My goal here is to talk about ways in which you can present NPC's in varying contexts which make someone question their alignment (where they cannot confirm nor deny) an NPC being good, neutral or evil. And what can lead to having players questioning an NPC desires.
Would it differ if there is a good character who is presented as possibly but uncertainly evil? From a evil character who is presented as possibly but uncertainly good?
Do you guys have any comments about or examples of this. I would love to hear them!
This gets pretty philosophical as to whether or not there is such a thing as an inherently good or evil act, but I’ll bite. I think the good or evil of the NPC would be in the eye of the beholder. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter can often be whether or not they are on your side. Also the question seems to assume a binary that doesn’t exist. No one is all good or all bad. People are not that easily reduced, and characters we create in the game should at least strive for some similar level of complexity. About the only exception to this are the heroes and villains in poorly written works of fiction.
Totally, understand that the binary does not exist. I'm not trying to get at whether or not they are objectively. Though what are circumstances and presentations of the NPC which make the Player engage in some reasoning or carefulness when engaging with this NPC. What are elements that engages the player in thinking is this person more like me or on my side, or more for someone else. Do I trust this person, or shouldn't I?
I do appreciate that the distinction between terrorism and freedom fighter, it is a matter of perspective. I wonder what people have done in playing with this perspective?
Over time I have realized that good/evil, lawful/chaotic, these are classifications to make it easier to understand the character's view of themselves.
If a character says they are lawful good and they were taught that killing for their god is good. Then no matter who they kill, if it is in the name of their god they consider themselves good. I've seen players use crazy alignments with crazy reasons.
To me alignments are not important, it's all about how the character holds them self, how the talk, how they walk, the way they handle different scenarios.
A good way to hide true intentions is to be subtle, to backtrack, to lie. Maybe saying nasty untrue things to the characters but always being there to help, always caring for them. It always just in the way you choose to create the character. It's all in the backstory and the personality. Never try to make a complicated character without creating a full story for them to develop.
Personally I try to make the NPCS that I want to be important and around complex. Have a good understanding of their motivations and their drives and if you play that out correcting inherently it will drive the players to question like you want them to be.
With their goal in mind have them do things that could seem either aligned with or opposed to your players. Or have them do a mix of both. And the best way to present the NPC in such a way would be through dialogue and actions. But the more complex and real you make the character the easier it will be for your players to question them.
For instance they could run into someone attempting to do good who is very much a means justify the ends type of mindset. Or a person who does things that could be considered 'evil' but their goals align with the players. I think the best NPCs are ones that it takes the players time and effort to learn about their motivations and to truly trust. And having an NPC backstab them once or twice will have them question everyone.
A PC is more likely to see an NPC as "good" (read: "on my side") if their goals and ideals align with the PC's. For example, if bandits are kidnapping children to sell them as slaves, the bandits are obviously "evil" to a good-aligned PC. To that same PC, an NPC who is hiring someone with their own coin to stop these bandits (especially if they themselves haven't had a child kidnapped, they just want them to stop for the good of the town) - that would be a "good" NPC to a good-aligned PC, probably, whereas anyone buying up these child slaves would be "evil."
That's a pretty black and white example.
If you're looking for ways to make PCs cautious about a character because they don't know if they're good or evil - then really you're just looking for a way to make them cautious about them hands-down regardless of alignment. In the above example of child-kidnapping, let's say all but one of the parents of the kidnapped children have come together to pool their money to pay someone to bring their child back. That one NPC who hasn't could be seen as evil and interpreted as not wanting their child back, but it could also be that perhaps they don't have any money and can't. You might question their intentions there.
Ultimately, you need to know your player characters in order to know what they may or may not view as on their side or against them. In my game, I have many characters that the PCs view as good or at least "on their side" even though they might be a little morally questionable - and plenty who they don't entirely trust, or at least squint at, for the exact same reasons. One of these characters in my game is a woman who faked her own death to get away from her fiance in a small town in order to go to the big city and study magic - and later on, the party ran into her and helped her arrive safely to the city. Since arriving, she's done extremely well for herself, but she is clearly extremely ambitious, so the party mostly trust her, but maybe not entirely.
Therein, perhaps, lies a great point, actually, now that I think about it: Ambition.
The more ambitious someone is, the more likely that their actions could come off as questionable depending upon the ideals of the party.
I love the idea of PCs finding being introduced to NPCs in the middle of circumstances that could simply be a "means to an end" rather than simply evil. I do believe that most people do difficult things that may seem incorrect to many but their circumstances have really led them not having a choice. Though in most situations, it might be easy for PC to simply inquire into those NPCs which lead the player to have the NPC justify his actions. What if a NPC needing to do good action x, and has been blackmailed and must also do bad action y. Or perhaps giving NPCs a reason to hide their intent in a certain way, which has it's own reason (someone is threatening their children)...
I think what really triggers uncertainty in others might be some level of inconsistency in character, not because of the character not having a consistent backstory. Rather the PC is only exposed to the current scenarios of the NPC and is led to either make a choice and assume, or simply know that they don't know...
I think when players suspect that an NPC isn't being truthful, they usually take it all the way to assuming that means that the character is actively opposed to them (and probably "evil"). There are smaller twists on this that are satisfying and provide some mystique, like a character that helps you do something "good" but wants personal glory and expects compensation, or a character that initially lies to the characters because they think the players will rob them, only softening up and revealing that they do have an item that the players need after they have proven their intentions in some other way.
The first thing that’s coming to mind here is Littlefinger from GoT. He had plans within plans and would help or hurt you depending whether or not that served him. He had clear motivations and always acted toward them. He was always on the same side, himself, but he’d switch his allegiance freely, which made him both good and bad. Then he had his Achilles heal in his feelings for Cat Stark which he transferred to Sansa. He was a good example of a complex character like you are talking about.
There was an arc in the clone wars cartoon about rebel v freedom fighter, and it was fantastic. It was also where Saw Guerrera, who would show up in the Rogue 1 movie, was introduced. Season 5, starts with episode 2.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello,
My goal here is to talk about ways in which you can present NPC's in varying contexts which make someone question their alignment (where they cannot confirm nor deny) an NPC being good, neutral or evil. And what can lead to having players questioning an NPC desires.
Would it differ if there is a good character who is presented as possibly but uncertainly evil? From a evil character who is presented as possibly but uncertainly good?
Do you guys have any comments about or examples of this. I would love to hear them!
This gets pretty philosophical as to whether or not there is such a thing as an inherently good or evil act, but I’ll bite.
I think the good or evil of the NPC would be in the eye of the beholder. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter can often be whether or not they are on your side.
Also the question seems to assume a binary that doesn’t exist. No one is all good or all bad. People are not that easily reduced, and characters we create in the game should at least strive for some similar level of complexity. About the only exception to this are the heroes and villains in poorly written works of fiction.
Totally, understand that the binary does not exist. I'm not trying to get at whether or not they are objectively. Though what are circumstances and presentations of the NPC which make the Player engage in some reasoning or carefulness when engaging with this NPC. What are elements that engages the player in thinking is this person more like me or on my side, or more for someone else. Do I trust this person, or shouldn't I?
I do appreciate that the distinction between terrorism and freedom fighter, it is a matter of perspective. I wonder what people have done in playing with this perspective?
How can we present an NPC to achieve this?
Over time I have realized that good/evil, lawful/chaotic, these are classifications to make it easier to understand the character's view of themselves.
If a character says they are lawful good and they were taught that killing for their god is good. Then no matter who they kill, if it is in the name of their god they consider themselves good. I've seen players use crazy alignments with crazy reasons.
To me alignments are not important, it's all about how the character holds them self, how the talk, how they walk, the way they handle different scenarios.
A good way to hide true intentions is to be subtle, to backtrack, to lie. Maybe saying nasty untrue things to the characters but always being there to help, always caring for them. It always just in the way you choose to create the character. It's all in the backstory and the personality. Never try to make a complicated character without creating a full story for them to develop.
Personally I try to make the NPCS that I want to be important and around complex. Have a good understanding of their motivations and their drives and if you play that out correcting inherently it will drive the players to question like you want them to be.
With their goal in mind have them do things that could seem either aligned with or opposed to your players. Or have them do a mix of both. And the best way to present the NPC in such a way would be through dialogue and actions. But the more complex and real you make the character the easier it will be for your players to question them.
For instance they could run into someone attempting to do good who is very much a means justify the ends type of mindset. Or a person who does things that could be considered 'evil' but their goals align with the players. I think the best NPCs are ones that it takes the players time and effort to learn about their motivations and to truly trust. And having an NPC backstab them once or twice will have them question everyone.
It really does all fall down to perspective.
A PC is more likely to see an NPC as "good" (read: "on my side") if their goals and ideals align with the PC's. For example, if bandits are kidnapping children to sell them as slaves, the bandits are obviously "evil" to a good-aligned PC. To that same PC, an NPC who is hiring someone with their own coin to stop these bandits (especially if they themselves haven't had a child kidnapped, they just want them to stop for the good of the town) - that would be a "good" NPC to a good-aligned PC, probably, whereas anyone buying up these child slaves would be "evil."
That's a pretty black and white example.
If you're looking for ways to make PCs cautious about a character because they don't know if they're good or evil - then really you're just looking for a way to make them cautious about them hands-down regardless of alignment. In the above example of child-kidnapping, let's say all but one of the parents of the kidnapped children have come together to pool their money to pay someone to bring their child back. That one NPC who hasn't could be seen as evil and interpreted as not wanting their child back, but it could also be that perhaps they don't have any money and can't. You might question their intentions there.
Ultimately, you need to know your player characters in order to know what they may or may not view as on their side or against them. In my game, I have many characters that the PCs view as good or at least "on their side" even though they might be a little morally questionable - and plenty who they don't entirely trust, or at least squint at, for the exact same reasons. One of these characters in my game is a woman who faked her own death to get away from her fiance in a small town in order to go to the big city and study magic - and later on, the party ran into her and helped her arrive safely to the city. Since arriving, she's done extremely well for herself, but she is clearly extremely ambitious, so the party mostly trust her, but maybe not entirely.
Therein, perhaps, lies a great point, actually, now that I think about it: Ambition.
The more ambitious someone is, the more likely that their actions could come off as questionable depending upon the ideals of the party.
I love the idea of PCs finding being introduced to NPCs in the middle of circumstances that could simply be a "means to an end" rather than simply evil. I do believe that most people do difficult things that may seem incorrect to many but their circumstances have really led them not having a choice. Though in most situations, it might be easy for PC to simply inquire into those NPCs which lead the player to have the NPC justify his actions. What if a NPC needing to do good action x, and has been blackmailed and must also do bad action y. Or perhaps giving NPCs a reason to hide their intent in a certain way, which has it's own reason (someone is threatening their children)...
I think what really triggers uncertainty in others might be some level of inconsistency in character, not because of the character not having a consistent backstory. Rather the PC is only exposed to the current scenarios of the NPC and is led to either make a choice and assume, or simply know that they don't know...
I think when players suspect that an NPC isn't being truthful, they usually take it all the way to assuming that means that the character is actively opposed to them (and probably "evil"). There are smaller twists on this that are satisfying and provide some mystique, like a character that helps you do something "good" but wants personal glory and expects compensation, or a character that initially lies to the characters because they think the players will rob them, only softening up and revealing that they do have an item that the players need after they have proven their intentions in some other way.
The first thing that’s coming to mind here is Littlefinger from GoT. He had plans within plans and would help or hurt you depending whether or not that served him. He had clear motivations and always acted toward them. He was always on the same side, himself, but he’d switch his allegiance freely, which made him both good and bad. Then he had his Achilles heal in his feelings for Cat Stark which he transferred to Sansa. He was a good example of a complex character like you are talking about.
There was an arc in the clone wars cartoon about rebel v freedom fighter, and it was fantastic. It was also where Saw Guerrera, who would show up in the Rogue 1 movie, was introduced. Season 5, starts with episode 2.