PDA

View Full Version : What would you call an evil character who sides with good?



Douche
2016-01-25, 03:12 PM
I dislike alignment discussions, and more often than not I just leave that part blank... but enough with the disclaimer..

What would you label a character who genuinely fights for good, but also is sadistic or murder happy, doesn't care for collateral damage (including people), trolls NPCs and screws them over needlessly (like dethroning a king just for the lulz), and always destroys the evidence after the party learns what they needed out of it so the proper authorities have a harder time

Sounds like the dreaded troll "excuse to be a douche to the party, chaotic neutral", but do you think a character like this can actually have any depth?

Keltest
2016-01-25, 03:18 PM
Id call them Chaotic Evil. Such a character has as much or as little depth as the player wants to give them. Maybe theyre just a murderhobo whos open about it, or maybe they were cursed by the local god of mischief when they were a kid, and their good deeds are a desperate attempt to overcome their divinely inspired malicious traits.

TheRedFox201
2016-01-25, 03:28 PM
I'd call that character either chaotic evil or neutral evil. Even if you 'side with the good guys', murder happiness is directly tied to evil (see the Respect for Life thing). This being is someone who probably should steer clear of anything Paladin-related. I shall attempt to glean insight into this person's thought process: I shouldn't let bad guys blow up the world, because I live in it. I shouldn't kill my party members, because they can stop me from being blown up/smitten by the BBEG/Paladins.

To find depth in this character is possible, but all we the Playground enthusiasts can see is what you've written. As of my post, this character kinda seems like the Chaotic Stupid archetype. I see potential for some interesting dynamics in the subtext, but alas, subtext is not context.

Sincerely,
TheRedFox201

P.S.
The Good Evil scale in D&D is an objective measure ordained via higher beings. They are only called Good and Evil because some big powerful beings chose those as the team names. This also stands for Law and Chaos. In non-D&D terms, I would call him 'unreliable'. I do not hate him because he likes killing, I hate him because he breaks what I would rather have unbroken.

Necroticplague
2016-01-25, 03:31 PM
A liability. Anyone who does anything without reason can't be trusted past the point of my.....whatever pointy thing I have.

Amaranthine
2016-01-25, 03:48 PM
I dislike alignment discussions, and more often than not I just leave that part blank... but enough with the disclaimer..

What would you label a character who genuinely fights for good, but also is sadistic or murder happy, doesn't care for collateral damage (including people), trolls NPCs and screws them over needlessly (like dethroning a king just for the lulz), and always destroys the evidence after the party learns what they needed out of it so the proper authorities have a harder time

Sounds like the dreaded troll "excuse to be a douche to the party, chaotic neutral", but do you think a character like this can actually have any depth?Your examples don't show someone genuinely fighting for good.

As an off-center answer to your question: I do believe that an evil aligned character, even a chaotic evil character, could be a successful and non-disruptive member of an otherwise good party.

An evil (little "e") character is primarily about selfishness. He is all about personal benefit. If he came across an elderly widow alone in an alley in an unfamiliar city, he may very well relieve her of any valuables and perhaps even her life (though "evil" does not directly translate to "randomly homicidal"). His relationship with his party, however, is likely to be completely on the level since actively antagonizing those whom regularly are watching your back is not in your best interest. Also, actively committing evil acts in the presence of good characters should result in capture and incarceration by authorities.

Similarly, any chaotic character is not incapable of following laws, just more inclined to believe them to be unnecessary or stupid.

The "random acts of mayhem and villainy" chaotic evil character is actually being played more as "random stupid", which I suppose if the character's intelligence is low enough could be an accurate portrayal, but such a character wouldn't really be welcome with the party of good characters.

Segev
2016-01-25, 04:13 PM
I'm with the CE crowd on this one; that doesn't mean he can't be party-friendly, though. He can be totally cool to and towards the party, even consider them friends. Friends who sometimes make poor choices and leave him to clean up their messes (destroying evidence) or who don't appreciate his hobbies (torture), but people fun to hang around with. Just...don't rub things that are unpleasant in their faces.

CE doesn't have to mean "stupid prick." It can just mean "CN with a huge mean streak." Just avoid the usual party-unfriendly behaviors.

You can even be a little disturbing, if you keep it witty and funny, like an Addams Family sketch. Just don't, again, make the other PCs deal with anything they find uncomfortable. You're a considerate friend who respects their freedoms (because they ARE your friends) as much as you expect them to respect yours. You reserve your sadism and lack-of-respect-for-others'-rights for people who are not party-members.

And the fact that your party has a Good reputation just lets you get away with all the more......

LibraryOgre
2016-01-25, 04:15 PM
As a literary example, I'd point to Raistlin. For much of Chronicles, he's with the Companions in goals... he wants to stop the Dark Queen. However, he's willing to use methods they object to, and he has ancillary goals that don't match up with theirs. He's not a crazy murderhobo, certainly, but he's willing to cause some carnage if necessary, and doesn't feel particularly constrained to help people, except according to his own rules.

I'd say Neutral Evil fits well, though the exact situation you described is more chaotic.

HammeredWharf
2016-01-25, 04:31 PM
I don't see how his evilness could stop him. He could be friends with the party or think that being a subordinate of Darklord the Flayer sucks. That wouldn't prevent him from being evil. Additionally, a LE character could have some principles that conflict with Darklord's, such as thinking that torture is ok generally, but flaying is a bit much.

I once played a CE guy who actively worshiped a good goddess and genuinely wanted to be good. He just happened to be an unhinged psycho and have some curious interpretations of his faith's tenets. He was fun to play. I had to put real effort into misinterpreting every good quest as something involving murder, spontaneous violence and tort- *ahem* Sorry, I meant purification, self-defense and interrogation.

Jormengand
2016-01-25, 04:36 PM
A player character.

EDIT: Alternatively, Belkar Bitterleaf.

Vitruviansquid
2016-01-25, 04:48 PM
Disruptive behavior is never on the character, it is always on the player.

An evil character in a good-aligned party can be interesting and pleasant to play with if there is not a douchey player behind it, just as a good aligned player in a good aligned party can break the game wide open if there is a douchey player behind it.

Douche
2016-01-25, 05:04 PM
Too many replies to address each one, but I will try to paint a more specific picture. (Thought it was better to be vague in the OP)

The character is an agent of the fey (in fact, the whole party is) and wants to protect the magic of the world. The enemy represents order and control - using demon magic to achieve it, whereas the fey faction represents freedom and whimsy. Subsequently, the character is somewhat of a maniac, but his intentions are not for personal power or selfishness. He wants to help the world.

His actions are disruptive in the sense of the story, but he does not actively try to screw over the other players. He would burn down a building that contained demonic texts, to deprive the enemy of them and make sure they don't fall into the hands of the authorities - perhaps inadvertently allowing the fire to spread. He would not try to make life harder for the other PCs. Also, he does consider them to be friends.

Lastly, he would rather kill a demon worshiper than allow them to be taken prisoner. And, he has ruined the lives of a few NPCs (that deserved it, but it wasn't necessary) for his own enjoyment.

Dire Moose
2016-01-25, 05:05 PM
On that note, if I ever play a Star Wars RPG, I'd been thinking of playing a former Jedi Padawan who fights the Empire but unconsciously falls to the Dark Side in the process. Thing is, she would still fight against the Empire while being a Dark Jedi all the same. As in, she'd still reject the inevitable offer to be Vader's co-ruler because she genuinely hates what he stands for.

What would this character be considered in the grand scheme of things?

CharonsHelper
2016-01-25, 05:14 PM
Definitely Chaotic Evil.

Evil isn't monolithic. Far from it - it's one of the main reasons that evil doesn't take over. (Good isn't monolithic either, but they work together more consistently.) Fighting evil doesn't inherently make one good.

HammeredWharf
2016-01-25, 05:15 PM
@ Douche: That sounds more like CN, if anything. However, it depends on the details. Ruining the image and power of some evil noble wouldn't turn one evil, but poking that nobles eyes out and killing his family would.

@ Moose: Fighting evil with evil is still evil. Most Imperials aren't even that bad, so doing typical dark side things to them would still count as a bunch of evil acts.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-25, 05:34 PM
@ Moose: Fighting evil with evil is still evil. Most Imperials aren't even that bad, so doing typical dark side things to them would still count as a bunch of evil acts.

I thought that that was his point.

nedz
2016-01-25, 06:16 PM
If you can get away with an insanity defence CN, more likely CE.

Being Fey complicates it somewhat because they have a different world view, but alignments are objective.

Incidentally IC, there is no such thing as an NPC/PC divide.

TheIronGolem
2016-01-25, 09:39 PM
Sounds like the dreaded troll "excuse to be a douche to the party, chaotic neutral", but do you think a character like this can actually have any depth?

Jormengand beat me to the "I'd call him Belkar" joke. So instead I'll point out that because your OP could almost be Belkar's biography, you can rest assured that such a character can in fact have depth.

OldTrees1
2016-01-26, 12:32 AM
Your description in the OP leaves it quite ambiguous but it would probably be on the line from "Don't destroy the world, that's where I put my stuff" evil thru "I do my best to do what is right" but happen to be quite mistaken evil. (although it sounds closer to the first end of that continuum)

So yes there are a variety of characters there that can have a startling amount of depth and have real world counterparts (even historical counterparts hint hint).

goto124
2016-01-26, 02:07 AM
How does a character actually perform evil (Evil?) behavior without being disruptive, by the way? It's something I've been wondering for a while, since any 'evil acts' would have to be hidden from the rest of the Good party members, which stops the 'evil character' from actually performing 'evil acts' with real regularity. Also, the IC and OOC separation (the party members don't know about the 'evil acts', but their players do) get really frustrating.

Besides, what for when the 'evil acts' backfire? Setting fire to a library means I kill innocents when the fire spreads, plus the party has to waste time and HP and spell slots saving the innocents. A murder won't go unnoticed for long either.

Are 'good acts' or 'evil acts' more likely to backfire?

Satinavian
2016-01-26, 03:18 AM
, since any 'evil acts' would have to be hidden from the rest of the Good party members,
Why ?

Being good does not force people to stop others from all evil acts. Being good does mean not doing evil things and not actively promote evil things, but that is all. The good party members are not the boss of the party. They might not like the evil members doing evil things, they might promote others plans, they might refuse to partake in them, but they are not compelled to not let them happen.

But there is evil and evil. Most good people have some line that should not be crossed by party members. Actually people of any alignment have such lines. If the evil deeds don't cros those lines, the group will work, if not, it is a problem. The evil tag is actually not that important. Some would not allow torture to happen, some have a problem with necromancy, some don't accept collateral damage to innocents under any circumstances, but all those are individual principles, not shared by all good people to the same extend.

Also good party does not mean 'fighting for good' and vice versa.

goto124
2016-01-26, 06:14 AM
Perform any acts the party doesn't agree on with any regularity and the party won't stick together for long.

Unless everyone is stuck together for some reason. But then the players will feel as if they're forced against actually playing out their characters, and they're just sticking to one another begrudgingly, both IC and OOC.

Doesn't sound healthy.

Unless the group want an unhealthy party because it causes intra-party conflict, and they feel intra-party conflict is fun.

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-01-26, 06:25 AM
A liability. Anyone who does anything without reason can't be trusted past the point of my.....whatever pointy thing I have.

What the guy with the tentacles and too many eyes said.

Though lately, I've been calling him Jack for the most part.

Logosloki
2016-01-26, 06:28 AM
Chaotic Evil with Chaotic Stupid tendencies. You can still fight against evil and be evil, isn't Team Evil vs Team good vs Team neutral.

Even chaotic evils that haven't succumbed to their chaotic side will be pragmatic in some of their outlooks if they have managed to live or unlive for a while. As a chaotic evil you have a job, the party has the same job, it is probably in the best of interests that those jobs at least aim in the same direction (quibbles about...methodology will always creep up) and to ensure that neither impedes the other. Consider Belkar, as a good reference, with the exception that clearly the character in your instance is aligned to the fae rather than the party leader.

Mastikator
2016-01-26, 06:41 AM
There could be several very different characters who fit that bill.

An evil mercenary who is bought by the good.

A psychopath held on a leash by the good.

An agent of evil attempting to subvert good and destroy it from within.

Nobot
2016-01-26, 07:02 AM
I'd call him your user name...

Definitely siding with the chaotic evil opinion here!

TeChameleon
2016-01-26, 07:40 AM
On that note, if I ever play a Star Wars RPG, I'd been thinking of playing a former Jedi Padawan who fights the Empire but unconsciously falls to the Dark Side in the process. Thing is, she would still fight against the Empire while being a Dark Jedi all the same. As in, she'd still reject the inevitable offer to be Vader's co-ruler because she genuinely hates what he stands for.

What would this character be considered in the grand scheme of things?

... "Screwed."

(if you want a more in-depth answer, falling to the Dark Side usually seems to result in becoming increasingly deranged until you can no longer really function in society. A Dark Side takedown of the Imperials seems more likely to result in Galaxy-in-Flames type Anarchy rather than any positive result).

Responding to the OP... if your character is less 'evil' and more just 'cuckoo for Cocao Puffs', I'd peg him as more CN than CE, or at least trending more in that direction. Depending on why he's so messed up (was he raised by the fey?), he might even be shading towards CG, just... with a rather heavier emphasis on the 'C' part of things than usual.

As has been noted, him being fey-sponsored does complicate things slightly, as they have a certain tendency to respond to questions like 'are you good, or evil?' with 'banana'. Or something equally nonsensical that makes perfect sense in their strange little minds, but doesn't really work for the rest of the world.

Also, for that matter, what you've mentioned of his actions and motivations hasn't been all that far outside the boundaries of standard PC behaviour >.>

DigoDragon
2016-01-26, 08:00 AM
TVTrope's Anti-Villain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiVillain) article comes to mind. It's how I would label the character in question:



The Anti-Villain is the opposite of an Anti-Hero - a villain with heroic goals, personality traits, and/or virtues. Their desired ends are mostly good, but their means of getting there are evil.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-26, 09:32 AM
TVTrope's Anti-Villain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiVillain) article comes to mind. It's how I would label the character in question:




I don't think he qualifies. Anti-villains tend to be more high-minded. (Death Note's Light seems the epitome of the anti-villain.) This character doesn't have these goals because they're good, he has them because they're for him & his. Plus - he does evil simply because he enjoys it. The anti-villain does evil, but it's always at least rationalized as being for the greater good.

*shrug* All of that are judgment calls though.

Satinavian
2016-01-26, 10:19 AM
Unless everyone is stuck together for some reason. But then the players will feel as if they're forced against actually playing out their characters, and they're just sticking to one another begrudgingly, both IC and OOC.I don't think a party with a compelling reason to work together is a bad idea under any circumstances.

Unless the group want an unhealthy party because it causes intra-party conflict, and they feel intra-party conflict is fun.While intra-party conflict can be a lot of fun, i don't think, there is necessarily a lot of conflict. I have seen too much instances of :

"Hey, i am regularly casting spells with evil tag like summon monster [evil thing]. That is a lot of evil deeds on a regular basis and thus i am evil"
"Really ? Hey, i am good but i don't care at all about your alignment because you never harm innocents, and are a loyal friend and pillar of of common sense in the group"

I have been in a group with mostly good PCs and one evil that never had an issue with it for nearly a full year. And when it came it was about multiclassing for a paladin dip and the "don't associate with evil"-rule. Which, by the way, is utterly silly.

Seto
2016-01-26, 10:46 AM
In a system where Good and Evil are just names to represent opposed cosmic forces with military objectives (in the JRPG tradition of Angels vs. Demons), such a character is aligned with Good.

In a system such as D&D 3.5 where Good and Evil are closely tied with personal behavior and morality, they're CE.

Red Fel
2016-01-26, 11:00 AM
My kind of character.


What would you label a character who genuinely fights for good, but also is sadistic or murder happy, doesn't care for collateral damage (including people), trolls NPCs and screws them over needlessly (like dethroning a king just for the lulz), and always destroys the evidence after the party learns what they needed out of it so the proper authorities have a harder time

Sounds like the dreaded troll "excuse to be a douche to the party, chaotic neutral", but do you think a character like this can actually have any depth?

... Oh. Or not, then.

Basically, this is a case of (1) friendship winning out, (2) aligned goals, or (3) fun times. Let me explain.
Friendship Wins Out. Even the most murderhappy psychos are capable of having friends. Okay, maybe not the most murderhappy psychos, but just about everybody else. And you want to spend time with and help your friends. This is a character who is friends with one or more party members. His methods may be obscene, but he tries to help his friends out.
Aligned Goals. He's unquestionably Evil, morally bankrupt, personally repellent... And he also has a vested interest in the party's success. Maybe he'll win a bet, maybe their overthrowing the tyrant paves the way for his personal revolution, whatever. If the party succeeds, he succeeds. So loathsome though he may be, he wants them to win.
Fun Times. Belkar figured this out. Heroes get a free pass. You can pretty much murder, slaughter, brutalize, and terrorize as much as you want, if you do it under the banner of heroism. The fact that you're helping the heroes is only relevant inasmuch as it gives you carte blanche to do what you enjoy most. Add to that the fact that heroes tend to get into situations where violence is almost inevitable, and you have a recipe for fun times. If you're a psychopath, anyways.
But yeah. Just because he helps the party, even if he "genuinely fights for good," being sadistic and murderhappy tends to drop one on the dark side of the alignment grid.

It does also create troll potential if the party disapproves.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-26, 11:25 AM
It does also create troll potential if the party disapproves.

Especially if your enemies don't use much fire or acid damage.

Ravens_cry
2016-01-26, 12:41 PM
Someone who is evil but with a good liege who they obey, I'd say they're more likely to be Lawful Evil.
If they can see the way the wind blows and are genre savvy enough to know that Good has a tendency to triumph in the end, Neutral Evil would my primary choice.
If they are doing it for certain other reasons, like, the good guys are their friends, and you stick with your friends, even if they are puritanical, no fun, little <redacted/>, I'd lean towards Chaotic Evil.

Mr.Moron
2016-01-26, 12:51 PM
On The Law/Chaos Axis: Chaotic
On the Good/Evil Axis: Evil
On the CoolGuy/Prick Axis: Prick
On the disruptive/productive Axis: Disruptive

Red Fel
2016-01-26, 01:20 PM
On The Law/Chaos Axis: Chaotic
On the Good/Evil Axis: Evil
On the CoolGuy/Prick Axis: Prick
On the disruptive/productive Axis: Disruptive

You put it... Succinctly.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pX2s93xgFHY/VcfZm-2-qSI/AAAAAAAAD3s/9i85n9YSSyg/s400-Ic42/tumblr_mn4qqkLTrC1qcnt2ho2_400.gif

DigoDragon
2016-01-26, 01:21 PM
I don't think he qualifies. Anti-villains tend to be more high-minded. (Death Note's Light seems the epitome of the anti-villain.) This character doesn't have these goals because they're good, he has them because they're for him & his. Plus - he does evil simply because he enjoys it. The anti-villain does evil, but it's always at least rationalized as being for the greater good.

*shrug* All of that are judgment calls though.

I interpreted "genuinely fights for good" as meaning the character in question does believe what they do will justify the end result (the good of helping the world). Though I think the character's alignment is definitely on the evil side of the scale regardless of the results.

wumpus
2016-01-26, 02:06 PM
A player character.

EDIT: Alternatively, Belkar Bitterleaf.

Belkar makes the better example, although in practice I'd agree about PCs.

This leads to the question: Belkar really hasn't disrupted the game too much (assuming that a player in V's shoes would be willing to keep up the rivalry). But should the rest of the PCs rez Belkar? How would Belkar's player react to the rest of the party saying: "well, no." when deciding between 10k gp (or whatever it is) vs. Belkar.

I know Rich drew Miko directly to show the issues with Paladins as PCs. I think Belkar was more for humor than "evil characters are wrong", but he certainly adds perspective about evil characters.

veti
2016-01-26, 02:49 PM
The TVTrope of 'Token Evil Teammate (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TokenEvilTeammate)' seems to cover the possibilities pretty well.

If you're doing evil things for fun and profit, it makes no difference who you're doing them to. Wilfully torturing Belkar is every bit as evil as torturing Elan.

A good character, one with rigid morals and ethical principles, can fight for the big bad. (Assuming he has tasks he wants done that don't necessarily require kicking puppies.) And an evil character can fight for the side we're choosing to define as "good". Plenty of examples of both, in both myth and fiction.

Keltest
2016-01-26, 03:07 PM
Belkar makes the better example, although in practice I'd agree about PCs.

This leads to the question: Belkar really hasn't disrupted the game too much (assuming that a player in V's shoes would be willing to keep up the rivalry). But should the rest of the PCs rez Belkar? How would Belkar's player react to the rest of the party saying: "well, no." when deciding between 10k gp (or whatever it is) vs. Belkar.

I know Rich drew Miko directly to show the issues with Paladins as PCs. I think Belkar was more for humor than "evil characters are wrong", but he certainly adds perspective about evil characters.

Belkar as an actual player would absolutely be disruptive. Killing important NPCs? Antagonizing the plot-important characters? initiating unwanted PVP? he would have been booted ages ago if this were an actual game.

Necroticplague
2016-01-26, 05:00 PM
What the guy with the tentacles and too many eyes said.

Though lately, I've been calling him Jack for the most part.

'Guy' isn't that accurate. 'They' is most, 'it' is a bit less.

Faily
2016-01-26, 05:11 PM
A character that is Evil but works with Good that comes to mind is Lord Scourge in Star Wars: The Old Republic.

Guy's over 300 years old, has killed countless of people in his position as the Emperor's Wrath. He scorns concepts of mercy, weakness, helping people in need, and absolutely loves it when you're stepping over bodies to fulfill your goal. He is full-on Dark Side and very much Lawful Evil.

And still... he betrays the Emperor, because he doesn't want the entire galaxy to be wiped out by the Emperor. Despite how evil Scourge is, he very much wants to be alive himself too, and he wants those he consider important to him/allies/associates with benefits to be alive too.

Esprit15
2016-01-26, 05:33 PM
As Red Fel said, an Evil guy siding with Good does so for personal reasons. Someone playing as described is being a disruptive jerk and should probably get pulled aside if there is OOC annoyance at him.

Kaveman26
2016-01-26, 05:59 PM
Default Re: What would you call an evil character who sides with good?

Not that unusual. People can do horrific evil things and still side with good. I can swindle widows out of their pensions, bilk millions from company accounts and run whole cities to ruin while still volunteering at an animal shelter and feeding the homeless. It's all about personal motivation.

Kane0
2016-01-26, 08:16 PM
Pragmatic.

Either that or genre-savvy. He knows the good guys always win, so he joins the good guys so he doesn't lose. He's still a dirtbag with the likability of a soiled bedsheet though.

goto124
2016-01-26, 09:39 PM
On the CoolGuy/Prick Axis: Prick
On the disruptive/productive Axis: Disruptive

Does this alignment system exist already? We need it!

nedz
2016-01-27, 04:51 AM
Does this alignment system exist already? We need it!

Unfortunately the rules don't cover Player alignments - only Character alignments.

hifidelity2
2016-01-27, 06:20 AM
I would say NE

I play a Character like this

“The ends Justify the mean”

While he is fighting for Good - to save the world from invasion from another plain – he will use any means necessary to do it

Examples are
Defended a LG church as he knew he would need their help later on
Grabbed a small urchin off the street when he needed to know if it was safe to go down a well (threw the urchin down the well and listened for any munching sounds). The loss of 1 urchin would be insignificant while the loss of someone in the party would be “problematical”
Tortured someone to death to get the required info

goto124
2016-01-27, 06:43 AM
Tortured someone to death to get the required info

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/4d7e1ea0f38c44d7e1ea0f3ca3_5781.gif

Aeradom
2016-01-27, 07:59 AM
I dislike alignment discussions, and more often than not I just leave that part blank... but enough with the disclaimer..

What would you label a character who genuinely fights for good, but also is sadistic or murder happy, doesn't care for collateral damage (including people), trolls NPCs and screws them over needlessly (like dethroning a king just for the lulz), and always destroys the evidence after the party learns what they needed out of it so the proper authorities have a harder time

Sounds like the dreaded troll "excuse to be a douche to the party, chaotic neutral", but do you think a character like this can actually have any depth?

Don't kill me for this, but I've recently been rewatching Star Trek Voyager (yes, I said "rewatching") and this kind of character reminds me of a character from there named Suder (or Suter, I'm not sure which). He was evil in the sense he was a sociapath, and in the words of one of the main characters "Enjoyed killing Cardassians a little too much." In fact, in the show the reason he is brought to the attention of the audience is that he murders someone for "looking at him the wrong way." Now he did join up with a resistance faction, and later Star Fleet, but he just has his own warped perception of reality to do that. To pull off an evil character who "genuinely fights for good", I'd have to think there's be some underlying psychotic issues at play that causes the seeming conflict.

Segev
2016-01-27, 12:32 PM
Given the second description, whether he's CE or CN hinges on this question: Does he weigh the lives and freedoms of those who will be impacted negatively by his actions against the benefits his actions will entail for himself as well as for others, or does he go for the most expedient way to achieve his goals regardless of collateral damage?

(This is assuming we take it as a given that he doesn't get his jollies from deliberately inflicting pain and suffering. If he does, in fact, take pleasure in such things, he's CE.)

tomandtish
2016-01-29, 12:20 AM
Why ?

Being good does not force people to stop others from all evil acts. Being good does mean not doing evil things and not actively promote evil things, but that is all. The good party members are not the boss of the party. They might not like the evil members doing evil things, they might promote others plans, they might refuse to partake in them, but they are not compelled to not let them happen.

But there is evil and evil. Most good people have some line that should not be crossed by party members. Actually people of any alignment have such lines. If the evil deeds don't cros those lines, the group will work, if not, it is a problem. The evil tag is actually not that important. Some would not allow torture to happen, some have a problem with necromancy, some don't accept collateral damage to innocents under any circumstances, but all those are individual principles, not shared by all good people to the same extend.

Also good party does not mean 'fighting for good' and vice versa.


Perform any acts the party doesn't agree on with any regularity and the party won't stick together for long.

Unless everyone is stuck together for some reason. But then the players will feel as if they're forced against actually playing out their characters, and they're just sticking to one another begrudgingly, both IC and OOC.

Doesn't sound healthy.

Unless the group want an unhealthy party because it causes intra-party conflict, and they feel intra-party conflict is fun.

Thank you. This is one thing that always seems to get lost in all the "Paladin ruining the game" discussions. There's all too often a description of behavior that good characters in general shouldn't be tolerating, not just the paladin.

Douche
2016-01-29, 10:00 AM
This week he posed as a dwarven prince as we led an assault on a dwarven mine, to kidnap said dwarven prince. He convinced all the guards at the princes chamber to leave (they'd all convened there after we tripped an alarm) allowing us to have a 1-on-1 fight (well, 4 on 4... he summoned some demons. Our party was 4 people)

He may be a loose cannon, but he gets results!!

Segev
2016-01-29, 10:02 AM
This week he posed as a dwarven prince as we led an assault on a dwarven mine, to kidnap said dwarven prince. He convinced all the guards at the princes chamber to leave (they'd all convened there after we tripped an alarm) allowing us to have a 1-on-1 fight (well, 4 on 4... he summoned some demons. Our party was 4 people)

He may be a loose cannon, but he gets results!!

This isn't particularly strongly aligned by itself; I could find argument for almost any alignment of character to do this "impersonate to kidnap" scheme, depending on the circumstances.