Lawful Evil character as the enforcer of a Lawful Good Character

[overlordmik]

So, I am writing to share and get some more ideas for neat scenarios and consequences in-setting:

(Fantasy) Setting has a Solomon-like LG king, powerfully magical but more preoccupied with good governance than personally kicking ass, but the character that drives more of the plot and character interactions (for the moment) is his Lawful Evil enforcer.

However, rather than being a duplicitous social climber, said enforcer is personally loyal to both the state and it's leader, he'd just prefer to solve all his problems through the Genghis Khan method of slaughtering his enemies, seeing them driven before him, and hearing the lamentations of their women.

He is intellectually aware that this is wrong, but is unable to overcome his upbringing, relying instead on what he thinks his liege and those he cares for wants, as well as pragmatically protecting the state rather than his own twisted impulses.

All-told, this leads to a weird and interesting "Darth Vader working for Aslan" dynamic, that both I and my players are enjoying, and I want to discuss some directions to take it.

So far we've done some of the obvious stuff:

A bad first impression with the party.

Discussions on the dirty hands approach and whether its justified (special tangent on how Adventurers fulfill this function all the time).

Him gritting his teeth to hand out quests to the party

The Villainous Rescue <- This is when the party switched to be generally on his side

Having to help him out against people who believe him to be an antagonist as well as evil (yay! moral quandaries)

And finally, when evidence was procured against the corrupt cult that was a major antagonist for this arc, getting a legal proscription that they were enemies of the state, burning their temples to the ground, slaughtering their ordained priesthoods, and driving any dependents penniless out into the wilderness as persona non grata. This last one caused the most contention with the party, but he pointed out that this was basically what the party had been doing for the past few weeks, except he'd done it legally, all in one go, and with less collateral damage.

I was going to have a short arc about convincing the ruler that it was morally necessary to jettison his loyal friend and servant, but the party ended up agreeing he had a point and moving on.

I'm tumbling a few ideas around in my head, any thoughts?

[Hackulator]

If you've ever seen the movie Serenity, the "Operative" played bu Chiwetel Ejiofor is a really good example of a Lawful Evil enforcer who knows he's evil. It could give you ideas.


The Operative : It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds : So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?

The Operative : I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

Also, that's not Ghengis Khan, it's Conan.

[2D8HP]

...that's not Ghengis Khan, it's Conan.


True, but great minds think alike!:

"The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms"
-As quoted in Genghis Khan & the Mongols (1973) by Michael Gibson, p. 3; this has been disputed with the statement that it was "not recorded until a century after his death and is surprisingly out of character.

"What, in all the world, could bring the greatest happiness?
"The open steppe, a clear day, and a swift horse under you," responded the officer after a little thought, "and a falcon on your wrist to start up hares."
"Nay," responded the Khan, "to crush your enemies, to see them fall at your feet — to take their horses and goods and hear the lamentation of their women. That is best."
-As quoted in Genghis Khan: The Emperor of All Men (1927) by Harold Lamb, Doubleday, p. 107.

"The real greatest pleasure of men is to repress rebels and defeat enemies, to exterminate them and grab everything they have; to see their married women crying, to ride on their steeds with smooth backs, to treat their beautiful queens and concubines as pajamas and pillows, to stare and kiss their rose-colored faces and to suck their sweet lips"
-As quoted in Jami' al-tawarikh, Vol. 1, the second part (史集 第一卷 第二分册) (1983) by Rashīd al-Dīn Tabīb, translated by Yu, Dajun & Zhou, Jianqi, p. 362 ISBN 9787100015301

[overlordmik]

If you've ever seen the movie Serenity, the "Operative" played bu Chiwetel Ejiofor is a really good example of a Lawful Evil enforcer who knows he's evil. It could give you ideas.



Also, that's not Ghengis Khan, it's Conan.

Seen the movie, love both it and the series, but The Operative is not quite right for the feel. The Operative does evil knowing it to be evil because it is necessary for what he believes to be a good cause. The Enforcer wants to be evil, but has attached himself to a good cause and a comrade who will restrain him from his own worst excesses.

Actually, I've just realized that in that way he's basically Belkar with Self-Awareness, the same leash but self imposed.

And I used Genghis Khan's name because he *did* that stuff in real life.

Alright, Story time for context to try and make things clearer: He's from a Steppe Nomad type culture and managed to basically steamroll his corner of the world decades ago (mechanically he's an oath of conquest paladin) genuinely believing this was what was right and necessary, only to have this nascent empire start collapsing into a miserable unstable hellhole, with him constantly shoring it up rather than enjoying the fruits of his labour. So eventually, he stopped fighting the entropy, took the people who were personally loyal to him, and left to go do what he was actually good at: fighting. Eventually he ran into our Solomon figure only to get his ass kicked for the first time in his entire life (and making a good friend in the process). He stuck around, noticing that this new kingdom had all the things he'd wanted for his own (prosperity, happiness, security, people he cared about as individuals, etc.) but unable to understand why, and so devoted himself to serving and protecting it rather than ruling.

He still has those same instincts to be malicious, cruel, spiteful, and ultimately Evil, but can rest assured that they are being channeled towards something productive, even as he is fundamentally unable to see how.

[Hackulator]

-snip-

Oh wow, I did not know that, thanks and I stand corrected, clearly the line is taken from those Ghengis Khan quotes.


Seen the movie, love both it and the series, but The Operative is not quite right for the feel. The Operative does evil knowing it to be evil because it is necessary for what he believes to be a good cause. The Enforcer wants to be evil, but has attached himself to a good cause and a comrade who will restrain him from his own worst excesses.

Actually, I've just realized that in that way he's basically Belkar with Self-Awareness, the same leash but self imposed.

And I used Genghis Khan's name because he *did* that stuff in real life.

Alright, Story time for context to try and make things clearer: He's from a Steppe Nomad type culture and managed to basically steamroll his corner of the world decades ago (mechanically he's an oath of conquest paladin) genuinely believing this was what was right and necessary, only to have this nascent empire start collapsing into a miserable unstable hellhole, with him constantly shoring it up rather than enjoying the fruits of his labour. So eventually, he stopped fighting the entropy, took the people who were personally loyal to him, and left to go do what he was actually good at: fighting. Eventually he ran into our Solomon figure only to get his ass kicked for the first time in his entire life (and making a good friend in the process). He stuck around, noticing that this new kingdom had all the things he'd wanted for his own (prosperity, happiness, security, people he cared about as individuals, etc.) but unable to understand why, and so devoted himself to serving and protecting it rather than ruling.

He still has those same instincts to be malicious, cruel, spiteful, and ultimately Evil, but can rest assured that they are being channeled towards something productive, even as he is fundamentally unable to see how.

Honestly, the character you're describing with the story about him and then the character you describe at the end don't seem to be the same person. He did what he thought was the right thing to do. His instincts were not malicious, cruel or spiteful, he simply grew up with the skill set of a raider and warrior. He tried to create a good place for his people, he just didn't have the skill set or temperament to make it happen. Once he saw someone who did have that skill set, he joined them because the unquestionably good things he wanted like prosperity, security and happiness for his people were his goal, not his own personal power.

[overlordmik]

Oh wow, I did not know that, thanks and I stand corrected, clearly the line is taken from those Ghengis Khan quotes.



Honestly, the character you're describing with the story about him and then the character you describe at the end don't seem to be the same person. He did what he thought was the right thing to do. His instincts were not malicious, cruel or spiteful, he simply grew up with the skill set of a raider and warrior. He tried to create a good place for his people, he just didn't have the skill set or temperament to make it happen. Once he saw someone who did have that skill set, he joined them because the unquestionably good things he wanted like prosperity, security and happiness for his people were his goal, not his own personal power.

I guess that's a matter of good/evil interpretation, but to me the fact that his goals are good and he has a sense of honor does not make up for the fact that, for lack of a more eloquent turn of phrase, he is a bad person who wants to hurt people for fun. This is someone that has to be told not to blood eagle traitors, and will obey solely out of respect for the sovereign. That he recognized that his methods and his goals were not compatible is to his credit, but he has never and will never properly internalize the difference between the cause

If A, then B

and the correlation

If Not A, then Not B.

If Darth Vader fights against slave traders or the Yuuzhan Vong, that doesn't stop him being Darth Vader, just as Belkar doesn't stop being evil because he's fighting Xykon and Roy told him not to butcher civilians.

[Hackulator]

I guess that's a matter of good/evil interpretation, but to me the fact that his goals are good and he has a sense of honor does not make up for the fact that, for lack of a more eloquent turn of phrase, he is a bad person who wants to hurt people for fun. That he recognized that his methods and his goals were not compatible is to his credit, but he has never and will never properly internalize the difference between the cause

If A, then B

and the correlation

If Not A, then Not B.

If Darth Vader fights against slave traders or the Yuuzhan Vong, that doesn't stop him being Darth Vader, just as Belkar doesn't stop being evil because he's fighting Xykon.

Belkar is evil because of his motivations though. Your guy has good motivations. The idea that he wants to hurt people for fun is sort of weird and conflicting with that idea. Wanting people to be safe, secure and happy while simultaneously wanting to hurt people for fun is sort of hard.

[overlordmik]

I mean, if that doesn't track for you, that's fine, and that contradiction is an inherent part of why the character has not become an antagonist, but just as I would argue that you can have villains with minions who are good while still believing in his goals, so too do I think you can have a good character with followers who want those same positive end goals but are individually awful people.

[Particle_Man]

This guy is trying to fight his upbringing. Is it possible that his alignment could change over time?

[hymer]

I am reminded of Baron (later Count) Ragor of my old Dark was the Dawn campaign. He was a lot of fun. Maybe something will spark an idea:

The first time the PCs met Ragor, he led a small expeditionary force to help a neighbouring town with a goblin problem. He found the town sans leadership (as the leader had died leading the charge against the goblins - he was targeted by a hobgoblin dragon shaman, but I digress). So Ragor seized control of the town in the name of his liege lord. Fortunately, his liege lord (a much less brutal man) was not interested in seeming aggressive towards his neighbours, and he ordered Ragor to stand down.
That set the scene of Ragor as an effective military leader; ruthless, but loyal. At a later date, the PCs (barely) persuaded him not to take a birch rod to the behind of another town's leader, a man in his early twenties, and already a skilled politician. The rivalry between the two ended in a bitter civil war years later, not least because the PCs never could pick a side or present an alternative leader.

The feuding nobles had to lay their rivalries aside to resist an invasion from an orcish horde. As the most capable general available (and the most keen to take on the job), Ragor was made military leader of the allied forces, while his liege lord took on a temporary 'kingship' of sorts over the region. Now the PCs were closely allied with Ragor and wanted to see him succeed. This embroiled them in petty political attacks from other nobles. They could not attack Ragor directly, but they feared that his prestige would get out of bounds if he saved the lands from the orcs. This caused Ragor (and his rival) to rush to their aid.

When there was an assassination attempt against Ragor's liege lord, he had to ensure the line of succession, and the obvious choice was Ragor (bypassing the liege-lord's three sons, which could easily become a problem, of course). Ragor did not want to become political ruler of vast areas - he just wanted to lead troops in war. But he accepted the role as designated heir, as he was the one least likely to be met with a rebellion - he was widely (and rightfully) feared by the other nobles.

The PCs also met and interacted with some of Ragor's many (more or less legitimate) children. One of them had a severe health problem, but he was otherwise a very promising young leader, much in the mould of his father, but with less explosive rage. The PCs decided on doing the noble thing and helping him (having access to magical healing that even high level nobles did not), and they became tied ever closer to the Ragor family.

In general, the PCs found Ragor a very useful ally in most things they wanted to do. It was just his ruthlessness (and pettiness towards his main rival) that caused them problems. As they became prominent heroes, they gained ever more influence over Ragor, who only listened more closely to his liege lord and family. Yet they still failed to prevent the civil war that followed, as Ragor's uncompromising attitude drove his rival to desperation and rebellion.

[overlordmik]

This guy is trying to fight his upbringing. Is it possible that his alignment could change over time?

He's definitely not set in stone, and there are enough gradients in alignment to push him up or down (though never laterally, he's far too rigid). He would have to be convinced both that he can change, that there is a solid place he can aim for beyond a baying hound reveling in the hunt, and that he should change, that he can still fulfill what he believes to be his destiny and duty while laying down a huge part of his identity.

Almost against his will he is being dragged slowly up that hill by everyone around him, including the PCs, and this thread has definitely inspired me to show some more of that transition, the shoulders loosening, the fists unclenching, fangs less often bared in a savage grin. Perhaps a combination of long peace and people he can trust (the PCs) will mean he can just... relax. It's hard to be hateful when times are good, after all.


Of course, not everything can go so well so easily, and Hymer has just sparked some wondrous ideas: His best qualities are the very things that should weigh him downwards. I might reveal that he has a happy, capital-G Good family, so that his concern for them would drive him to ever more irrational extremes to protect them. His determination to do what needs to be done can transfer so easily into obsession. A truly awful war could lead to him gleefully leaping off the slippery slope, secure in the delusion that he was right all along, and the world needs monsters of all types to survive. And of course, should assassins ever get any bright ideas, things would go off the rails very quickly.

But I shouldn't get to bogged down in overdramatic what-ifs, considering the party might decide to spend six sessions following the comic relief guy who was only supposed to appear once. Just pieces to ponder in the background.

[Hackulator]

You could actually turn the NPCs redemption into an entire campaign arc. Maybe the players receive a prophecy or augury that tells them that this guy must succeed his Lord as the ruler of the empire or it will fall to warring and ruin. Now they have to try to redeem him because otherwise it will leave this brutal dictator in charge of this massive empire. You can do all sorts of stuff with that, including danger to the NPCs family that pushes him towards extreme actions. It could be an interesting idea, though whether it fits into your game at all I don't know.

[Calthropstu]

Belkar is evil because of his motivations though. Your guy has good motivations. The idea that he wants to hurt people for fun is sort of weird and conflicting with that idea. Wanting people to be safe, secure and happy while simultaneously wanting to hurt people for fun is sort of hard.

Not hard at all. If I set up a system to catch all rapists instantly, but make it illegal for women to refuse the king's sexual advances, the king is still a rapist even though he stops all other rapists.

[paladinofshojo]

Honestly, the character you're describing with the story about him and then the character you describe at the end don't seem to be the same person. He did what he thought was the right thing to do. His instincts were not malicious, cruel or spiteful, he simply grew up with the skill set of a raider and warrior. He tried to create a good place for his people, he just didn't have the skill set or temperament to make it happen. Once he saw someone who did have that skill set, he joined them because the unquestionably good things he wanted like prosperity, security and happiness for his people were his goal, not his own personal power.


To be fair, he sounds more akin to Vegeta, a warrior prince whose culture is so barbaric and violent that they industrialize conquering others.

I mean Vegeta is technically a good guy, but I am willing to bet money that he isn’t losing sleep over everyone he killed under Freeza’s service or in Namek, he was from a world where might makes right and was never taught that there are other ways to resolve problems other than brutally murdering them.