The Evil Party EXCLUSIVE Full Version Free
Marion Loyd
After growing up playing the games many times, I am part way through running my first evil party with Dorn, Korgan, Viconia, Edwin plus Jan for the lols. My main character is a Kensai/Mage who started true neutral but I took a few of the evil paths in Hell at the end of SOA.
An interesting idea I had would be for our group to run into evil versions of themselves and fight them (in a weird dream setting). We are taking a break from our campaign for a few weeks so I thought a nice one-shot would be cool but in a dream like setting so if characters die or something it won't mess up the campaign. We just kinda need some fun, let's fight stuff sessions.
I realize this is more of a fluff question, but how do you guys feel about evil characters wearing Celestial Armor? And would they be able to procure it at a high level in Cheliax? I don't want to railroad my players, it just feels a bit weird for evil characters to wear Angel armor radiating good.
Celestial Armor doesn't cause the wearer to radiate good. Do you mean armor made out of Angelskin?Since angelskin is literally armor made out of an angel that's been harvested for it's skin it seems very much the sort of thing an evil character would wear. Conversely, I imagine good aligned creatures would be horrified to wear something like this. As a result I imagine that anyone who recognizes the armor for what it is would immediately assume that the creature is evil regardless what they might radiate.
It really depends on the circumstances. If the evil character is trying to fool people into thinking he is good it will be no problem and even a good tactic. If the evil character is a member of an openly evil organization it will probably be at least frowned on. As to being able to procure it that is probably going to be a lot harder. While good characters can and do exist in evil societies they are going to be pretty rare, and probably unwilling to cooperate with evil on a regular basis. To me any good character who is working to supply an evil organization with material benefits will not remain good. About the only way that this is going to be available in an evil society is as loot.
Isn't there some Bible quote about evil cloaking itself in righteousness? I'd write more but I find it hard to complete the thought without referencing several real-world political and religious organizations which I'm pretty sure is not allowed (and will ignite a firestorm even if it is). The short version: can you really not think of a real world person or organization that claims to be good, moral, and/or holy (and uses the imagery of such) but does something you personally find reprehensible? Because I definitely can.
Nah, you're fine. I'm not sure what defines something as a good magic item though, if celestial armor counts. I mean the holy enchantment calls out that the item is good aligned and clearly an intelligent item can have a good alignment. These seem inline with the other things detect evil/good picks up.It seems weird that a set of celestial armor would detect as good and a crown of heaven wouldn't. As the latter bestows a negative level on evil creatures and the former doesn't.
Lawful evil societies like Cheliax might approach it a bit differently, but it would really be a legalistic version of the above: using the law to deprive someone of something the complainant wants, or using it as an excuse to hurt the wearer because the two parties have some other dispute.
Detect good would detect celestial armour, but when the caster identifies each source of aura with the full 3 rounds it will be the armour that's the source, not the wearer. It does nothing to stop the wearer detecting as evil.
Or maybe the denizens of that castle are just a bunch of pussys. You steal from a corpse, pervert the purpose the armor was forged for, and you get to defile a symbol of good on top. What about that says "not evil"?"I brutally killed him, stripped the bloodcovered armor from his mangled corpse, while his wife and daughter were watching in horror, then strapped on the armor to mock the grieving widow!"
"You equipped the good guys armor? You're not evil - why, you're practically a saint! Wearing the good armor why you teabagged the corpse, that so un-evil I'm surprised you aren't already sporting a halo!"
"Just because I'm evil doesn't mean I'm uncivilized. My mother raised me never to wear the symbol of something good, that's unappropriate! Sure, my motto is "rip their flesh, burn their hearts, stab them in the eyes, rape their women as they cry; kill their servants, burn their homes, 'till there's no blood left to spill", but I won't do something my mother told me not to. I'm a good Evil boy!"
So, I'm joining a second Pathfinder campaign on sunday, And we are gonna be evil! But.. I dont know what to play.. We have a Dhampir Undead Lord Cleric who will be a undead minion master, A Wyvaran Monk and a Gnoll Ninja. One other player is undecided but is thinking of a Tiefling Bard.. Unchained classes are banned (Dunnos why) And Occult Classes are banned (Cus the GM havent read up on them and dont wanna allow them yet) and Gunslingers are not recomended since guns are super rare..
It looks like ranged combat and arcane magic are your holes in this party. For ranged combat an archery focused ranger or slayer are my standard suggestions. As for the arcane role you've said no wizards, maybe a witch? Some good cliche fodder for evil witches. For race human, elf, and tiefling would be my top witch choices, for an archer hobgoblin, wyvaran, human or tiefling.
I'd go for Antipaladin or another class/archetype that you would only be able to play on an evil campaign. Evil campaigns don't happen so often so I'd go for a concept that I would never be able to explore on an average campaign.
I agree with this recommendation. If you use an option that is available to anyone then, well, it is your actions that are evil. You just have to change one thing on the sheet... your alignment... so that is just so... diet-evil. But if you pick something that you have to be evil for... well, that is commitment! And lets face it, who wants to be the lesser evil? AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) Dave Justus Jun 9, 2017, 01:56 pm Given that mix of characters, I'd probably be looking at something with ranged damage capabilities. There are endless builds for this, and most don't particularly scream evil, but I think an Alchemist (with the Grenadier Archetype, just because I like it) would be pretty awesome. You could really play up the 'mad bomber.'
at the very least, it can be a fine enough line that general inertia could make someone avoid relearning the class. AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) Decimus Drake Jun 9, 2017, 04:50 pm 2 people marked this as a favorite. I'm fond of witches so naturally I suggest playing a witch and getting the cook people hex.I'd go with the advice that you play something with evil restrictions/mechanics that you simply wouldn't get away with playing in a standard game.
I will agree here. I am running an evil table top campaign starting in January 2018. I recommended to my PCs that they explore evil options - including PRCs (I run 3.5 so PRCs are more utilized there than they are in Pathfinder) as they won't have a chance to explore those options for a long time, if ever, again.
Most versions of the game feature a system in which players make two choices for characters. One is the character's views on "law" versus "chaos", the other on "good" versus "evil". The two axes allow for nine alignments in combination.[1][2] Later editions of D&D have shifted away from tying alignment to specific game mechanics; instead, alignment is used as a roleplaying guide and does not need to be rigidly adhered to by the player.[3] According to Ian Livingstone, alignment is "often criticized as being arbitrary and unreal, but... it works if played well and provides a useful structural framework on which not only characters but governments and worlds can be moulded."[1]
The 1977 release of the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set introduced a second axis of good, implying altruism and respect for life, versus evil, implying selfishness and no respect for life. As with the law-versus-chaos axis, a neutral position exists between the extremes. Characters and creatures could be lawful and evil at the same time (such as a tyrant), or chaotic but good (such as Robin Hood).[7]
D&D 3rd Edition, released in 2000, kept the same alignment system.[11] However the Eberron Campaign Setting (2004), released for 3.5 Edition, subverted many of the established D&D tropes including alignment.[12] Evil beings of traditionally good races and good beings of traditionally evil races were encouraged but the alignment definition remained true to D&D standards, with good and evil retaining their meanings. Oppositely aligned characters will side with each other briefly if a threat looms over all.[13][14][15] Keith Baker highlighted that in Eberron "alignment is a spectrum".[15]
D&D 4th Edition, released in 2008, reduced the number of alignments to five: lawful good, good, evil, chaotic evil, and unaligned.[16] In that edition, "good" replaced neutral good and did not encompass chaotic good; "evil" replaced neutral evil and did not encompass lawful evil; "unaligned" replaced true neutral and did not encompass lawful neutral and chaotic neutral.[17] 4th Edition was the start of de-emphasizing alignment in D&D.[3] Wired highlighted that 4th Edition's de-emphasis of "alignment and traditional racial stereotypes", along with other adjustments to the core races, allowed for more "PCs and NPCs with unknown and shifting motives".[18]
A character's alignment can change. If a lawful neutral character consistently performs good acts, when neutral or evil actions were possible, the character's alignment will shift to lawful good. In games, the Dungeon Master (referee) decides when alignment violations occur, as it is subjective and often frowned upon, if not outright disallowed.[27]
dd2b598166