Pathfinder 1E Evil Character Questions.

[N'raac]

A key question anyone should ask in designing a character is "what's wrong with this character?" Flaws and drawbacks make characters interesting, not just cardboard combat stats.

The immediate followup question should be "why would others want this character around?" That is, what does he bring to the table that overshadows his flaws.

If you can answer the first, but not the second, save this solo villain for a game you GM.

 

[Hereticus]

That is, what does he bring to the table that overshadows his flaws.

He can kill things, which will enable the party to loot more treasure.

 

[delericho]

He can kill things, which will enable the party to loot more treasure.

So can every PC. Being able to kill things is pretty much the minimum standard required to even be a D&D PC. Why should the group accept this PC, with all his many flaws, rather than some other guy who can kill just as efficiently but without the hassle?

 

[N'raac]

I echo delricho. This is a real world issue all the time - great sports players that can't work with the team get traded. Skilled workers who can't work as part of the team or are a poor fit for the organization get fired. There are plenty of other adventurers out there - a PC has to have positives that outweigh his negatives, or there is no reason for the other PC's to work with him.

I don't run a lot of characters whose goals are limited to "slay, pillage and loot", so "I am really good at killing" isn't a selling feature. In fact, it typically seems the antagonists in most adventures are quite good at killing, and we don't tend to recruit, or sign on with, them either.

Of course, the other characters may well be focused on "slay, loot, pillage and become rich and powerful" alone. In that case, your character might fit right in. And if not, I'm sure he's worth a few xp and is carrying some useful loot

 

[Hereticus]

So can every PC. Being able to kill things is pretty much the minimum standard required to even be a D&D PC. Why should the group accept this PC, with all his many flaws, rather than some other guy who can kill just as efficiently but without the hassle?

Not true, not every character is effective in getting the job done.

As a player (metagaming), at a minimum I hope for three things in other players' characters:
- Will they be an interesting addition to the group?
- Will the player cooperate with the group?
- Will that character contribute to the party's effectiveness, so they don't just take up a treasure share and time at the table?

It's hard to completely separate my perspective as a player and that of my character. I do not like to play good characters; most are either lawful or chaotic neutral, do do play some evil characters. I really don't mind having an efficient evil character at my side, as long as they are not a monster that puts the party in danger. What I do despise are the good characters who tell me what I can't do.

 

[Hereticus]

Here is an example of a character that stunk up the field.

We knew that our party was short on front line damage dealers, so player X was going to create a ranger. It sounded good until he showed up with a gnome dog rider. The inept thing did 1d3 of damage and was completely useless in battle. The wizard and sorcerer were more effective combatants. Everyone in the group would have much preferred a CE half orc anti-paladin.

 

[delericho]

Not true, not every character is effective in getting the job done.

'Effective' is a relative term. I said they could kill things - and the way the classes in D&D/PF are constructed, in order to be unable to do that you have to deliberately sabotage your character.

 

[Hereticus]

'Effective' is a relative term. I said they could kill things - and the way the classes in D&D/PF are constructed, in order to be unable to do that you have to deliberately sabotage your character.

Not completely correct.

Some players are very capable of building an effective character, but choose to try out a concept that just doesn't work (see above dog rider comment).

Other players, no matter how they try, just can't create an effective character.

None of the above to cases involve "sabotage", yet they are ineffective.

 

[delericho]

Not completely correct.

Some players are very capable of building an effective character, but choose to try out a concept that just doesn't work (see above dog rider comment).

Other players, no matter how they try, just can't create an effective character.

None of the above to cases involve "sabotage", yet they are ineffective.

Again, I didn't say ineffective, I said unable to kill.

Everyone in the group would have much preferred a CE half orc anti-paladin.

Fair enough. By why would they take that CE half-orc anti-paladin over an LG half-orc paladin who was every bit as capable of killing, but without the added risk of betraying the group?

 

[Hereticus]

Again, I didn't say ineffective, I said unable to kill.

Sorry, I read that as one in the same.

Fair enough. By why would they take that CE half-orc anti-paladin over an LG half-orc paladin who was every bit as capable of killing, but without the added risk of betraying the group?

The jist of my statement is that after witnessing uselessness, they would have accepted a monster over that.

Sure, the LG paladin probably would have been better, unless it tried to prevent the party from being profitable!