| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Draith |
Posted - 20 Apr 2003 : 04:42:19
A lot of people believe playing an evil character means; you do whatever you want, and you just kill everything in your path. I think playing an evil character without messing up the campain and not killing your fellow PC's is how to do it, but I don't know how and I would be greatful for suggestions. Thank you for your time.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 15 Dec 2007 : 00:10:42
quote:
Originally posted by slay_4_pay
One of my biggest gripes with the way evil characters are commonly played is that they tend to be so two-dimensional. This is especially true for Chaotic Evil characters. For example, it seems to be common practice for anyone playing a Chaotic Evil character to betray his or her party members at any opportunity. It's like just because a character is evil he can never have any friends, but in my opinion this just isn't the case. One of the best times I ever had was in a group of evil characters. We were all completely loyal to each other, but no one else. We watched each other's backs, split our loot evenly, and settled disputes without resorting to murdering one another (usually through gambling or a non-lethal fight). It was alot of fun. We looted, pillaged, and murdered our way across half the realms... until we were caught and hanged.
Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul did the same thing, except that instead of being hanged, they became gods. Then they died. But one of them got better. So much for "crime doesn't pay."
|
| slay_4_pay |
Posted - 14 Dec 2007 : 06:10:36
One of my biggest gripes with the way evil characters are commonly played is that they tend to be so two-dimensional. This is especially true for Chaotic Evil characters. For example, it seems to be common practice for anyone playing a Chaotic Evil character to betray his or her party members at any opportunity. It's like just because a character is evil he can never have any friends, but in my opinion this just isn't the case. One of the best times I ever had was in a group of evil characters. We were all completely loyal to each other, but no one else. We watched each other's backs, split our loot evenly, and settled disputes without resorting to murdering one another (usually through gambling or a non-lethal fight). It was alot of fun. We looted, pillaged, and murdered our way across half the realms... until we were caught and hanged. |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 06 Dec 2007 : 22:06:09
I think it's unhelpful to think of a capital-E Evil character as some drooling fiend who hacks and slashes and rapes and steals every moment of the day and night, a la the Hewitts and Sheriff Hoyt from Texas Chainsaw Massacre (with Luda Mae and the Tea Lady shocking examples of passive Evil). I have found that sociopaths, strictly defined, can be far more terrifing and "Evil" than over-the-top loons. Carter Hayes (Michael Keaton's character) in Pacific Heights is a damned scary guy as the Bad Neighbor from Hell, but he's no slasher lunatic. (I mean, come on: how many villains use cockroaches as a weapon, hmmm?)
One of the creepiest sociopaths in Realms fiction is Pharaun, the drow wizard in the War of the Spider Queen sextet. For hundreds of pages we sympathize with him, smile at his witticisms, admire his fine aesthetic sense, and then during his and Ryld's big escape, he shows how a Chaotic Evil character would act in a "real" situation, and one's perception of him is forever altered; one stops thinking of him as the Noel Coward of the Underdark and starts thinking of him as a truly contemptible villain and realizes that to root for him is to root for genuine Evil.
|
| GRYPHON |
Posted - 06 Dec 2007 : 12:11:23
I just play them like everyone else...until it's time to do otherwise... |
| Brynweir |
Posted - 05 Dec 2007 : 21:30:16
I think I have replied to a similar thread, but I don't actions by themselves are Good or Evil - it is the motivation behind them.
The beggar for example - stealing bread is a crime but not necessarily evil. If he is trying to feed his starving children and harms no one in the process, then it is still wrong but not evil.
Just as if someone burns down some crops trying to starve out the villagers, yet the burning actually makes the next year's crops healthier. This would seem like a good act but with evil intent.
Therefore, I think that each person has to decide what he/ she thinks is evil and why they are doing what they are doing.
If the evil guys were evil 100% of the time, then they could never work together because they'd be too busy back stabbing and hurting each other.
I think it's all about the motivation. |
| LordArcana |
Posted - 05 Dec 2007 : 18:25:31
Ghost in the Shell is by far my favorite anime...Ninja scroll is excellent (only sorry i have it on VHS and its getting old).
The whole concept of "alignment" has never sat well with me, and now i just make the players fill it out as formality as what they THINK they are playing. Ask any three people in the world what they think evil is and you will probably get four different answers.
What is evil..."Evil"? I think each DM has to decide for themselves just to what extent you need to go to be evil. Is it just doing the deed or the motivation behind it? How far do you have to go to be evil? And the dreaded thought..Who decides what is evil and is there a primal evil? Are humans on earth evil compared to the rest of the universe for example?
If someone kidnaps my kid...i track them down and try to rescue my kid...in the process the "badguy" and i get into a struggle and i end up killing him...is that evil? Most people will say no it was self defense BUT i went after him! I tracked him down...i went to his lair..i invaded his turf. In my eyes i would say that is border line evil...but not saying its the wrong thing to do.
evil vs. Evil is the difference as i saw it posted earlier (sorry i didn't quote the author, no disrespect intended). If a beggar is hungry...starving and he steals a loaf of bread...that is a crime...that is evil. Does this make him a bad person? Not necessarily but its still a crime. If that same beggar stole all the loaves of bread and then killed the merchant just because he felt like it...then i would personally call him Evil.
For me the destinction of evil vs. Evil is a matter of being. You can commit an evil act and not be Evil. You cna however commit and evil act and make it blatant simply for the mere pleasure of doing it.
If i walk down the street (me as a real person) and knock someones mailbox over that is an evil act. Does that make me an Evil person? If i go out and donate half my pay and half my free time to helping homless children does that make up for my knocking someones mailbox over? Does that now make me a good person?
In most of my campaigns i don't adhere strictly to alignment. I do adhere to the concepts of Law, Neutrality and Chaos which is much easier to define than Good and Evil. You either follow the laws of the land or not.
This brings up Primal Evil. Who decides what is really evil? If my D&D character is from Cormyr and i travel to Hillsfar the laws of the two places are VERY different. If i am in Zhentil Keep the laws are VERY different. What Cormyr considers a crime or an evil act may be the common standard in Hillsfar.
I prefer to sit down with my players and ask them to come up with a concept for their characters and if they can write up a one page outline or story about their character. How were they raised, what they did growing up...this usually allows me as a DM to decided just where i want to put the character in a morality state.
If my player, the paladin of Tyr, states he strongly believes in honor and goes out and kills unarmed orcs that is an evil act. One can argue that even unarmed anything is capable of being deadly but i doubt a holy warrior would consider attacking a weaponless person an honorable act. In this case i would address this evil act in game by either sending some sort of wrath of Tyr such as a -2 penalty to all rolls until he repents or some such.
** Sorry for the disorganization. My thoughts were very scattered having just read the 4 previous pages and wanting to get all thoughts down before i forgot them.** |
| Rezzenthell |
Posted - 05 Dec 2007 : 17:22:26
Being evil doesn't mean you have to kill your party members just to justify being of evil alignment. Your character has a personality you choose for him/her. An evil person might be passive evil, or perhaps looking to do evil in different ways. Like not killing someone, but not choosing to heal them in a moment of crisis...or perhaps your motivation is selfish and you are saving that spell for yourself and yourself only. It's easy to pigeon hole evil characters and expect them to do evil ALL the time for justification. It doesn't really work that way. |
| Shadowlord |
Posted - 04 Jan 2004 : 03:38:07
Ahh, Arteris, I too believe that they got Entreri's alignment incorrect, but thats a matter best left to accomplished sages, of which I am not, lol. |
| Arteris |
Posted - 04 Jan 2004 : 03:07:54
quote:
Originally posted by Draith
A lot of people believe playing an evil character means; you do whatever you want, and you just kill everything in your path. I think playing an evil character without messing up the campain and not killing your fellow PC's is how to do it, but I don't know how and I would be greatful for suggestions. Thank you for your time.
Evil has a wide definition, for example a nuetral evil charector might not even have to be evil on most occassions, but they might follow their own credo such as the likes of Artemis Entreri (He is mis aligned in the Forgotten Realms book in my opinion) as he follows his own laws, he never kills for no reason, if it can be helped does not kill the innocent. He follows his beliefes which coincide with his profesion which happens to be assassination. Nuetral Evil is doing what you want and how ever you want it but that doesnt mean doing it by killing everying and everybody. Lawful evil does things by going along with the law for surface looks. They obey the law and do not kill in cold blood but instead hire an assassin so that they can keep up public looks. They too follow the law but it is usually not their own more or less the law of the land they live in. |
| The Cardinal |
Posted - 03 Jan 2004 : 00:21:42
Well then there it is....
First I congratulate Dragon Cultist for putting forth a splended read. I did so enjoy it. Truely I did. I even, dare I say, snickered a few times at teh blatent points made in it, ( Villian's blackmailing eachother, priceless and to typical since their villians/evil ).
My second toast is goes to "The Sage" , for pointing me to that wonderful post of Kant's Categorical Imperative of Morality... Reading such things is a bit of a hobby of mine and has been for years... (although some would say it was that which led to my insanity, I have yet to be proven insane ... and that is not an offer to start trying ).
Anyways thanks to the both of you for the great reads...
Cheers
|
| Dragon Cultist |
Posted - 02 Jan 2004 : 23:29:29
Here is my two coppers’ worth on the subject of evil characters:
In my not-so-humble opinion, immediately dragging the alignment discussion into the mix rather clouds the issue.
The real question, to me, revolves not so much about what each of the 9 alignments mean in regards to character portrayal etc., but rather a deceptively simple-sounding question to be put to a (prospective) DM:
Is he/she willing to have one or more villains take center-stage? I.e. Is the DM comfortable with the idea that this time, the “bad guys” will be in the spotlight?
I think the answer could be yes, for some DMs and for some groups. I know I have DM’d evil parties in the past, neutral parties, and good parties. I don’t mean to brag about this; nor do I want to give the impression that it’s all a piece of cake to me…I stress here that I’m NOT the kind of DM where “nothing the PCs are or do really matter.” Far from it. I believe in the rule “the player characters are the heroes of the story.” This means, among other things, that indeed it’s quite important, vitally important, what creeds, beliefs and convictions the heroes have.
Do I believe in the possibility that neutral and even evil “heroes” can have creeds/ beliefs/ convictions that can be roleplayed just as meaningful as the traditional good-guy heroes?
My answer is yes…with a condition.
The condition is that a group must be willing to make a mentality shift: to look through the proverbial Alice-in-Wonderland looking glass. To enter, almost literally, a universe where the traditional roles of black and white are reversed.
What do I mean with this Alice allegory?
Well, I mean that it is not enough to merely imagine how an evil-aligned Fellowship of the Ring would solve the quest of the One Ring. (Likely they wouldn’t be able to complete the quest, at least not while leaving the Middle-earth world in any recognizable shape. But I digress…)
No, the real task, I think, is to imagine how it would be if the bad guys of the LOTR (i.e. the Witch King, Saruman, Wormtongue, perhaps even the Balrog or the Jackson-invented orc general) were the focus of a tale just as epic as the original story. How they, working at least for a time together, attempt to win the day over the potent adversaries of Gandalf, Aragorn and, yes, even some lowly but damned elusive Hobbits.
An obvious dilemma that follows out of this is: should these villainous PCs be allowed, then, to achieve a real victory? In other words, is the DM still comfortable if and when the forces of darkness win?
An interesting alternative to consider is for the DM to establish, from the beginning, that the villains are “destined” to fail in the end, that Good is meant to triumph after all. “But what fun is that?” you might cry. Well, the fun could be in the narration of what the Japanese call “the nobility of failure.” While I simplify the concept here, or rather twist it out of context to serve my argument, the classic Japanese epic tale placed great value not so much on victory, but on the tragedy of the righteous hero or heroes who went down just before the finish line. Might sound strange, but really it’s just a matter of shifting the emphasis of the tale being told.
So, do I advocate telling players up front that their heroes are doomed from the way go? Then why go to the trouble, some might say. Well, the White Wolf company has been doing it for years. Now, their “Storytelling” ideal is not quite my cup of tea (I have briefly game-mastered their Vampire setting and well, realized I’m not quite 18 years old anymore… no disrespect to White Wolvers in present company intended.) But the very idea of switching not merely the colors of the hats, so to speak, but to radically alter the concept of who or what the heroes of the story are, is what I’m talking about here.
And yet I don’t especially advocate sticking to “Monstrous” villainous characters only. I think that nowadays there are tons of RPG books detailing how to play everything non-human, from dragons to mind flayers.
Interesting as it may be to delve into the Savage Species thing, I think a “classical” villainous party, i.e. humans, elves, dwarves and what have you, of evil alignment, is the real challenge for a group that intends to explore the Dark Side.
quote:
Originally posted by Aeriden Raven
I think one of the problems you will encounter with evil characters is that they might mess up the party structure (kill each other for example  ).
Well…yeah. Certainly the mortality rate could (should?) be said to be much higher in a party made up of villains. And yet: why should that be a problem in itself? The sheer fact that PCs get killed is calculated in, in the D&D game mechanics. One could argue that the same problem (high mortality rate) would hold true for a berserking good-aligned party!
But no. The difference lies in the psychology behind the mortality issue. To many people it’s simply no fun playing in a configuration where the PCs drop like flies. What’s more, opponents of evil parties may argue, what would be the motivation for the surviving party members to have their companion raised, resurrected, or even reincarnated?
Well, motivations are as motivations go, to mis-quote Forrest Gump. The fact that players have cause to bemoan the lack of proper motivation to drive their character is a clear sign that a given DM is not doing his or her job properly. This has nothing to do with alignments, but rather everything do with the level of “heroism” in the game. Now admittedly, heroism is perceived slightly differently by different people; individual DMs certainly have their own distinctive style. All as it should be. Yet every player of roleplaying games wants heroism. Everybody. We just call it by different names, sometimes.
How does this relate to evil characters/ evil parties? Well, I have come to realize, after years of successful (and sometimes not-so-successful) game-mastering, and learning from other DMs and my own experiences as a player, that what Good, Neutral and even Evil “heroes” have in common is that they need to feel important. Or rather: the PLAYER behind the character needs to feel important. By important I don’t mean powerful, per se; but what every player wants is to feel, well, included in the story to such a degree that their decisions really matter. We don’t just want to play Aragorn; or the Witch-King; we want (secretly perhaps, because many players are never encouraged to voice their needs and preferences) for the DM, and to a degree our fellow players, to acknowledge that indeed, we are Aragorn- or the Witch-King. In other words: we want to influence the game world around us like these epic archetypes do. We don’t simply want a level title, a ream of experience points, and the proverbial hackmaster sword +12 (well OK; we want those too, ‘cause they’re so kewl!), we all, to some degree or another, be the Luke Skywalker who drops the proton torpedo that destroys the Death Star. Not just A Death Star…THE Death Star. Or: we want to be Emperor Palpatine, with the cool lines and don’t forget those lightning bolts of his!
This is of course where it gets complicated for DMs. Much too complicated for most DMs, alas…the trick is that in the stories in book or film, from Star Wars to the Lord of the Rings, from the Matrix to Highlander, often the one and only hero is a single guy or gal. After all, only one dude drops the proton torpedo. Only one Hobbit causes the One Ring to drop in the fire. (OK, perhaps it’s slightly more complicated there)
How then, aside from single-player gaming, can a DM provide a whole PARTY of heroes with the same level of accomplishment?
Perhaps we can’t. Or perhaps we can…but this post is already growing out of control. I’ll get back to that some other time, assuming anyone out there is not wishing I would simply shut up…
quote:
Originally posted by Aeriden Raven
I played a CE warlock for two years and she had a really twisted mind. Sacrificing babies to her demon prince, burning down farms of innocent people, all to gain more power from her god.
As the saying goes in the universe of Shadowrun: “Plus ca change…” Right, French was never my strong point. I’ll complete the quote in English: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Meaning: that’s very recognizable, Raven! In a 1st Edition game I was a player in back in the mists of prehistory, one of my characters for a certain campaign set in the Greyhawk setting was Sylyana Gonoril, a CE half-elven assassin-magic-user. (In 3E terms: a CE half-elf Rogue/Wizard. Or perhaps a Rogue/Sorcerer. Back in 1E, the assassin was a class, albeit restricted to evil alignments, not a prestige class in today’s parlance.)
As can be inferred from the name, Sylyana was a female character. Now I won’t digress into the discussion about whether male players should/ are able to/ be allowed to play female characters or vice versa. Neither do I want to link the alignment thing to a gender thing. Let’s just say that in those days, gaming was for 99% a male-dominated subculture. More to the point, we were YOUNG males. Nerd males. Yet women were definitely not portrayed as lust objects per se –at least, luckily enough, not in my group. Precious few half-naked elf courtesans around in our corner of D&D land. But what happened of course was that in our naiveté, some of us experimented with “dangerous femmes”; in other words, the “strong, yet overly aggressive (Okay, I admit: outright psychopathic) female character” prototype. Ahem. And to think White Wolf was still years away…
In any case: the sacrificial thing kinda seems familiar to me, as well! Can you imagine, back in the mid-1980’s there already was a Sylyana the crazed assassin running around to whom the chant “Blood to the Blood God” (shamelessly stolen from the Warhammer Fantasy RPG) was a mantra. Blood of innocents was all the more enjoyable, so babies were indeed fair game.
Next: burning down farms. Been there, done that. Preferably Halfling farms, as those pesky Halflings were so darned cute… I don’t mean to sound arrogant or blasé, Raven. Quite the opposite: I find it funny as hell that after all these years, some roleplayers at least are at some time or another tempted to hoist the black flag and go slitting throats. (To again misquote somebody famous…I think it was Oscar Wilde: Every civilized man ought to, at one time or another, be tempted to hoist the black flag, take up the cutlass, and go slitting throats. Or something along those lines.)
quote:
Originally posted by Aeriden Raven
However, most of the other party members were evil as well (one LE drow fighter/mage, a NE druid and a necromancer who's alignment I still haven't figured out, because I think it was sort of shifting, is that even possible by the way?).
To briefly address the shifting thing: well, in innocent rules lawyer mode, I could comment that the only legal way that a character could, penalty-less and swiftly, be shifting alignment is for that character to be a half-giant, from the Dark Sun setting. Now, that was 2nd Edition, of course, but it’s the only circumstance that I can think of. But I bet the abovementioned necromancer was not all half-giantish…
Switching to slightly-more-cynical mode: I calculate a 95% probability (sorry, attack of Star Trek-ism. Won’t happen again) that the player behind the necromancer had simply cut one of them “behind the DM screen” deals which allowed him or her to basically get away with, ahem, murder. While I encourage individual style, and creativity with the game rules, I frown on things like this. I think it lessens the game fun if one player/character can evade consequences that the other players have to face. In an evil party, especially, I think that everyone involved should put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. In other words, if you want to dance with the devil…
quote:
Originally posted by Aeriden Raven
Anyway, the DM gave us a common goal, we all had the same tattoo in our neck and were sort of chosen by a goddess…since we had a common purpose, the warlock did not backstab the rest of the party and since we were sort of forced to work together, we decided to make the best of it.
Also very familiar! And I think that you pretty much summed up how a villainous party could work. Key elements being common goals, shared purpose, and yes, a big stick, not just a carrot, hovering over the various party members to stabilize things enough to keep going.
As an interesting aside, I read a “Roleplaying Tips” newsletter some time ago (I’d recommend the Roleplaying Tips website, but since I’m new to Candlekeep I don’t yet know the etiquette on outright plugs) on the subject of, yes, Evil Parties. The concept of the guest writer there was: Don’t get even, get M.A.D.
M.A.D. standing for Mutually Assured Destruction, a term burrowed from the nuclear proliferation treaty terminology of the Cold War. In simple terms: I can be sure you never drop a nuke on me, because as soon as you do, I have a nuke in reserve that will take you out. Net result: no one drops anything on nobody. In a nutshell, the American concept of “Peace through superior firepower.” Works great, too, as long as you’re dealing with (semi-)rational people. Doesn’t work so great when the Bin Ladens get creative…But hey! Enough tasteless commentary on real-world geopolitics. Back to game talk.
The M.A.D. concept applies to evil parties the following way: picture a bunch of smart, or at least sharply cunning, evil characters. In-universe speaking, they have survived to where they are now not by being dumb as doornails. They will have thought of certain contingencies, measures that, in theory, ensure their survival. “Kill me in my sleep? Well, sure, you could do that…but then, an elemental I’ve bribed will deliver that letter with your orders from the Zhentarim in it to the local paladins of Tyr. I’m sure that they’ll give you a fair trial…”
Note that the blackmail contingency may very well be a bluff only; among evil characters, how can anyone be sure that the outrageous threat one villain makes to the other is NOT genuine? Of course, there’s the detect lie spell. But for every such spell, there is a ring of mind shielding to nullify it. Besides, if everybody in the party has things to hide, then a balance of terror could be achieved, right? Sure, there would be tensions. But tensions make for great theatrical drama. Just watch soap operas (soap opera in Cthulhu Modern: the X-Files. Soap opera in space opera: Farscape. Enough examples exist…)
quote:
Originally posted by Aeriden Raven
Also, I would like to add that chaotic evil does not mean chaotic stupid. A character who randomly kills everyone in sight, just for fun, will soon find her end. Although she might be evil, she knows that acting it out all the time will not aid her goals, but just bring her trouble. However, poisoning a well and getting away with it, desecrating an altar in a good god's temple etc, was quite doable.
My point exactly. One last remark: while I applaud DMs who “cater” to the wishes of their players (since there are too many bumbling DMs around who ignore their players’ motivations at their own peril), I think it’s even better, one step up the DM-ing ladder as it were, when the opposition is convincing, too.
By this I mean that it’s good that the DM in your example didn’t frustrate the players by making it all but impossible to poison a well or desecrate a good-aligned temple. Yet for every Ring-Wraith terrorizing the local Halflings, there should be a Strider ready to chop such a villain down. Now, in a good-character group, I think the ideal should be to develop heroes who are much like Strider (if not even cooler than Strider, if the DM can pull it off- Epic Level Handbooks, anyone?). By the same token, in an evil-character group, wouldn’t it be extra thrilling if not only, “you are the Nazgul…ultra-dark, undead templates, servitor fiendish horses, sonic wails, the works…” But!
But, it also means, there’s a certain Ranger who has some skills and feats so spare. Even if you’re a super-high level Wraith…well, there’s still that Rohan shield-maiden, along with her sneak-attacking Halfling sidekick, isn’t there?
To put it less flowery: I can see the thrill of villains getting their kicks. Yet where is the thrill of the danger? Wouldn’t it be cool to be pursued by fanatical paladins…and perhaps dispose those, as well?
Before this post grows any more monstrously long-winded, I'll leave it at that.
May all your hits be crits!
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 09 Jul 2003 : 19:36:56
Salius Kai:
Of course, disagree. It's only my opinion. If no one ever disagreed, we wouldn't have anything to talk about.
But how can you have a CE monk if you're playing by the standard rules? |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 06 Jul 2003 : 19:50:09
Very true, branmakmuffin. But if you'll allow me to disagree.
While I agree with everything you have said, in order to role-play properly, a charcters options is not limited by his class or alignment (although they should have a large impact). If this were true, then all CE Monk would be alike and there would be no personalities in Fearun.
As for the werewolf thing, I will try and bring my old Lycanthrope string back up to explaine it (scince I know how it works now) |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 06 Jul 2003 : 18:24:38
Salius Kai:
quote:
<snip> Example of being evil.
He sees a small child crying over her stuffed animal which has somehow become stuck in a tree. He continues on completely ignoring the child, whom helping would benefit him or his morals in no way.
I agree that a Lawful Evil person wouldn't help the child, but not for the reasons you give. I think he wouldn't help the child because a child stuck in a tree is neither a "chaotic" nor a "lawful" situation that should be hindered or helped by a Lawful person. The reason to help the child would be simply because he needed help, a "good" act.
quote:
Villigers offer him a large reward to stop the crooks continually vandalizing the temple (diety doesn't matter, he doesn't worship gods). As a monk he has little use for the gold, and the only reason he would consider the quest would be for the experience to better himself.
I think that's a Chaotic motivation. I think, as a monk, he might indeed refuse the reward, but that he would help the villagers in order to rid the area of "unlawfulness". When apprehending the bandits, however, he wouldn't listen to any sob stories about hunger, or take into account anything else that might justify their actions, and in fact would enjoy causing them as much pain and suffering as possible. And he wouldn't be humble in any way in accepting any praise or thanks from the villagers.
The "werewolf" thing is specific to your character and not in the realm of my discussion. |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 06 Jul 2003 : 18:16:01
quote:
Origianally posted by: Sage of Perth
Salius, I am not sure of how much help this will be, but when I have had similar issues such as you describe in my campaign, I have found this article particularly helpful in the past. It deals with an analysis of Kant's Categorical Imperative of Morality.
If you don't have the time for a lengthy discourse, this may also be useful.
Thank you, Sage. Those are two very interesting articles which i plan to pick through more carefully when I get a little more free time. I will also have my DM look at them.
quote:
Origianally posted by: Bookwyrm
Ah, that makes more sense, Salius. And it's a very interesting character. Very interesting indeed . . . .
I appologize for any confusion my previous description may have caused. I am not very good at describing things and making them sounds exactly as I'm trying to make them. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 06 Jul 2003 : 07:39:19
Ah, that makes more sense, Salius. And it's a very interesting character. Very interesting indeed . . . . |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 Jul 2003 : 06:57:22
Salius, I am not sure of how much help this will be, but when I have had similar issues such as you describe in my campaign, I have found this article particularly helpful in the past. It deals with an analysis of Kant's Categorical Imperative of Morality.
If you don't have the time for a lengthy discourse, this may also be useful.
|
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 06 Jul 2003 : 04:23:28
Ah, but evil he is. The woman v.s. man senario was just an example of how a LE character doesn't have to follow and specific laws.
Example of being evil.
He sees a small child crying over her stuffed animal which has somehow become stuck in a tree. He continues on completely ignoring the child, whom helping would benefit him or his morals in no way.
Villigers offer him a large reward to stop the crooks continually vandalizing the temple (diety doesn't matter, he doesn't worship gods). As a monk he has little use for the gold, and the only reason he would consider the quest would be for the experience to better himself.
Another reason he does seemingly-good act, is because hes making up for when he can't controll himself. He's also a werewolf (CE) who runs around at night killing everything in sight. He doesn't like sensless killing (which is probably why he follows his morals so stricktly) so he doesn't do the stereotypical "kill-everyone-and-loot-their-body's evil acts". |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 05 Jul 2003 : 07:16:41
Yes, I was . . . and so far, he doesn't seem very 'evil' to me. |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 05 Jul 2003 : 07:02:43
quote:
Origianally posted by: branmakmuffin
What's your monk's motivation for beating up the person hassling the lady?
He doesn't care about anything. Life, Death, impressing. He's a very depressed person follows nothing but his morals. He doesn't give warnings. If he saw the guy beating her up, he'd just jump in there and crack some skulls.
quote:
Origianally posted by: Bookwyrm
Interesting. I'm not saying that he doesn't sound evil (he doesn't sound good, at least) but could you perhaps tell us more about what makes him evil rather than merely neutral?
Are you asking about my Monk? |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 04 Jul 2003 : 19:52:06
Well, Mournblade, let's discuss steel pieces, since we're both such huge fans of Krynn. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 04 Jul 2003 : 18:21:06
Bran at least it wasn't your two STEEL pieces!
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 04 Jul 2003 : 06:40:26
Salius Kai:
What's your monk's motivation for beating up the person hassling the lady? In my opinion, a "good" motivation would be to protect her or her honor, and you might be inclied to back off at her request. An "evil" motivation would be because you thought the guy needed a good beating for disturbing the peace, and if it impressed the lady, so much the better, but if not, no big deal, and you'd be less inclined to back off at her request. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a LN (i.e. a "pure" Lawful) reaction. It's often hard to define appropriate behavior for alignments one step away in a given situation.
A CE person would just beat the snot out of him for the hell of it. A CN reaction would be whatever it took to impress the lady the most. A CG reaction would be to help the lady and impress her.
My two tin pieces. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 04 Jul 2003 : 05:32:21
Interesting. I'm not saying that he doesn't sound evil (he doesn't sound good, at least) but could you perhaps tell us more about what makes him evil rather than merely neutral? |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 04 Jul 2003 : 04:40:51
I've not read all the way through this so I don't know if anyone has stated what I am about to, so I appologize for any repeats in advance.....
I play a LE Monk. To him, law is following his morals to the "T". He doesn't start fights, but if someone affends him, he is always more than willing to kill them at every chance he gets.
Example. He sees someone treating a lady badly, he beats them up (whether they live or die depends on how lucky they are) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 09:17:50
Also, on the subject of fallen celestials/angels etc. we should remember one prime example - that of the Lord of the Seventh, Baalzebul, who was once a Celestial and Lawful Archon named Triel. His quest for ambition and perfection overeached what the Heavens could provide, and he succumbed to temptation, craving more and more power, until he was cast from the Heavens. He eventually fell in with Asmodues, the Lord of the Ninth and ruler of Hell (Baator) and his fellow Archdevils.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 09:09:24
Infernal beings who are "raised", are the souls and spirits of the mortal dead or fallen.
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 06:26:19
My guess is Mournblade's referring to fallen devas, planetars and solars.
If there are fallen clestial beings, why are there not "raised" infernal beings? |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 04:37:27
In the Christian/Jewish/Muslim sense, you can't really have a fallen angel. Or rather, you can't have any new ones. See, angels, who don't have the uncertainties and chaos of the human soul (since we're bound to a mortal body, while they aren't) never changed their minds. They either sided with God or against Him. No one's in danger of being kicked out of heaven, not since that moment when God gave angels free will.
Or so I've been told. It sounds pretty restrictive, doesn't it? At the very least, I'd want the fallen to have a chance to repent. And it hardly makes good material for fiction. That doesn't include just D&D, either. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 29 Jun 2003 : 23:47:34
I never thought of the monk at 20th level in that light. INteresting. BUT not all outsiders are the embodiment of the plane where they reside. Pretty much I just make the Modrons, Demons, Devels, Demodands, Sladdi, And Assimon the embodiment. IT is possible to be an outsider of another type.
BUt I have puzzled over this: How are there fallen angels? Are they truly evil? I don't use fallen angels in my campaign. I am not even sure if I am willing to make D&D devils fallen angels. But it is still an interesting topic.
|
|
|
