneficial and harmful behaviors between living beings (particularly in regards to sentience and knowing what harm or benefit you are doing).

But Chaos Theory adds that even completely inanimate nature demonstrates that all Chaos can be understood and follows certain laws.

Once again, in D&D, Chaos is a force of nature and Chaos theory may not match any given fantasy setting. But some settings may be more based on realism than others.

[Red Fel]

As to those asking about villainy... I would concentrate less on being "good" (as in high-quality) villains in terms of pure evil (and lawfulness, if you really feel it lends you style), but rather on being INTERESTING. Because, as far as I'm aware, you're asking here how to make interesting fictional characters. (If you're asking how to achieve your aims in your own lives through evil, that does go a slightly different direction. Step one: clearly know your goals. Step two: evaluate everything in terms of usefulness to those goals. Step three: ruthlessly pursue that which leads to them, and ruthlessly prune all things from your life which do not.)

For instance, while that anti-hero is not a villain, as Red Fel demonstrated, that doesn't mean he can't be an interesting character. I confess, the wall of text was more than I wished to wade through, so I can't say for certain whether he is or not. I would leave that to those who read the novella summary (e.g. Red Fel) to give advice on.

Generally, pure villains - true, effective evil - are only interesting because they're different from how we normally see things. Even the Good amongst us admire, on some level, dedication to a goal, and ability to make hard choices. Interesting black-hearted villains tend to be the sorts who take that to a refined level.

Eobart Thawne, in the first season of Flash, is interesting because he does this, and does it so well that even as we see his conflicts, he doesn't waver. And yet, he's LIKABLE despite being despicable. And fascinating. (In fact, the other actor who plays him for a couple of scenes for spoilerific reasons does a much poorer job of selling it, so I have to give some serious kudos to CENSORED's talents in that regard. Name whited out due to mild, albeit first-episode, spoilers.)

This. The fact is, the one thing I emphasize - well, I don't need to repeat the P-word, we all know it - is that the character be interesting and compelling. He doesn't need to be a David Xanatos-style mastermind, she doesn't need to be the bloodiest blood-stained overlord since Genghis Khan, so long as the players remember. Make them love, make them hate, make them laugh, but make them feel something for your villain.

Now, with respect to this anti-hero... I have to be honest, idealist who turns to Evil, then rejects it and starts turning back to Good... It's been done. If you're going to play that old tune, you have to play it in a clever new way to make it memorable. And admittedly, as a PC, that can be hard to do - you don't have the DM's arsenal of toys to ensure that a character is engaging.

Planning to betray some of your cohorts probably doesn't help either.

Point is... I'll be frank, it's probably a good character in practice, but anything really engaging, for me, got lost in translation. Long as you're having fun playing him, that's what counts, but if you're asking me if he's particularly memorable... I don't see it.


So where does chaos theory fit in? At what point does law need to be enforced and at what point does law simply enforce itself karma style?

I suppose this is somewhat setting dependent, but I guess we can assume a generic, out of the box setting for the purpose of the question.

Wherever the DM says it does. Which, for a True Villain, means absolutely nowhere right up until the PC puts a sword to the villain's throat. Until then, consequence free, baby!


This isn't supposed to be an evil dictatorship. The AP presents Talingarde as an absolutely LG nation. I saw the history and pointed out to the GM, "No, this kingdom absolutely has dark spots. Blaming a religious minority for the ills of the nation and then purging them is NOT in any way shape or form GOOD."

Yep.


Tieflings will probably be shunned socially and never be offered any jobs above menial jobs because they would never be trusted. Hell, Nexas is a Peri-blooded aasimar and there was some distrust of him (Peri are celestials who are descendants of Fallen angels, but they themselves are good). Races like orcs, kobolds, goblins, etc are mostly killed on sight. Not pretty. One of our PCs is a kobold oracle, whose entire tribe was massacred by the soldiers of Talingarde. The kobold PC worships Asmodeus to gain power for vengeance.

So, pretty standard racism. Yeah, this is pretty much tending-LE with the veneer of LG - good for "our guys," bad for "not our guys."


Yes, my character is, from his point of view, fighting a totalitarian regime. How do you define antihero, and why do you hate them?

Doing all the wrong things for all the right reasons.

I hate them because they make it easy. They do the work for me. They hate themselves. One of the iconic images of the antihero is this brooding Captain Darkguy who hates himself for what he has to do, but hates the people who force him to do it just enough that he'll keep doing it, except he doesn't really hate them, he just pities them, but he has to do it anyway, blah blah blah, darkness, blah blah blah, rainy soul miasma.

Freaking emos.

My thing is, if you're going to be bad, embrace it. Revel in it. Yes, if it's for a good cause, keep that in the forefront, but don't wallow in self-pity or self-loathing; swim in self-congratulation. You're doing great things! Isn't that cause for celebration? Stop mourning victory.


It is a terrific strategy to topple the government. Unfortunately, lots of civilians do end up getting killed because the bugbear horde kills or eats all everyone in their way. I thought one of the hallmarks of Good is that they never kill innocents? Nexas isn't thrilled, but he understands this is the method with a high chance of success.

Good doesn't, generally. But war is complicated.

And yes, sending a Bugbear army after your enemies is dirty pool. Granted, you aren't personally killing innocents, but you know what will happen. And true, "it was war" doesn't completely excuse an act of genocide. But it does take a legitimate strategy (i.e. use a third party to weaken your enemies then move in for a quick victory) and make it slightly less horrific.


I though good intentions + evil deeds = Evil alignment? Or am I not understanding the alignment system of Pathfinder correctly?

More like intentions + deeds = complicated. Or, if you prefer, intentions2 + |deeds| - √consequences = falignment.

Here's the thing. Good intentions + Evil deeds does not automatically make you Evil; Evil deeds make you not Good. A Good person doesn't see Evil acts as a justifiable decision, therefore one who performs Evil acts is one who does not have a Good mindset. That doesn't automatically mean you're Evil.

This character, in all likelihood, is tending strongly Evil, although may still be Neutral. He doesn't want to do these bad things. They're not his first resort. They're not his desired outcome. He wants to save people. He wants to protect them. That's not a typical Evil mindset. He's definitely not Good, but he's clearly not completely Evil.


I would probably agree, except this particular group of clerics and the celestial specifically never participated (and in fact, likely frowned upon) in all of the deed that Nexas thinks made this government evil. This particular group is unambiguously Good in Nexas's eyes, and didn't deserve to be killed. He only found out about this after almost all of them had been killed unfortunately.

See, you're doubling back over yourself again. First, you say the group frowned upon the government's acts, and they didn't deserve to be killed. Which implies that he's bad for killing them. But then you back up and say that he only found out about this when they were almost all gone anyway, which kind of removes that from consideration.

And let's not forget, they are a major logistical target. Once you decide to offer supply and aid to a military group (i.e. the Talinwhatever guys), you are getting involved. And that means you become a target. They're not quite as innocent as civilians in this conflict.

Again, is it an Evil act? Probably. Is it as Evil as it could have been had they truly been uninvolved? No.


Is there something wrong with that? I'm not going for maximum evil here. I'm writing a complex character who is willing to do evil things for (what he sees as) good ends. I'm sure a LG paladin would still consider my character a villain who needs to be put down.

But you're hardly even a villain. At best, you're that one minion who second-guesses his master's actions, and either betrays his master to the good guys, or makes the "noble sacrifice" to delay the heroes from stopping his master's plans, secretly hoping to atone for his sin through death.

That guy, by the way? Beautifully tragic, but frequently an idiot.

And let's be clear. This isn't that complex a character. Complex doesn't mean, "I don't want to do this, but I must." It means having dimensions. It means having multiple motivations and connections and loyalties and emotions. From what I read, your guy has two. First, "I must free everyone from the evil power that oppresses them!" Second, "I hate what I have to do in order to succeed at that other thing." That's it. Does he know love? He lost a friend, and that's a thing, but how often does that actually come up? Does he know hatred, rivalry? He's going to betray some people because they're also bad, and he hates the bad guys, and I guess that's a thing? My point is, if there's more complexity, you haven't shown it to me. Don't tell me a character is "complex" just because he has to do a thing he feels bad about doing.

Is there anything wrong with your character? No. I won't tell you how to play your character. But you asked for a critique and I'm giving it.


Nexas spent one level without an eidolon. His Summon Monsters were still powerful. He summoned another eidolon soon enough, and this time, it is an aspect of his fallen angel ancestor.

Oh, great gravy, a one-winged angel transformation. This isn't even my final form indeed.


My character is willing put down rebellions and even use torture if he really really has to. But he would vastly prefer diplomacy and subterfuge first, and only use violence and cruelty as an absolute last resort. Heroes wouldn't use cruelty right?

Antiheroes.


I'm sorry for not being concise. Please accept my apologies. :smallfrown:

Never apologize. Regret if you must, but never apologize. Apologies are for people who made mistakes. Villains don't make mistakes. We make omelettes.


What's the difference between a dirty antihero and a villain? In the eyes of the people Nexas has killed or perhaps the surviving members of their families, Nexas would undoubtedly be considered a villain (if those people ever found out the truth of course. Nexas plans on running an efficient Ministry of Propaganda).

See above. I don't care what the civilians think; they're NPCs, they don't have names, they're not really people anyway. He's doing all the wrong things for all the right reasons, and hating himself throughout; he's an antihero.


Oh, so this is still a thing? Good, this was the first alignment guide I read and I've been taking notes ever since.

Also, I have a question about this character from a Korean webcomic I'm reading - is he LE or LN?

-Made a foreign emperor think his most strongest(as in walked into a trap with a thousand knights and walked out alive after killing them all) and loyal knight was going to rebel, because if he didn't the knight would have told his liege that the character had set up a plan to kill him and the empire would have attacked his country, and to weaken the empire. Result: Knight forced to run with the soul of the Earth King(a powerful demon), Grey Tower forced to take the peasants he ruled over and run. Note: Emperor was grossly incompetent and Knight was absolutely LG.

Ruined someone else to protect himself; self-interest generally has no charge. Might be mildly E.


-Set up a plan to make the son of a queen think that his own mother had abandoned him and had tried to kill him, when she had only given him away to protect him because of a false prophecy that he would destroy the kingdom, and had even sent a knight to watch over him - but the character had threatened to kill his family so he'd go with the plan. Result: Son kills queen, and becomes drug addict from guilt. Character tells son's foster father and makes him go along with his plans by threatening to spread the news that son is "the cursed child".

Manipulates people into suffering and murder out of a sense of vengeance. Pretty E, right there.


There are others, but they run along those lines. It should be noted that he only does that to protect the kingdom he rules or to make it stronger, and he genuinely cares about the people he rules and his servants/knights/assassins. On the other hand, he doesn't give a crap about anyone from other countries unless it benefits his kingdom.

That could be either. An LE character could genuinely care about his people and still be pretty freaking Evil, or he could simply be ruthless and still LN.


Oh, please. This is a thread concerning the finer nuances between morality (good vs evil) and structure (law vs order). Morality is by itself a kind of law system, which is part of why LE can readily manipulate CG characters. Even with their disregard for social regulation leaves them bound by the laws of morality, thus manipulable to anyone familiar with the intricacies of that system of law.

Chaos Theory is the notion that even Chaos itself follows certain laws (typically represented by laws of Averages explained by Statistics), making even completely random systems at least partially predictable and, thus, manipulable.

Chaos Theory is a theory of physics. Stop getting physics in my discussion of a fantasy world populated by wizards and monsters. Think of the catgirls.


For example, Red Fel mentioned that the true enemy of the LE alignment is the CE alignment. The reasoning seemed to be largely predicated by the way that CE is the most difficult to control while also being the least profitable minus said controls.

But Chaos theory suggests that while a single Demon might be unpredictable, statistically speaking, what a group of demons will do is known.

Hari Selden? Is that you?


My point being that the only reason that CE isn't lumped with CG in the "useful idiot" category is because it lacks a predictive power that makes the group manipulable.

But Chaos theory stands as a predictive system even for the truly random group of CE characters. Chaos theory says, "Never hire a Demon. They are too fickle. Hire a Demon Posse and keep them focused on their interactions with each other. This will normalize their behavior."

Accurate, if somewhat revolting.


It's the principle we apply in Thermodynamics. Trying to predict the instantaneous actions of a group of air particles is not only next to impossible, but is also highly unprofitable.

However, constrain the air molecules to the same space and they cease acting as independent particles. Rather they begin behaving as a gas, which we can reliably predict how it will behave with changes in temperature, pressure, volume, population, etc.

In essence, this means that a LE character may have several CE underlings as long as the underlings are sufficiently less powerful on the chaotic scale as the master is powerful on the lawful scale. To that degree, the master can just predict their chaotic behavior and build a few contingencies when the CE plays Chaotic Stupid every once in a while.

The problem with CE is when it starts growing into the Joker level of Chaotic power, or even the Far Realm levels. Once you start slipping so deeply into chaos it starts to become maddening and otherworldly, that's when the LE tyrant is left little alternative than to exterminate the little demon. Up to that point, it can be advantageous to have a few minor CE characters around, as they victimize the population, make Freedom look like a bad thing, and encourage the tightening of security over the population.

To sum up: Law vs Order is a conversation about Law consciously applied in society regarding behaviors that benefit or harm the society as a whole. Morality is a separate system (typically reflected in the societal laws) that more universally governs beneficial and harmful behaviors between living beings (particularly in regards to sentience and knowing what harm or benefit you are doing).

But Chaos Theory adds that even completely inanimate nature demonstrates that all Chaos can be understood and follows certain laws.

Once again, in D&D, Chaos is a force of nature and Chaos theory may not match any given fantasy setting. But some settings may be more based on realism than others.

Keep your realism away from my Dragon maid. She makes the best omelettes, and I'm pretty sure that in real life Dragons can't do that.