Hey, /tg/, how do I play a Lawful Evil (or, possibly, Neutral Evil), without
a) being a fucking edgelord
b) starting moral debates (i.e. no rape/slavery/child torture/other liberalistic autism triggers)
c) murdering anything and everything
d) fucking up a typical Good/Neutral-oriented plot
e) prompting "oh another Evil kid" reaction
Share some player stories or maybe book/movie characters, something like that. Basically, an adequate and amiable, but totally Evil character. Interesting and non-trivial solutions are most welcome.
Enlightened self interest.
Being an Evil character doesn't mean being a dick. It means looking out for yourself first.
I played a Lawful Evil bard who never had any conflict with the rest of the party. Outwardly, he was a kind and heroic person, always fighting alongside the party for whatever good cause they were currently pursuing. But he always made sure his name was first and foremost in the songs and stories, always made sure that his fame and good reputation was spreading the fastest. After all, it's so easy to fool people when they're already predisposed to trust you.
When I've described him before, people have said 'He doesn't sound evil', but there's one story which encapsulates his personal brand of evil. The party was low on supplies as they crossed a mountain range, and he was scouting ahead. He found, by the path, a crying child and a traders wagon of supplies. The boy told him the horses had started and his father had fallen off the cliff, and begged him for help.
When the party arrived, they were confused but thankful for him finding the abandoned wagon of supplies, which made their journey across the mountains significantly easier.
When they arrived at their destination, he tracked down the wife of the merchant, informed her that they'd found the cart abandoned and that her husband and son were likely dead, and paid her a sum of gold that would keep her well taken care of until the end of her days. To him, it was pocket change, but the story spread like wildfire.
And to clarify, since the last time I described this someone didn't get it, yes. He murdered the merchants son, ensured the old man was dead, and stole all the supplies. And then twisted the tale to make himself a hero for doing so. He was one of my favourite Evil characters to play. Of course it's not the only way, but it's just an example of Evil which isn't disruptive or edgy-stupid.
I once played a Banite ranger whose profession was hunting down escaped slaves with his boar companion. He was pretty much a true believer who would.pen treatsie about how democracy eventually led to the erosion of social and moral values and how top down absolute authority was inherent to humanities social nature. He believes in the future, when Bane was the lord of all Gods, the world would be at peace and there would be no want. Subsequently there would be no need for ruthless, sometimes cruel men like himself. He would make a paradise that would have no need or place for him, and then fade into oblivion
Play in a game without alignments because alignments are a retarded concept that don't work when you play actual characters with depth and complexities instead of cardboard cutouts.
Alignments are the worst thing to come out of DnD and need to be abolished entirely.
>Being an Evil character doesn't mean being a dick. It means looking out for yourself first.
This souns more chaotic neutral or even true neutral to me.
I say evil means being a dick but not necessarily an irrational dick.
being a dick has nothing to do with alignment.
take Order of the Stick for instance. Malak was totally Evil, but not a dick in the slightest. Miko was a so much a Lawful Good Paladin other paladins hated her, and she was the biggest dick in the entire webcomic.
In their most simple forms, D&D Good is selflessness, D&D Evil is selfishness, D&D Chaos is freedom To, D&D Law is freedom From.
Every setting and system has its own baggage and nuance that might vary this up, but fundamentally that's where the axes lie.
Basically what you're asking in your opening post is "How do I make an evil character who's not really evil?"
I feel like what you're looking for is something more akin to Magneto from Xmen. Someone who's not really evil so much as they just hold viewpoints that society doesn't agree with, even if those viewpoints might arguably be right. The whole kind of "ends justify the means" mentality or the "I'm fighting for MY people and fuck everyone else" mentality. Both are completely valid and interesting character ideas.
The problem with "evil" characters in the classical sense is that nobody acts evil purely for the sake of being evil, unless they're mentally unstable somehow, and then you just get shit-tier LOL RANDUMB villains like The Joker or power-hungry assholes who really have no motivation beyond a power/sadism fetish.
Pic not 100% accurate, but it gets the idea across.
She fell because a she discovered that a whole cult of Paladins was actually a group of impostors and lied to her.
Out of desperation she strucked down the leader who was despite no Paladin still good per se.
Well, you're both right and wrong. It should go something like this:
I am willing to sacrifice myself for the sake of others.
I am willing to sacrifice others for the sake of myself.
I am not willing to sacrifice myself for the sake of others, nor others for the sake of myself.
If you're concerned with making a character that's blatantly evil, and yet someone the party could work with / wouldn't get found, you should maybe think of using the show Dexter for inspiration or something: Someone who just doesn't care for other people or understand them, but works hard to make other people think he's like them and that he's likeable, perhaps to the point where none of the party members had even the notion that he was bad.
At the very least this avoids all your listed problems, but if you have a CLEAVE AND SMITE ALL THE THINGS ON SIGHT paladin this might get a little difficult.
I don't quite see how rape/slavery/child torture would start moral debates when the perpetrator has EVIL as one of his defining traits. Are there people who think that only someone who isn't evil would ever rape/enslave/torture?
The ends completely justify the means. You arent chaotic you are Lawful, meaning you desire Order.
So pretty much just unabashedly intriguing or outright killing your way to whatever goal you desire. Just dont be lolrandumb about it. Have a goal, design a plan that isnt held back by morality, follow it.
Depends what you define as 'others' though. I think it's perfectly in character for an Evil person to sacrifice themselves for friends/family but not necessarily for people they don't know. In fact I can generally imagine Evil aligned people (to a certain extent of course) being the good friendship material. The Lawful Good paladin is your bro, right up until he has to make a choice between you and 100 innocent villagers. Sorry my friend but I'm sure you'll understand that your sacrifice was for the greater good. The Evil aligned person however wouldn't even hesitate to choose saving you over the villagers.
many people just don't want to see such things at their table (except as a background event of a type "villain did it"). it just leaves bad taste in the mouth for some when they have to face it.
Generally the rest of the party is going to be abhorred by knowing the character is doing these things if they're even halfway decent people.
Well... maybe not slavery, depending on the setting. In alot of the ancient world, slavery was a perfectly normal and acceptable social practice. (Not all slavery means the American style of "GET BACK IN THE COTTEN FIELD N*****!" Often times, ancient societies allowed slavery to be practiced on their own citizens, and sometimes slaves were actually taken care of and treated quite well, to the point where it offered more security and comfort than being a free-man.)
Alignments were only supposed to be guidelines, with spells/abilities that tapped into the core of such concepts that are almost elemental in nature. Even acts that pc's would find reprehensible weren't purly any alignment. As concepts that are present in all intelligent species, as the elements are present in all matter and energy, beings with an alignment are pulled in the direction and are more closely tied to those intellectual cosmic forces, they can be negatively effected by their opposite alignments. They are like elemental energies, but unlike them as well.
I once played a LE cleric of Zarus in a party of elves, goliaths and dwarves. No one knew for some damn reason, maybe they weren't paying attention when i would only cast spells on humans rather than resorting to wands for humanoids. I had sponsored an orphanage to indoctrinated youths to believe in their human superiority and went full fuck yeah humanity. I kept the party in good health and took my fair share because they were meat shields for me. Usually tired to take the high road when dealing with baddies to set an example and played the heroic character all the while letting my party know that people were inherently better.
>If you do stuff for personal gain that hurts others but are co-operative and not actively evil you are chaotic neutral
What makes that bard chaotic? Why does everyone treat CN as THE alignment for "I am selfish and do stuff that benefits me as a first priority, but am willing to help my party members even when it may not benefit me as long as it doesn't hinder me and I won't exploit people unless the situation just presents itself to me"-attitude? TN characters are much more suited for that kind of mentality.
Well, my current monk is like that. He's a neutral evil trained assassin. He kill what the good party tell him to kill without second thougt.
He doesn't do it because he like it, he doesn't do it because blood make him hard, he do it just because it's what he do best and they are his friends.
He's generally very nice with people, hang out in tavern and whorehouse and is well liked.
But he just doesn't care about anyone but him and his friends. If he has to kill one thousand babies to make his friend smile, he will do it without remorse.
>The Evil aligned person however wouldn't even hesitate to choose saving you over the villagers.
This is the kind of Lawful Evil I play.
I wrote something up, apparently two damn years ago, for an OP that wanted ideas for a happily married Evil Overlord BBEG.
I'll post it here as it seems relevant.
Start with your basic fantasy storyline, but skip to the end.
>Aging, noble, and wise king has found an heir in a young hero who saved his eldest daughter, and the kingdom, from the evil manipulations of the former vizier.
>The young betrothed couple remain in love as they go on adventures saving the kingdom from various threats.
>But who will now serve as vizier?
>A young, handsome, and bright noble steps up to humbly serve, and is very good at his position.
>And what of the king’s younger daughter? She is free to court as she chooses, but somewhat resents her older sister’s permanent position over her.
>The new vizier runs the daily business of the country while the king-to-be continues to have brave adventures, proving his worth as a champion, but never learning anything about how to run a kingdom, and the older princess is only a little better. The vizier grows worried about his future having serve such fools.
>The vizier’s continued efforts to increase the law and security of the kingdom are always thwarted by the Princess’s consort’s “ethical” concerns, citing that measures that could prevent crime and disasters are not needed as HE is always there to stop the crime and disasters.
>The vizier remains loyal on the surface, but endlessly seeks a way out of his fate to powerlessly clean up after this fool.
A) Not evil per se. Nor lawful.
B) That's the fun part.
C) Not lawful.
D) Even the character of your picture don't do that.
E) What is a lack of subtlety, for 500!
Seriously, you can say whatever you want about OotS, Tarquin is a pretty good example of Lawful Evil. Have overall good goals but accept moral shortcuts to said goals.
Pledge your loyalty to a good character and you won't fuck up their plot. You'll only bring a different point of view.
Don't make it about you, or your feelings. Make sure you point out that individual desires are not important, and that one needs to break some eggs to make the giant omelet that will feed the poor.
Noble goals, unwavering loyalty, willingness to obey rules and laws and never bother with the moral side of things. They're beneath you.
Aim for cosmic evil. Wanton murder and thievery is petulant and maybe fit for a marauding band of Orcs, but not for you. Your evil is existential. It's becoming a god and ruling the world with an iron fist. It's devouring a sun. It's altering the very fabric of reality to suit your whims.
An important part of this type of character is the high-stakes end goal and relatively weak starting position. A level 1 character with such grandiose goals is never going to succeed. And that's why you make friends and allies, gather power and keep up appearances.
Maybe once or twice when shit hits the fan, you let others see the monster behind the mask, but cover it up so quickly that they never think about it again.
In other words, be the BBEG: the Origin Story.
>The only light in his days of service are the family lunches. More often than not, the Fool and his Princess are absent, off adventuring, usually defeating but failing to kill a local necromancer. These lunches allow him to enjoy the pleasant company of the kind (if somewhat naïve) King and his younger, more charming daughter.
>One day, an opportunity arises after the incredibly gifted, but madly arrogant necromancer once again fails in an attack on the city. While being held hostage, a few choice words plant the seeds in the madman’s fevered mind to attack the Baron of the neighboring allied nation.
>The attack badly wounds the leader, and the vizier suggests a royal convoy to aid their ally. The young Princess leads the reconstruction efforts after the necromancer’s attack, proving her worth and winning the hearts of both the neighboring barony and the ailing baron himself.
>The Baron asks for the princess’s hand in marriage, and the wise King reluctantly accepts, knowing that his daughter’s heart truly yearns for the vizier.
>The young princess marries the Baron, accepting that the people of the Barony need her strength.
>Unfortunately, after despite the vizier ensuring the King send the "finest" healers, the Baron dies.
>The young Baroness is "understandably distraught," and needs help running the barony, and asks for her father to send the vizier to aid her, after all, her older sister and her consort should be able to manage the kingdom, right?
You may disagree on some villains' ranking, but you're still making a shit tier villain. Try giving good reason for being evil AND collaborating against other evils.
OP's picture got a slightly better villain. He helps PCs as he cannot rule on a world that is destroyed. He wants to be part of a legend. He wants a form of stability by controlling nations at war.
>The vizier becomes Chief Advisor and Warlord to the Barony. His decisive actions quickly lead to the capture and “rehabilitation” of the necromancer, who now practices his dark art under close scrutiny of mages loyal to the Baroness.
>Aided by new, undead forces, the Chief Warlord finally defeats the rampaging ogres on their far border, but rather than kill them, he unifies the tribes under his chosen ogre, a powerful, yet clever man-beast who is now one of his Lieutenants.
>The victorious warlord is given the highest honor he could ever hope to receive, the hand of the woman he has loved for many years. He donned the sacred, ceremonial black spiked armor worn since ancient times by the Barons of this land.
>He has become a Baron of a fine land, enjoys the love of a beautiful, wickedly clever woman, and can finally put into action the brilliant plans he has held onto to establish order on this lawless, magic torn land.
>The streets are safe in the Barony. No law-abiding citizen need fear any bandit or monster.
>The only ones who need fear are their enemies upon their two remaining borders. He has terrifying plans for those that threaten the flourishing of his people, his land, and his legacy.
>But, his ally, the old kingdom never needs to fear. He would never seek battle with them, just as he would never have risen to power by harming the father of his darling wife.
>Sure, he fantasizes about the day when he finally can crush that fool Prince, but the kind, old King cares for the fool. And his sister in law has never done slight against him. So he waits for the naïve old King to pass and the perfect opportunity to arise.
>For now, he takes joy in the fact that the Barony’s celebration over the birth of his son and heir dwarfed the pitiful wedding of the Fool Prince and Princess.
In D&D or similar fantasy, all villains don't need complex, heart-wrenching backstories and motivations. Sometimes there's just a man who decides he wants to rule everything, live forever and take what he wants and doesn't care how miserable it makes everyone else.
A personality and character is arguably more important than motivations. For example; pic related.
The "lawful" part of this isn't really the issue, it's playing Evil with a-e averted.
The key is to being an evil PC that works in a non-edgelord game is to be selfish and petty. You're the first one to ask "Why should I?" and the last one to object to a course of action that solves the problem at great cost to other people. Being lawful evil in particular indicates a willingness to work in or for society's rules, because having some order is a valuable thing. For point d, it helps that a typical good/neutral plot will often involve saving the world (or the PCs' portion of it), and the world is generally where the evil PC keeps his stuff and is thus worth saving to said PC
The evil character doesn't shy away from doing evil things if it's useful to do so, and most of them are mundane humans and thus have limits to what they'll go out of their way to do. A neutral party might and a good party would try to find another option if human sacrifice was able to solve their woes, the evil character would probably do it, because it gets shit done. It can be an interesting evil to work constantly for a warped perspective of "the greater good" which means "MY greater good".
Basil Wenceslas is a decent example of this at least in the first few books of the Saga of the Seven Suns (before his perspective goes from 'warped' to 'delusional') -- he's an effective manager who wants 'the best' for humanity, but he defines humanity as the people who are under his government, and increasingly just the subset closest to him. He doesn't hesitate to have people assassinated just to clean up potential future loose ends, and he moves to coercion essentially immediately if asking/ordering for what he wants doesn't take. He starts out polite and cultured but piss him off and there's nothing he wouldn't stoop to.
I actually disagree with >>45085491
because I'm fucking tired of villains with sobstories, all that "i'm so misanderstood" teenager angst and cliched dramatic shit like that. I'd totally prefer a realistic villain who wants to conquer the world with sword and fire because ruling the world is fucking fun and cool, and not because he was bullied in high school.
any villain an angsty schoolboy can relate to is shit.
>Tarquin is a pretty good example of Lawful Evil.
This is a good point.
Aside from his obsession with "narrative" which was appropriate for OotS but not a serious game.
But your nonsense with the lettered points was just foolish.
The best way to play an evil character without turning your party into a non-stop shit show is to have goals that are more important than your adventure, and a reason to fear some higher authority.
Goals allow you to go along with all the good guy shit and justify it. It's totally worth not stabbing party members and raping people when your plan is to locate an ancient artifact and dominate the hearts and minds of men.
Fear gives you a reason to really dial down the asshole factor. Your character needs to be firmly of the belief that if he fucks around and draws the law's/god's/that ancient tribe of wendigo's attention he will get his shit pushed in.
Generally speaking, in these kinds of philosophical debates, friends and family should be considered an extension of the self. A good character would likely be willing to sacrifice his own well being for people he care about, but what characterizes him as good is the fact that he's willing to do it for strangers. A neutral, or even an evil, caharcter would likely also be willing to give up some of his personal well being to save a friend in need. After all, if Bob makes me happy then it's in my self interest to keep Bob around and alive.
That said, an evil character still looks out for himself first. If it turns out that a close friend is likely to betray him in the future or pose a threat to his ascent to power then an evil character would likely have much less scruples about getting rid of them, even if they would feel bad about doing it.
My last 3 pcs were solidly evil.
IMO the most important thing is to think about your characters relationships (whether to other characters, people, religions, nations) and motivations. Give them motivations and relationships that a good character could understand or even share.
Played in two campaigns with an 'ends justify the means', 'for the greater good' 'us vs them' knight fighting in the Great War. Charismatic, chivalrous, courageous and generally nice guy. Beloved by the men who served under him. But would (and did) do anything necessary to protect his men. Committed brutal war crimes and atrocities against enemy soldiers and civilians, and by the end, even rebel sections of his own nation. In the beginning only when it was necessary to secure victory ... but after the long grueling campaign of total war simply because 'they deserved it'.
His second campaign was set years later with him as a decorated hero, still evil but in a party of young, good and (in his opinion) naive characters. We worked together because everyone had the same goal (save the princess; save the world). He saw himself as having the duty not only to protect the lives of the rest of the party, but also to protect their innocence. To protect them from having to make the hard decisions. So when when it became 'necessary' to torture or 'send a message', he made sure the rest of the party had no idea what he was doing for them. Tbh he didn't commit all that many evil acts in the second campaign but I don't think not being evil because the opportunity hasn't come up makes you good.
The next character was an ex-gladiator raised from birth in the televised fighting circuit. Grew up in an environment where blood and violence was the norm so he saw no reason not to. lets say, murder the small child for her ID. But the rest of the party didn't like it, and he liked them, so he held back.
Then there was a dark heresy preacher. I guess evil doesn't really count there.
yeah, I have a goal in mind, but I want to PLAY evil character during the game, not just "muhaha, I was evil all along!" in the epilogue
epilogue (as well as any distant greater goal, unless the campaign really concludes with becoming gods) is not important. the process does.
I dunno why everyone jumps straight to edgelord stuff like rape/slavery/killing everyone they meet when they think of evil characters when most adventurers can be recast as evil with a few tweaks. Things most PCs are willing to do without much deliberation to always evil races become evil when applied to people of other alignments. Just stop making moral distinctions between good races and evil races - both in terms of who you take jobs from and who you enact them upon - and you're already half way there.
Try to adopt a philosophy of pragmatic opportunism. Every action is a tool in the tool box, regardless of how immoral, but don't take any action just for the sake of it being evil. Orient yourself to the most direct route of problem solving that causes the fewest long term problems. Rape, for instance, is something you should never have reason to do, because it never provides any long term benefits that cannot be obtained through other methods that causs less PR problems.
Deception, thievery, and murder are going to be useful tools but not always appropriate to the situation. In each case, weigh the reward for a successfully executed misdeed against the potential costs for being caught. Murdering a lawful good priest because he's guarding an incredibly powerful magic item you want is evil, murdering one for pocket change or pride is stupid. And even in the above case, it may be that there's an easier solution than murder - perhaps you can lie or steal, which may be more practical if the priest is powerful. In fact, if the priest is TOO powerful, it may be better to deal with him fairly. The same applies if the priest is evil, for that matter. Remember that alignment distinctions are of little consequence to a pragmatically evil character.
Corrupt corporate executive is a good standby for LE. Someone who obeys the letter of the rules, but twists around their spirit to get what they want - and gleefully traps people in any deal they've made with him.
Alignment isn't pigeon-holing yourself into a strict set of behavior, it is supposed to represent your characters motives. I'm playing a LE character currently, who often gets roped into sympathizing with people and trying to help people in need. All the while he's on the path to be Realpolitik, the character.
>I dunno why everyone jumps straight to edgelord stuff like rape/slavery/killing everyone they meet when they think of evil characters when most adventurers can be recast as evil with a few tweaks.
because the talk is about "Evil" character, not "evil". capital E.
Ozymandias is evil in the traditional sense because he murdered likely tens of millions of people, but he did it so that the US and USSR would stop having a pissing match over nukes, so he's thoroughly evil, for the greater good
I agree though, sob story villians are shit, but 'Evil Good' villains are based as fuck, especially if it's a "I'm taking over the world because I want a better future" kind of villain
Be the guy willing to do what needs to be done. If there's a situation where murder, theft, blackmail, and the like will make a situation far more expedient than cooperating, you're the one who does it. If a villain is demanding a fair trial, you tell him it's a trial by ordeal and slit his throat. If the party needs a little more money, you cheat someone out of their savings or rob them blind.
Basically, pretend nobody else in the world matters except yourself and the people you care about, then be pragmatic.
My idea is a man who grew up in a lawless slum. Seeing the people he knew suffer and killed by the rampant scum in the streets he swore himself to an idea. "Order at any cost". While not one who would kill or hurt senselessly he will do whatever it takes to maintain law and stability so in his own understanding no good people would suffer like those in his hometown. His evil acts revolve around maintaining order and safety but often cause much and possibly more pain than the acts he stops. In the pursuit of order many are executed wrongly, the population lives in constant fear of the government, and war is waged constantly in the belief that only the character can bring order to the world.
This post is a great example of ones I see about LE, and similar to others in the thread.
It is very common to see LE characters as intelligent manipulators.
How would you play a Lawful Evil character who used INT as a dump stat?
Hardmode: They are not a Blackguard of a LE religion or otherwise just a minion of an LE organization and is just following orders.
pic unrelated to my post, but relevant to the thread
You would've been wrong too.
Fortunately the system doesn't actually hold you to your alignment unless you're a cleric or something. So yeah you can get away with pussying out and playing a LE character as a N one.
The worst is when people try to play clever and make the traditional villain out to be not so bad but simply end up reversing the situation so that the traditional bad guys are just as justified in killing the traditional good guys as in any other story. It's not clever commentary if you just have the teams switch jerseys.
Why do people always mix neutral and evil?
The whole point of being evil is having a lack of morality or ethics, not just some of it some of the time with some of the people. Fuck that gay ass two dicks gettin hard on each other shit, if you were evil then you were only friends with that LG faggot until you don't need him anymore. You want mercy friend? Here. A swift death, you'll even do it before he watches 100 innocent villagers burn
They should make a new alignment for these characters, "Bitch Evil".
Just calling yourself evil for the sake out of it without actually following through with it.
Played in a kingmaker-like game where I was a Black Knight kind of warrior general. I considered him Lawful Evil, the same as our monarch. The kind of knight that will behead a baby if tasked to do so, because his duty is to his lord or lady, not to his personal conscience. At a feast, the daughter of a noteworthy duke was being openly critical of the queen and some of the alleged atrocities committed by her, and the kingdom.
I tried to explain, calmly, that in the grand scheme of things the greater good was being served. And being objective and OOC this evil dragon-in-disguise that was now ruling the kingdom was a better ruler than the last two hundred years of legitimate human royals and the overall level of happiness and prosperity of the people was at least double what it had ever been, AND she had put an end to a bloody and pointless war.
She wouldn't have any of it, though. "B-b-but muh peasant's feelings." I advised her to keep these notions to herself, lest she draw the attentions of the Queen. She continued on defiantly throughout the feast, at some point catching the Queen's ear. The Queen had the party's rogue, her royal assassin, poison the girl's next drink. She was standing right in front of me when it began to take hold, dropping her goblet, clawing at her throat, gasping for air with one hand and my knight's sash with the other.
I just watched, stone-faced, sipping from my wine, as her father and mother cried out for help, trying to console her as she died.
For the greater good.
No they're not, they're fuckin stupid.
They're just like any other motherfucker who wants to rule the world. Ozymandis was a faggot and the other Watchmen were even bigger faggots for being limp dick shits that cant even do anything. Even the blue bitch that was literally god.
All alignments in D&D are capital. A petty thief is no more or less evil than a genocidal warlord, and OP said nothing about wanting to be maximum over evil (which is retarded for a PC to do).
It's harder, because I assume you want to stray from using deception and such (which is the reason I tend to default to playing morally dubious characters, really). But provided you're still talking about a character who's smart enough to realize who he can afford to piss off and who he can't, it can still be done. Take the idea of the brutish enforcer thug, now take away the boss. He's only looking out for number one. What does do? Clearly he's not afraid to kill and steal to get what he wants, and maybe he's not afraid to make that clear to people. But that doesn't mean he can't recognize the value of an asset that isn't straight gold and whores - like, say, a party of similarly superhuman adventures, whose power he can leverage (with or without their knowledge) to be the toughest sonuvabitch in his domain. He can recognize that's a good investment even he doesn't give a shit morally about what they're doing. If it means he can turn around and call in some favors when he needs to fuck up his rivals (who are probably evil too, it's worth noting), then by all means, let's go kill some orks.
The key here is to remember that a favor can be as valuable as money if the right people (your party members) owe you. This does require your fellow players to be willing to play along, of course, but what doesn't?
Someone up thread mention fear as an effective way to restrain evil PC action and I concur. Cowardice can be useful for you as a player in a way that it isn't for a normal PC.
gaaaaaaaaaaaaaay as fuck.
>Bitch talkin shit about your lord
>"M-muh greater good I'm evil durr"
>"Imma sit her and sip wine while the rogue actually gets shit done properly furrr..."
Well, killing for reasons beyond "they were in my way" and "I think it's hilarious when they're rolling around on the floor screaming and clutching the stump of the limb I just severed" when you do kill people, for starters.
>Calls sob stories immature
>Thinks "LOL RANDUMB IT'S SO COOL TO BE EVEIL" is actually better.
>Rape, for instance, is something you should never have reason to do, because it never provides any long term benefits that cannot be obtained through other methods that causs less PR problems.
it's is not "can I do this in a better way" but "Can I do this thing and not suffer for it"
So say raping a captive you are going to kill anyway won't hurt you.
Heck raping the milk maid won't be an issue for any mid lvl and up pc's because of the vast power differance, not just in character power but influance. You arn't going to jail the semi-powerfull mage over a rape when the orc hord is comming.
This also gives the DM and players more spice as they will be tampted to thing that they think are things they can get away with.
such as raping the daughter of the powerfull mage baron.
>Fuck that gay ass two dicks gettin hard on each other shit, if you were evil then you were only friends with that LG faggot until you don't need him anymore. You want mercy friend? Here. A swift death, you'll even do it before he watches 100 innocent villagers burn
Way to take being evil back to being a retarded edgelord.
Arguably friendship is something enjoyable and it's something that an evil character may actually enjoy. As long as that companionship remains enjoyable to them, they'll continue being a friend to whoever they derive enjoyment from. Evil characters aren't innately incapable of love and friendship (these are 'enjoyable' emotions that someone who is evil is just as prone to as someone who is good) and the thing they lust after isn't necessarily power.
The point is to avoid making other players uncomfortable. Regardless of how much 4chan has influenced your perceptions, you should at least be socially competent enough to know that isn't a topic for polite conversation.
This assuming you're playing with a group of relatively normal people (who tend to care about this sort of thing) or a group of people you maybe don't know so well. If you've spoken to your group about it and they don't give a shit, feel free.
- Rules as written take priority over rules as intended when it suits you.
- Uphold the law (when people are looking).
- Have a code of honor to keep your discipline in check.
- If someone wrongs you, destroy them without laying a single hand on them.
I think a good examble would be nazi officers. They were cruel as beasts when the third reich laws allowed or demanded it but with their nazi german friends and family were even good and loving
Even if the phrase is "the good guys defeated the nazi bad guys"?
However I wanted to show a "real life villain" because real life imho has more "badder" (I know that as word it doesn't exist) guys than fantasy settings
I thought about the book "Eichmann in Jerusalem", or as I knew it "the banality of evil"
LG-Non-corrupt cop who follows rules to a fault
NG-Your average cop
CG-Romanticized Robin Hood type
N-Hermit who lives in a hut
NE-Illegal Gun-For-Hire who does anything "for a price"
CE-Sociopathic psychopath or a psychopathic sociopath
>N-Hermit who lives in a hut
what's with this misconception, that True Neutral is reserved for animals and the like? TN is no passivety, it's the most sophisticated alignment - an equal interveawing of all 4 axi.
I can...sort of agree. Sometimes you want evil just for batshit evil.
I mean, look at Richard Hawk. Adding some sort of "THIS IS WHY I'M EVIILLL" shit would ruin him.
However, at the same time, you are a total cunt.
I'd say play a merc who enjoys his work. You're in it for the cash, so you have good reason to stick around in a good/neutral plot, and your contract may or may not preclude engaging in autism-triggering activities, so you can avoid that. Meanwhile, you get to enjoy slaughtering your enemies in horrible ways, because hey, you're fighting evil, it's okay.
I'm playing a Lawful Evil character in an Evil Pathfinder campaign.
He was a lowborn that was raised up into popularity by the nobility under the claims that he was the prophecized Chosen One, and used as a her of the people type figure to rally others to the causes of the upper caste. At one point, they wanted a war with a foreign nation, but knew it wouldn't gain the support of many, so they sent my character and a small contingent of soldiers there as an alleged "diplomatic envoy," who were then defeated by the nation out of fear of invasion; the nobility planned to use him as a martyr to gain support.
On the cusp of death, he was approached by a dark deity who told him the truth of his upbringing and how he had been manipulated all his life, and was promised a new life if he pledged his support to the deity. He agreed, and now seeks to spread the word of his new god, and to take control of the world under his own banner, believing that only he (the character) is trustworthy enough to rule it.
He doesn't kill without reason and seeks to establish extreme order on the world, to ensure that everyone is "safe," Of course, his campaign is largely hypocritical in many ways, unintentionally, but his end goal is complete order, and has already established an empire where nearly everyone has a mental link to him, Lich King-style.
>The whole point of being evil is having a lack of morality or ethics, not just some of it some of the time with some of the people.
>not just some of it some of the time with some of the people.
>If someone is evil, then they are all evil, all the time, no exceptions.
Do they brush their teeth in an evil manner?
Yeah, I am laughing at you, so thanks for that.
Even Hitler was good with his dogs.
I have always liked villains that had real emotional connections to people, like the mummy in the Mummy Returns.
100% able to gleefully slaughter thousands, but was still genuinely in love with a woman.
Well, see, there's different kinds of "I don't care" - which is what N really is
>"I don't care because the world is banal and I wish to purify myself of it" - hermits and aescetics
>"I don't care because I'm not sapient" - wild animals
>"I don't care because it's not my problem" - apathetic bystanders
>"I don't care because I don't have hope anymore" - the depressed
>"I don't care because I'm constantly drugged" - junkies
And so on.
>>TN is essentially "I don't care"
I like this.
Listen to this anon
N isn't "I don't care"
of course, it can represent that, but it can also represent complex pattern of G, E, L and C.
I mean, look at grey color. you can represent it with flat grey, or with a multitude of black and white dots, which look grey together from a distance.
Military man whose philosophy when it comes to military strategy is "win at absolutely any cost".
He's not a sadist who will murder and steal for fun. He's just so devoted to his job as a soldier that collateral damage/civilian casualties mean nothing to him if it will help him win. His troops are expendable in the name of success; he would order a thousand men to their certain deaths if it meant a guaranteed victory.
Yes. Chaotic boils down to not liking rules and laws, which for an evil character can mean utter dickery and randomly killing people, but CE characters don't have to be stupid and randomly being a dick is stupid. CE character wouldn't have problems about betraying promises and such, because to them agreements and prmoses are just words and worth nothing by themselves, but that doesn't mean they can't have friends or only have to think about short term gain.
One pretty good example of a canonically CE character I can think of is Bishop from Neverwinter Nights 2. He believes all people, including himself are pretty much animals that would be immediately at each others throats if society didn't force people to at least try to be civil, and he also has a serious problem with authority, hating to be ordered around by anybody, though he still follows orders if it's the smart thing to do. He comes across as a rude asshole who only really cares about staying alive, but not a pointlessly dickish one or an idiot.
...Well, at least untill
he betrays the PC and sides with the BBEG and his undead army when he feels you have no hope of winning and he doesn't want to die a pointless death. You can persuade him from sitting out the final battle, though, by pointing out his actions would turn him into a puppet of the BBEG and he hates serving anybody.
>Military man whose philosophy when it comes to military strategy is "win at absolutely any cost".
Apocalypse Now comes to mind.
Pic related is how I Chaotic Evil without descending into asshole behavior.
My half-orc could betray the group, but isn't smart enough to work out how to do it safely and come out ahead.
If his party wasn't strong enough to kick his ass, then he wouldn't bother working with the weaklings.
LG - The cop that gives you a warning when they see you've had a pretty rough day.
LN - Non-corrupt cop who follows rules to a fault.
N - Average citizen
CN - Anyone who values an individual's worth before his societal status.
LE - The cop who thoroughly enjoys the power he's given without stepping out of RAW.
CE - Your average kindergarten children.
Griffith always strove to up his own status. While looking for ways to nobility, he saw some even higher position as demon lord. As his hopes to get into regular nobility were squashed, he took the back-up plan.
He's a warning against solid, impenetrable casts. The more you need to trade away for nobility status, the more dangerous the person that achieves it becomes. Not evil for the sake of evil.
In fairness, "would order a thousand men to certain death to accomplish the mission" is pretty much one of the basic requirements for any real military field commander.
Troop welfare should always be the SECOND most important thing to any military leader. First is mission accomplishment.
I have a villain prepared for my party whose motivation boils down to 'I'm in it for me and mine, and the rest of you can burn in every hell imaginable for all I care'.
That's his Lawful code, his evil comes from his willingness to eat babies if that's what it takes to land himself a sweet spot in what's basically Evil Valhalla with all his best friends.
Exactly. A bard who plays by the rules most of the time and doesn't actively seek opportunities where CE characters often find themselves in, but will certainly not let such opportunity go to waste if it presents itself to him is not CN. CNs, despite being chaotic, often plan ahead to betray nonhostile NPCs (or even other PCs, but that's just being a that guy) who they might be first "allied" to, so when the time comes they appear to switch sides on a whim.
>Because chaotic means being more reluctant to subordinate yourself into society with stable rules.
This is the essence of being chaotic. Not being the lol so randumb idiot many people think it is, but this. The randomness of the CNs isn't really randomness, but it looks that way for other alignments. The true "I don't give a fuck"- alignment is TN.
>LG - The cop that gives you a warning when they see you've had a pretty rough day.
there's no exception in the law for a rough day. NG cop just gives you a warning. LG cop punishes you, but feels kinda bad about it and says nice things to you to make you feel better
>Depends what you define as 'others' though. I think it's perfectly in character for an Evil person to sacrifice themselves for friends/family but not necessarily for people they don't know.
There are different degrees of evil/good. A totally evil person is 100% committed to themselves but that makes for a shit character; it isn't realistic. Many of the best villains are those who have a group of people they are fighting for; Magneto fights for Mutants, Khan fights for Augments, Hitler fought for Germans, etc. What makes them evil is the fact that they are willing to sacrifice OTHER people to make way for THEIR people.
The world consists of the strong and the weak.
It is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. We need weaklings, to do things like farm the fields, make the weapons, and carve the statues.
But it is also the duty of the weak to serve the strong. They should never forget that they farm to feed us, that they make the weapons for us, and that we are depicted in the statues they carve.
This is the basis of all law. All crime is based on violating this order.
This seems like a very reasonable way for evil people to behave. All evil, all the time, to everyone, no matter what. Must lead to great, three dimensional characters.
>Pic not 100% accurate
It's actually 0% accurate
>judges a villain SOLELY on the motive
>thinks villains can only have single motives
>arbitrarily decides a tier without any arguments as to why they are in that order
>doesn't even get the examples right
Whoever made the list is an ass-wipe, and so is everyone who constantly posts this shit (except you, I guess)
I fucking hate that list so much goddamnit. Why does it get posted so fucking frequently.