PDA

View Full Version : {All Editions} Drow and Drow Hate



AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-19, 06:44 PM
Well. This thread is all about everybody's favorite dark-skinned elf subtype.

I have some serious adoration for this race, but I have some questions, more fluff-based than crunch based, though there's a few...

1. This one is focused on Drider. Number one, why in god's green earth are THEY the exiles? Sure, they bombed the test. But aren't they worth 5 drow? and why do they, as a monster class, get the short stick? I mean a poison? a lot of useless SLAs? and are 4 levels under a human wizard? what's the point??????

2. I get that drow use adamantine as their weapons, armor, and other stuff, and that it melts in sunlight. However, I've had DMs use this as a screw to get the economy. However, is this a viable means to remove powerful items from play?

3. This is more focused on szarkai. Szarkai are basically drow that don't look like drow. However, how can a PC tell a szarkai npc vs an elf pc

4. This is based on Darkness as the Drow's SLA. This is a cool ability, however, a DM can quickly kill a game using several drow who cast it all at the same time, and give them all rogue levels and hypathetically cause a TPK at low levels. What can PCs do to stop this?

tyckspoon
2010-01-19, 06:50 PM
3. Good Sense Motive/Spot check against the Szarkai's Bluff/Disguise check to look and act like a normal elf.

4. Darkness does this:

This spell causes an object to radiate shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius. All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance). Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness.

You can't Sneak Attack things with concealment. It's self-defeating for the Drow. They're generally better off trying to destroy any light sources the party has and then attacking in real darkness, instead of lighting up the area with the Darkness spell (one of the more blatant name-effect mismatches in D&D- Darkness will dim brightly-lit areas, but it actually lights up places that are already properly dark.)

Fenix_of_Doom
2010-01-19, 06:50 PM
2. I get that drow use adamantine as their weapons, armor, and other stuff, and that it melts in sunlight. However, I've had DMs use this as a screw to get the economy. However, is this a viable means to remove powerful items from play?

I've never heard of material that melts in the sun, but generally, if you don't want your party to have powerful items, then don't give it to them. Don't mess with them like this.



4. This is based on Darkness as the Drow's SLA. This is a cool ability, however, a DM can quickly kill a game using several drow who cast it all at the same time, and give them all rogue levels and hypathetically cause a TPK at low levels. What can PCs do to stop this?
Drow have a higher CR because of their abilities(+1 if I'm not mistaken), so a single drow rogue is CR 2, with their Con penalty and not all that useful other abilities, I'd sooner worry about them being too weak as an enemy.

P.S. darkness grants concealment and thus prevents sneak attacking.

Zaydos
2010-01-19, 06:55 PM
1. LA is always borked. Also a drider gets ability bonuses, and better hit dice chassis but yeah probably not worth 4 levels.

2. This rule was taken out in 3.X I thought.

3. No idea never heard of them.

4. Yeah darkness doesn't work that way in 3.5 and in 3.X drow are just as blind in magic darkness as humans; not sure about 2e and earlier.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-01-19, 06:56 PM
1st: I have to admit I am as confused as you concernig driders, I mean even Lolth herself adopt a drider-esque form, yet she gives them a form similar to her to punish them, that doesn't makes sense (unless she hates her form but IIRC she as a greater goddes can change shaper at will)

2nd: I have never been in this situation before, actually I have never met a drow in game as a NPC, actually my gaming group has never been to the underdark so no help there. Except that I think it is a viable choice for low-level parties to mantain a bit of balance.

3rd:Zsarkai (or however they are spelled) are the albino drows right? I guess you could ask for a sense motive OOG and IG maybe if the character inquestion is an elf (or really familiar with) might feel something is off about them, or their manerism don't coincide with the normal elves.

4rth: Darkness doesn't make things pitch black it actually provides shadowy illumination (unless drow have a different darkness SLA from the spell) so I don't think that would be too useful. As for what a party can do to prevent this, I suppose dispel magic or higher level light spell.


And as a matter of fact I prefer Eberron Drow (me <3 Guerrilla style combat)
Hope that helps

Edit: Ninjas.... Ninjas.... Nijas everywhere

jmbrown
2010-01-19, 07:10 PM
1. Drider's are rare and hated by everyone. Although they retain their memories, their aberrant form makes them bitter and spiteful. I guess you can say the reason they haven't "taken over" is because they can't stop killing each other long enough to form a coherent army. 4E flipped this around and made drider's a holy symbol of Lolth.

2. Drow ecology has changed immensely over the editions. In AD&D their magic resistance and abilities were explained by the "radiation" that emanates from the underdark. Drow don't craft traditional magic items, rather they weave the energies of the underdark into mundane steel. Magic items disintegrate in sunlight which counteracts the underdark's power. Artifacts are protected from the sun and keep their powers unless exposed for several weeks. Drizzt lost most of his powers because of this.

3. I don't know their racial bonuses but they're not real (high) elves so they can't casually pass as them. You might be fooled at a casual glance but you should be able to spot them as what they truly are unless they're actively disguising themselves which would require a spot check.

4. Drow are just as incapable of seeing in magical darkness as all the other races. The neat trick is that it actually lightens pitch blackness. Go figure.

AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-19, 07:40 PM
So a drider wizard isn't worth the levels?

tyckspoon
2010-01-19, 07:52 PM
Mechanically speaking, Drider Anything isn't worth the levels. +4 LA sucks too hard. If you really want to do it, then capitalizing on their natural spellcasting with further cleric/wizard/sorcerer (preferred cleric/wizard, sorcerer doesn't want to deal with having an even more delayed spell progression) is the way to go, but any decent optimization will yield a more powerful character out of 4 class levels.

If you're deliberately playing high-power in a fashion that mitigates the LA, tho (ie, an 'everybody's a monster' game with free LA or gestalt with all the RHD and LA compressed into a few levels or shoved on one side) then the Drider is a very quick lead in to a nice gish (or.. any other caster, but the +4-6 to all stats really ought to be used for something.)

Tengu_temp
2010-01-19, 07:55 PM
The material from which drow equipment is made is Adamantite, not Adamantine. A small difference in names, a big difference in how they work.

Ugh, and now I recall a NWN2 server that gave adamantine weapons only to the drow, and made them crumble in sunlight. Did I mention that this was a very surface vs Underdark pvp-centric server? Yeah, that place sucked.


So a drider wizard isn't worth the levels?

If it's LA is higher than +1, maybe +2, then it's not worth it for a caster.

AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-19, 08:01 PM
I was actually focused on the Monster Class Levels, which, while being 10, seems like a worthwhile endeavor for an 18th level campaign. Because the next one that grants caster levels, the Rakshasa, has 3 more levels and immunity to basically any spell

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-19, 08:24 PM
1) Lolth simply doesn't have the welfare of drow culture as her main priority. That's her second priority; her main is ****s and giggles. And exiling drider amuses her. As for monster classes, blame WotC.
2) Yes, it's sort of an ass pull, but if the players aren't too greedy and the GM isn't too strict with money-making schemes, it can work out.
3) Sense Motive checks to discern cultural differences. Detect Evil. Dominate Person. But at some point, it gets sort of hard to tell apart szarkai and evil elves.
4) Run like hell. You got a last glimpse of your surroundings before darkness fell - use it. Run (or at least hustle) out of the darkness. Or, if you're really low-level and you're being attacked by multiple drow rogues, just hop on board the choo-choo train. Or show your DM the section about EL/CR in the DMG.

Gnaeus
2010-01-19, 08:27 PM
Very, very few of those monster classes are actually worthwhile. There are only half a dozen or so high (higher than +2) RHD/LA options that are really worth it in the game, and I can't think of any of them that have class progressions in savage species. Only if gestalt or some kind of LA reduction is in play are they remotely worthwhile.

ken-do-nim
2010-01-19, 08:29 PM
Well, you said all editions so I'll answer from the 1st edition D1-3/Q1 point of view.

1. Lolth doesn't want a lot of high-level drow walking around. In 1E she's a 16th level cleric/14th level magic-user in drow form, and when drow get close to that she prefers to strip most of them of their power with the incredibly hard test and turn them into her guardians. In Q1 you see some driders with 7th level and 5th level magical ability, so one could assume that the transformation to drider cuts the character level in half; so no, they are not as powerful as if they'd remained drow.

2. see jmbrown's answer

3. not in 1E

4. 1E darkness is true darkness, and drow can use their infravision to see in it, but so can the party elves, dwarves, and half-orcs. Humans are advised to carry around continual light necklaces, even if it acts as a "here I am come and get me" beacon.

The unasked question about drow hate is that after their utter coolness in the D series when they were originally introduced, they've been copied so many times it has become cliche.

Gamerlord
2010-01-19, 08:33 PM
On another note, am I the only one who thinks drow should be LA +1?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-19, 08:38 PM
No. Think of how many people play 3.5, after all.

AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-19, 08:39 PM
The unasked question about drow hate is that after their utter coolness in the D series when they were originally introduced, they've been copied so many times it has become cliche.

well, to Drow Hate, there's three I can think of.

1. Almost all Drow PCs are the same, thanks entirely to Drizzt.
2. Their weapons are useless in sunlight
3. Fragile Treasure Chest Syndrome

Tiki Snakes
2010-01-19, 08:55 PM
1. This one is focused on Drider. Number one, why in god's green earth are THEY the exiles? Sure, they bombed the test. But aren't they worth 5 drow? and why do they, as a monster class, get the short stick? I mean a poison? a lot of useless SLAs? and are 4 levels under a human wizard? what's the point??????


I'll touch on this one because I have some (largely heretical and non-canon) musings on the subject, relating to a campaign I'm playing in (and on the general subject of Lolth and the Drow).

Driders are 'Cursed' by Lolth when they fail the test, and given the form of a half Drow, half spider. This is indeed Lolth's own form, at least part of the time.

But it is only her form at all, because Corellon Larethion cursed her with it. She was, before then, Araushnee and both beautiful and essentially Elven (though probably still dark skinned and light haired).

A lot of Lolth's more odd and obviously evil behaviour explicitely seems to originate after this event. Irregardless of the fact that she had just been stopped from attempting to overthrown Corellon as the cheif deity of elvenkind, here we have a potentially very traumatic event for her. She is spurned by her Lover, cast out of her society, given the name 'Lolth' and called a Demon. She is then forcefully changed into the appearance of one, and banished altogether.

The transformation was explictely so that he, Corellon, would no longer find her alluring and consider ever changing his mind about forgiving her, etc.

I find it makes perfect sense that Driders are such a confusing and conflicting symbol for the Drow, both a source of and an icon of (pride?) and a target to be hated and looked down upon. I believe it very much reflects Lolth's own conflicted mental state.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-19, 09:47 PM
And as a matter of fact I prefer Eberron Drow (me <3 Guerrilla style combat)
Hope that helps

Edit: Ninjas.... Ninjas.... Nijas everywhere

+1. One of the few variations of Elf I'm willing to tolerate.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-01-19, 10:02 PM
snip Hit the nail on the head. The form of a drider is indeed a punishment because while it matches lloth's form, the form was thrust upon her by corellon. BTW, Lloth's entirely bat-**** crazy. She keeps her "chosen people" constantly, often literally, at each others throats. She does everything she does because she's mentally unbalanced, more so than most deities.

ken-do-nim
2010-01-20, 01:42 PM
I'll touch on this one because I have some (largely heretical and non-canon) musings on the subject, relating to a campaign I'm playing in (and on the general subject of Lolth and the Drow).

Driders are 'Cursed' by Lolth when they fail the test, and given the form of a half Drow, half spider. This is indeed Lolth's own form, at least part of the time.

But it is only her form at all, because Corellon Larethion cursed her with it. She was, before then, Araushnee and both beautiful and essentially Elven (though probably still dark skinned and light haired).

A lot of Lolth's more odd and obviously evil behaviour explicitely seems to originate after this event. Irregardless of the fact that she had just been stopped from attempting to overthrown Corellon as the cheif deity of elvenkind, here we have a potentially very traumatic event for her. She is spurned by her Lover, cast out of her society, given the name 'Lolth' and called a Demon. She is then forcefully changed into the appearance of one, and banished altogether.

The transformation was explictely so that he, Corellon, would no longer find her alluring and consider ever changing his mind about forgiving her, etc.

I find it makes perfect sense that Driders are such a confusing and conflicting symbol for the Drow, both a source of and an icon of (pride?) and a target to be hated and looked down upon. I believe it very much reflects Lolth's own conflicted mental state.

Very nice! I find myself trying to work in the fact that while in spider form she is immune to psionic attack into this backstory.

AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-20, 02:00 PM
Very nice! I find myself trying to work in the fact that while in spider form she is immune to psionic attack into this backstory.

Corruption of the mind that severe could have "interesting" effects, such as immunity to mental effects.

Trauma victims are left with a damaged psyche, leaving most normal (or abnormal) froms of mental persuasion ineffective. Take the mission in Mass Effect. Only Shepard, a man who went through the same Hell, was able to calm the one girl down in the Paragon (therefore canon) path of that case.

Cicciograna
2010-01-20, 03:25 PM
I've never heard of material that melts in the sun

...ice? :smallbiggrin:

Grumman
2010-01-20, 03:52 PM
Drowcraft is an armour or weapon ability that gives a +2 bonus (Deflection or Luck) for a +1 cost. It only gives this bonus in the Underdark, and when exposed to sunlight must pass a DC 8 Fort save per day or be destroyed.

Bibliomancer
2010-01-20, 03:54 PM
Drowcraft is an armour or weapon ability that gives a +2 bonus (Deflection or Luck) for a +1 cost. It only gives this bonus in the Underdark, and when exposed to sunlight must pass a DC 8 Fort save per day or be destroyed.

In which rulebook is that equipment subtype located?

Grumman
2010-01-20, 04:06 PM
In which rulebook is that equipment subtype located?
Underdark, one of the Faerun books.

Bibliomancer
2010-01-20, 04:12 PM
Underdark, one of the Faerun books.

Thanks. That makes sense.

How much of drow culture is outlined in that book?

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-20, 04:15 PM
Thanks. That makes sense.

How much of drow culture is outlined in that book?

Enough to confirm that they are psychotic.

bansidhe
2010-01-20, 04:24 PM
The reason Drow are,frankly ,Boring too me is that Ive yet too see one played Intelligently.

Far too often they seem too be the race of choice for the Chaotic Stupid or Pervy Leather type of player,shame really...so much potential there and salvatore spoiled it...Tsk,Oh well!..

AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-20, 04:34 PM
I had once considered a Dread Necromancer/Death Master using a Drow. Kinda creepy character with almost "pervy" tendancies of touching other PC's skin, and often would use a few healing spells to "not damage a beautiful body."

Longcat
2010-01-20, 04:51 PM
Drow LA can be bypassed by playing Lesser Drow.

That said, the reason why I like them? 'Cause they are HAWT! Flawless, jet-black skin, smooth, silky hair, and those purple eyes... hmm...

Grumman
2010-01-20, 04:58 PM
Drow LA can be bypassed by playing Lesser Drow.

That said, the reason why I like them? 'Cause they are HAWT! Flawless, jet-black skin, smooth, silky hair, and those purple eyes... hmm...
Red eyes. Purple eyes are more likely to belong to Drizz't clones and Mary Sues.

Bibliomancer
2010-01-20, 05:00 PM
The reason Drow are,frankly ,Boring too me is that Ive yet too see one played Intelligently.

Far too often they seem too be the race of choice for the Chaotic Stupid or Pervy Leather type of player,shame really...so much potential there and salvatore spoiled it...Tsk,Oh well!..

The drow in Eberron would be an exception to this. The PCs are stupid European Khorvaire explorers in North America Xen'drik, and the drow are natives with jungle lore, bullet proof vests spell resistance, and better guns ancient magic.

This is why I'm looking forward to seeing how my players react to exploring Xen'drik when they finally arrive there next session.

Longcat
2010-01-20, 05:18 PM
Red eyes. Purple eyes are more likely to belong to Drizz't clones and Mary Sues.

Fine with me. As long as it's crimson or ruby red.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 05:40 PM
I hate Drow PCs. They always screw up the game

(1) They're unique.
Few surface people have ever seen a Drow, so when you walk into town, you're basically the center of attention.

(2) You're either Evil, or The Rebel.
If you're Evil, then you bring all the problems Evil PCs bring. If you're The Rebel, well, everyone who's heard stories about Drow (or makes a DC 15 Nature Check - I call Drow a Paragon Race) is going to assume you're a dangerous undesirable. This makes it very hard for the party to function in any town. Oh yeah, and you're a Rebel From Your Native Culture - I hate that archetype. Can't you have something you strive towards, rather than run away from? Particularly when you're running from a really broad set of principles?

(3) You're silly powerful.
In TSR D&D, Drow were a way to stage-up the deadliness of your opposition. An entire nation of magic-item wielding Elves with crazy innate powers and powerful monster slaves? Yeah, that's how you make things get real before you start throwing Demonic Legions around. Unless the DM explicitly depowers you (I like the Sunlight = Red Kryptonite idea), there is little reason for you not to Just Be Better than everyone else.

Grumman
2010-01-20, 05:56 PM
(2) You're either Evil, or The Rebel.
If you're Evil, then you bring all the problems Evil PCs bring.
Considering the vast riches any reasonably competent adventurer obtains, it's perfectly reasonable to be Evil yet go out of your way to avoid threatening the gravy train.


(3) You're silly powerful.
Drow are underpowered in 3.5, due to their high LA.

jmbrown
2010-01-20, 06:00 PM
The reason Drow are,frankly ,Boring too me is that Ive yet too see one played Intelligently.

Far too often they seem too be the race of choice for the Chaotic Stupid or Pervy Leather type of player,shame really...so much potential there and salvatore spoiled it...Tsk,Oh well!..

Drow are supposed to be chaotic stupid or at least that's what Lolth devolves them into. 4E does a good job describing them as a "stable society" that's completely disrupted by the Spider Queen's psychotic whims and bipolar mood swings. The split between the more numerous male population vs. the more powerful female population is a source of conflict even in Salvatore's novels. The drow are always a serious a serious force to reckon with when they stop killing each other long enough to attack their enemies and the Spider Queen isn't dipping her tentacles into it. Their completely chaotic deity coupled with their weakness pretty much regulates them to simple surface raids which can be destructive but are never serious.

Bregan D'aerth is as powerful as it is for a small group because Jarlaxle understands that evil unchecked is nothing but senseless destruction without purpose or reason. Despite his own alignment (he's usually portrayed CN), he understands that a coherent system made up of (relatively) trustworthy allies is required to get anything accomplished, not brute force and religious fanaticism towards a god that hates your guts on any given day.


(2) You're either Evil, or The Rebel.
If you're Evil, then you bring all the problems Evil PCs bring. If you're The Rebel, well, everyone who's heard stories about Drow (or makes a DC 15 Nature Check - I call Drow a Paragon Race) is going to assume you're a dangerous undesirable. This makes it very hard for the party to function in any town. Oh yeah, and you're a Rebel From Your Native Culture - I hate that archetype. Can't you have something you strive towards, rather than run away from? Particularly when you're running from a really broad set of principles?

It's safe to say PC drow are rebels because if you still adapted your cultures practices then you'd be a hateful douche. You can be a rebel and still strive to create something greater. Maybe, like Jarlaxle mentioned above, you wish to create a group of likeminded rebellious "hated humanoids" that go against their normal nature like bugbears, orcs, goblins, kobolds, and gnolls. Baldur's Gate II had an adventuring troupe made up of normally evil monsters and I thought it was a nice addition.

Alcopop
2010-01-20, 06:14 PM
Anyone else bother by the fact you can cast darkness in a pitch black room and it makes lighter?

Zaydos
2010-01-20, 06:21 PM
Anyone else bother by the fact you can cast darkness in a pitch black room and it makes lighter?

Yes. Personally when I DM I house rule that it reduces the light to shadowy illumination but cannot create illumination. Although I can think of interesting tactical uses of the normal one.

Also drow PCs can be fun. I've played a half-fiend drow ninja-assassin once (DM used CR instead of ECL, and the only 3.5 thing was the newly published ninja class [dragon magazine]) who had left his family (psychotic backstabbers all) to try and gain power. He was evil, but he was lawful and smart and none of the stupid backstabbing. The campaign started in a high magic elf city, the party never met up, the succubus derailed the world, and he killed a t-rex. It lasted 1 session, we never reached the adventure. In 4e I played a drow rogue who was a mercenary. He left drow society for money. He wasn't a sadist, and didn't really agree with the random killing Chaotic Stupid of drow civilization but he didn't try to piss them off either. Actually personality-wise the two were fairly close, except the second one wouldn't kill you for your shinies (where as the half-fiend wouldn't kill you for your shinies if he promised he wouldn't).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 06:31 PM
Considering the vast riches any reasonably competent adventurer obtains, it's perfectly reasonable to be Evil yet go out of your way to avoid threatening the gravy train.
Yeah, until the first BBEG says "hey, kill your allies and I'll let you keep all their stuff. Oh, and give you a job with money and power."

Unless the PC is metagaming, there is very little reason for him to suspect that his character would make out better sticking around with these yahoos instead of making something of himself.

Also: LAs are borked. They made playing most any race "not worth it"

Optimystik
2010-01-20, 06:36 PM
I have only this to add:



Play a drow if you want . . .

to be good at skulking, striking quickly, and employing a variety of dirty tactics.
to play a hero in search of redemption, or one who struggles to rise above the wickedness of his or her people.
to be a member of a race that favors the ranger, rogue, and warlock classes.



*facepalm*
*facedesk*
*facewall*

Grumman
2010-01-20, 06:44 PM
Yeah, until the first BBEG says "hey, kill your allies and I'll let you keep all their stuff. Oh, and give you a job with money and power."

Unless the PC is metagaming, there is very little reason for him to suspect that his character would make out better sticking around with these yahoos instead of making something of himself.
He's a BBEG! Not falling for such a blatant ruse doesn't mean I'm metagaming, it just means my character is not a moron.

Sir Homeslice
2010-01-20, 06:47 PM
I have only this to add:



*facepalm*
*facedesk*
*facewall*

What's your point?

Longcat
2010-01-20, 06:49 PM
I have only this to add:



*facepalm*
*facedesk*
*facewall*

It's 4e. Get over it! :smalltongue:

Optimystik
2010-01-20, 06:51 PM
What's your point?

They ruled out every Drow but good ones. Again.


It's 4e. Get over it! :smalltongue:

I have, that's why I play Genasi.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 06:58 PM
He's a BBEG! Not falling for such a blatant ruse doesn't mean I'm metagaming, it just means my character is not a moron.
Huh? You don't have your BBEGs actually be earnest about hiring their opposition? :smallconfused:

Because, if I were a LE Overlord, I'd say "hey, I'll give you some land and a castle if you off your buddies. Heck, you can even keep whatever you loot off them." Seems like a good business decision to me - one dangerous opposition neutralized, one powerful ally gained.

Felyndiira
2010-01-20, 07:05 PM
I hate Drow PCs. They always screw up the game
Being someone whose favorite D&D character is a Drow, I feel compelled to disagree with this.


(1) They're unique.
Few surface people have ever seen a Drow, so when you walk into town, you're basically the center of attention.
I find that most GMs are flexible enough to bend the rules a bit and let me start off with a custom ring of elf disguise. As long as you can convince them that it's not some part of a thirty-part chain plan to summon an eldritch abomination on the party, I doubt a GM is going to refuse something that makes his own job 30x easier.


(2) You're either Evil, or The Rebel.
If you're Evil, then you bring all the problems Evil PCs bring. If you're The Rebel, well, everyone who's heard stories about Drow (or makes a DC 15 Nature Check - I call Drow a Paragon Race) is going to assume you're a dangerous undesirable. This makes it very hard for the party to function in any town. Oh yeah, and you're a Rebel From Your Native Culture - I hate that archetype. Can't you have something you strive towards, rather than run away from? Particularly when you're running from a really broad set of principles?
One of the sentiments that I most disagree with is the whole "extremes to extremes" mentality, as if there exists no other method to play an entire race of people other than "raving lunatic" and "repentant self-sacrificing Drizzt clone." Sure, as a group, the drow are self-destructive and stark mad, but individual drow within the subculture are described as "intelligent, conniving, and not above begging and prostrating before another to live and get revenge." Taking a look at Drow society as a whole and Lolth's thirst for destruction, it's not that difficult to imagine how to play a drow that has the same goals of ascending the matriarchy without making them stark-mad.

Take my character as an example: an intelligent NE/CE daughter of a matriarch; feigns loyalty to gain her mother's trust while trying to plan a way to backstab her. She goes on raids of the surface, hears about adventuring, and becomes curious. Thus, using "raiding the surface" as an excuse, she joins a party and acts as an ideal friend to gain wealth and allies, with the goal of enlisting their aid to overthrow the matriarchy. Not only does she fit perfectly into any party without a cleric of Corellon, it's really, really fun to roleplay by comment on the imperfections of surface life from a completely alien standpoint.

There are ways to play drow characters without going into the two extremes: you can have the so-called "rebel" drows worship any spectrum of other less-than-good gods and do less-than-pure things, or have actual evil drow that worship Vhaeraun. Even if you actually delve into Drizzt-godEilistraee's domain, you can have a chaotic neutral journeyman cleric that really don't care about her ideals, but just happens to fall into favor by doing things that ends up strengthening the bonds between "good drow" and the surface.


(3) You're silly powerful.
In TSR D&D, Drow were a way to stage-up the deadliness of your opposition. An entire nation of magic-item wielding Elves with crazy innate powers and powerful monster slaves? Yeah, that's how you make things get real before you start throwing Demonic Legions around. Unless the DM explicitly depowers you (I like the Sunlight = Red Kryptonite idea), there is little reason for you not to Just Be Better than everyone else.
So not true. The +2 LA for drows is stupidly hampering for the pathetic abilities that they get (especially if playing a cleric). In exchange for +4 in INT and CHA, a few low-level abilities, SR, and token elf abilities, a drow loses two entire levels of spellcasting and level benefits. To add salt to the wound, they waste a feat just to get rid of the weakness to sunlight.

A lolth-touched drow would actually be marginally acceptable; given how overpowered lolth-touched usually is, that's saying quite a bit.


Huh? You don't have your BBEGs actually be earnest about hiring their opposition? :smallconfused:

Because, if I were a LE Overlord, I'd say "hey, I'll give you some land and a castle if you off your buddies. Heck, you can even keep whatever you loot off them." Seems like a good business decision to me - one dangerous opposition neutralized, one powerful ally gained.
An interesting note: an evil character can form genuine friendships. They can also be a fan of long-term gain and realize that constantly switching alliances will come back to bite them in the long run, while a friendship with good-aligned buddies (assuming that they're actually good-aligned) can last for an arbitrary long time. There are dozens of other very good reasons why not all chaotic evil characters are selfish variants of neutral stupid.

Glass Mouse
2010-01-20, 07:08 PM
Yeah, until the first BBEG says "hey, kill your allies and I'll let you keep all their stuff. Oh, and give you a job with money and power."

Unless the PC is metagaming, there is very little reason for him to suspect that his character would make out better sticking around with these yahoos instead of making something of himself.

Also: LAs are borked. They made playing most any race "not worth it"

Uhh... Evil doesn't equal "Unable to have friends". I'm currently playing a CE drow who enjoys the way of life on the surface, doesn't actively rebel yet has no desire to return to the Underdark. As a rule of thumb, she doesn't care about anyone but herself, but she has formed a (kind of) friendship with the other evil person in the party (who's way more psychotic than she is).
She was recently offered a substantial award if she handed over a party item behind the others' backs, but really... There's no way she'd throw away the first friendship of her life. She said no.

Evil can love. Evil can have a wife, children, friends, and a little white cat to stroke.
"The destroyer" from PHB is really just Stupid Evil.

Grumman
2010-01-20, 07:11 PM
Huh? You don't have your BBEGs actually be earnest about hiring their opposition? :smallconfused:
A BBEG can be earnest about hiring their opposition. But this is by no means a sure bet, especially when you have just proven that you have no loyalty and have just destroyed your best bargaining chip with infighting.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-20, 07:17 PM
I hate Drow PCs. They always screw up the game

(1) They're unique.
Few surface people have ever seen a Drow, so when you walk into town, you're basically the center of attention.

Why? Few people see Gnomes or halfings (uncommon) but you don't give them extra attention do you?


(2) You're either Evil, or The Rebel.
If you're Evil, then you bring all the problems Evil PCs bring. If you're The Rebel, well, everyone who's heard stories about Drow (or makes a DC 15 Nature Check - I call Drow a Paragon Race) is going to assume you're a dangerous undesirable. This makes it very hard for the party to function in any town. Oh yeah, and you're a Rebel From Your Native Culture - I hate that archetype. Can't you have something you strive towards, rather than run away from? Particularly when you're running from a really broad set of principles?

You forgot
a. Neutral but Banished: you just don't care about being a rebel. You just want to live (failed houses die so no chance of take back).
If you could go back you would, but the whole being dead thing doesn't appeal to you.
b. Follower of the Naked Drow god Estralliae (no seriously she makes her Priestess naked when praying to her). The good Drow god but secretly worshipped because Lloth is jealous.
c. Drow but raised by humans. Any Alignment.


(3) You're silly powerful.
In TSR D&D, Drow were a way to stage-up the deadliness of your opposition. An entire nation of magic-item wielding Elves with crazy innate powers and powerful monster slaves? Yeah, that's how you make things get real before you start throwing Demonic Legions around. Unless the DM explicitly depowers you (I like the Sunlight = Red Kryptonite idea), there is little reason for you not to Just Be Better than everyone else.

That hasn't been true since AD&D.

Read 3,.0/3.5: You are weaker unless NPC (NPCs don't use LA only CR, but PCs do).
Drow also don't get special magic itemds any more. No more Adamantite (the cheap magic item creation material).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 07:19 PM
Being someone whose favorite D&D character is a Drow, I feel compelled to disagree with this.
I'm afraid I don't find your case very convincing.

Essentially you have the DM give you special treatment, then play an Evil character - but not exactly the same kind of Evil as Evil Stupid. Or a CN character who fortuitously happens to be a productive member of society.

The fact that you never actually seem to indulge in Evil behavior (because you're currying favor with your minions :smallconfused:) doesn't real fix the Evil PC problem - it just hides it.

Now, I'm glad you and your DM are able to work something out like that for your game. I so happen to be playing an Eladrin in a 4E game where Eladrin are typically killed on sight by Humans; to get around it I have a custom Hat of Disguise and PCs who just-so-happen to be tolerant about Eladrin. It's a kludgy fix, but since it's a novice DM and novice PCs, I'm happy to oblige.

But you see, I'm a CG Professor of Ephemeral Studies who not only finds Human society "quaint" but the antics of the short-lived "charming." I have a perfectly good reason for hanging out in Human society (I was given a grant to get-the-hell-out of the University - yay tenure :smallbiggrin:) and I can be a constructive force in the party without constant rationalization as to why I'm not signing on with the rich & powerful bad guys we fight.

Like I said - personally, Drow PCs have been hugely problematic for me. As are all other "unusual" PC races - the only reason Drow earn special enmity is because of their historical position in game lore and that fact that (3.5 LA aside) they are Just Better.

N.B. in 2nd Edition, a Drow PC would have had a host of SLAs and no significant disadvantages. the 4th Edition write-up of the Drow PC has not one, but two Racial Encounter powers to choose from - one of which is ridiculously good. This 3.5 LA problem is an aberration and a result of the terribly implemented LA mechanic, as opposed to evidence of Drow not being Just Better.

RebelRogue
2010-01-20, 07:44 PM
Take my character as an example: an intelligent NE/CE daughter of a matriarch; feigns loyalty to gain her mother's trust while trying to plan a way to backstab her. She goes on raids of the surface, hears about adventuring, and becomes curious. Thus, using "raiding the surface" as an excuse, she joins a party and acts as an ideal friend to gain wealth and allies, with the goal of enlisting their aid to overthrow the matriarchy. Not only does she fit perfectly into any party without a cleric of Corellon, it's really, really fun to roleplay by comment on the imperfections of surface life from a completely alien standpoint.
There's actually quite a bit of other parties she would fit badly into. Any party with a paladin (we're talking 3.5, I suppose, but even in 4e this could easily be a aproblem) or good-aligned characters in general. Not necessarily because of conflict, but because it will probably become clear to her, that these guys would never help her achieve her goal (unless she could trick them into it. This could prove fun if done right and horrible if done wrong, but it's hardly an ideal situation for most parties/PCs). Once she'd realize that this would never happen, she'd leave that party and find one better suited to her needs!

Felyndiira
2010-01-20, 07:52 PM
Essentially you have the DM give you special treatment, then play an Evil character - but not exactly the same kind of Evil as Evil Stupid. Or a CN character who fortuitously happens to be a productive member of society.

The fact that you never actually seem to indulge in Evil behavior (because you're currying favor with your minions :smallconfused:) doesn't real fix the Evil PC problem - it just hides it.
You must pardon me asking, then, but what exactly is your definition of the "Evil PC problem?" From what I could understand from your other posts, it should be that "evil characters do not work well with parties," in which case a character that functions perfectly fine in a party does not qualify regardless of what her inner motivations are.

Let's use another character as an example. Felas Grisholden, LG freelance human paladin of Helm and loving father of two, who has since decided to join the hero on their noble quest to slay evil and save the princess (tm). Somewhere along the way, the LE BBEG kidnaps his family and forces Mr. Grisholden to betray his teammates if he wants his family back, and there's no visible third option available, thus compelling the doting father to betray the party. Does this also present a family problem - that if there's one thing that the hero cares about, it can cause them to betray the party, thusly making all characters with a possible semblance of caring for his family problematic?

Back to the example, though: are there situations that would compel a CE party player to abandon his party and join the BBEG? Yes: if the BBEG attaches himself to a device that instantly casts no-save mind rape on him (with full confirmation that the device works), thus allowing the CE drow cleric to control an army if she betrays the party, then she'd have little reason not to. Will this ever happen? Doubt it. Hence, I can't see what you mean by "it simply hides the 'Evil problem'."

As an aftermention, also: other players are not minions. The reason that a CE character would be compelled to act like a party player would be so that the party can return favors later on, and you'd have to admit: high-level adventurer allies are quite an asset for any evil character. This is, of course, not even counting that evil characters can develop genuine friendships, fall in love, and do all those other things that would make them team players without some immediate monetary reason.


Now, I'm glad you and your DM are able to work something out like that for your game. I so happen to be playing an Eladrin in a 4E game where Eladrin are typically killed on sight by Humans; to get around it I have a custom Hat of Disguise and PCs who just-so-happen to be tolerant about Eladrin.
So your example is that a chaotic good Eladrin character works well in an otherwise human party? That doesn't really prove or disprove anything about drows or how they can be played.


Like I said - personally, Drow PCs have been hugely problematic for me. As are all other "unusual" PC races - the only reason Drow earn special enmity is because of their historical position in game lore and that fact that (3.5 LA aside) they are Just Better.
Game lore is silly IMO and takes antecedent to having fun and not disrupting the fun of others. Anyone who plays a raving mad drow in a non-underdark themed RP is just asking for trouble (though admittedly, I dislike most unusual PCs as well. Drows are about the only non-core race that I would actively play.)


N.B. in 2nd Edition, a Drow PC would have had a host of SLAs and no significant disadvantages. the 4th Edition write-up of the Drow PC has not one, but two Racial Encounter powers to choose from - one of which is ridiculously good. This 3.5 LA problem is an aberration and a result of the terribly implemented LA mechanic, as opposed to evidence of Drow not being Just Better.
I have to admit that I tend to argue in 3.5 terms, having never played 2ed and not really fond of touching 4 (balance is nice, but I dislike the battle simulator nature).

EDIT:


There's actually quite a bit of other parties she would fit badly into. Any party with a paladin (we're talking 3.5, I suppose, but even in 4e this could easily be a problem) or good-aligned characters in general. Not necessarily because of conflict, but because it will probably become clear to her, that these guys would never help her achieve her goal (unless she could trick them into it. This could prove fun if done right and horrible if done wrong, but it's hardly an ideal situation for most parties/PCs). Once she'd realize that this would never happen, she'd leave that party and find one better suited to her needs!
Paladins, yes. There's a bit of roleplaying discretion needed there.

Good characters, on the other hand, are completely different. A good character tends to honor friendships, help people that they care about, and not have significant moral qualms if their long-time adventuring party-mate and friend asked them to kill a decidedly evil drow matriarch belonging to a generally evil tribe of people for the sake of the greater good, especially if there's treasure involved.

Zaydos
2010-01-20, 08:00 PM
N.B. in 2nd Edition, a Drow PC would have had a host of SLAs and no significant disadvantages. the 4th Edition write-up of the Drow PC has not one, but two Racial Encounter powers to choose from - one of which is ridiculously good. This 3.5 LA problem is an aberration and a result of the terribly implemented LA mechanic, as opposed to evidence of Drow not being Just Better.

I bolded the part I disagreed with the. In the 2e Complete Book of Elves which had drow as a playable race (and otherwise you couldn't play them at all) playing a drow was a 20% XP penalty. I'd consider that a significant disadvantage.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 08:14 PM
As an aftermention, also: other players are not minions. The reason that a CE character would be compelled to act like a party player would be so that the party can return favors later on, and you'd have to admit: high-level adventurer allies are quite an asset for any evil character. This is, of course, not even counting that evil characters can develop genuine friendships, fall in love, and do all those other things that would make them team players without some immediate monetary reason.
Why would a CE (or any Evil) character expect reciprocity from his party members? He certainly wouldn't return the favor

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
This is why CE works poorly, but it extends in part to all Evil. Why? Because Evil does not play nice with others

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
I'll admit, it's nice when your character can have an intimate relationship with every other member of the party, but remember - such bonds are fragile. You love the party wizard, and then she rebuffs your advances? You're friendly with party fighter, but then he gets a disproportionate share of the credit for an adventure? Good and Neutral characters would not kill over such slights - if it is convenient, an Evil character will.

The central point is that the Evil character is always looking for a better deal. Unless you're kicking over minor despots your whole life, you will run into a circumstance when you're fighting someone richer and more powerful than yourself. They will be in the position to offer you wealth and influence well beyond your current station, and all you have to do is off a drinking buddy or two? Your Good character needs to be pushed to great extremes to commit such an act; Evil, not so much.

This is the problem - it is just far too easy for an Evil character to turn on the party. An entirely Evil party is worse overall, but a single Evil character in an otherwise normal party is going to create a split, sooner than later.

@Zaydos - considering the already existing level caps, I would gladly take a 20% XP penalty (particularly if I already have a 10% bonus for a 16 Stat) for the ability to cast several first level spells at-will. Heck, I'll even multiclass; Fighter/Wizard FTW :smalltongue:

elonin
2010-01-20, 08:39 PM
{Scrubbed}

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 08:51 PM
@Elonin
Yes, that was completely necessary and appropriate :smallyuk:

Seriously, let's keep Edition Warz in Edition Warz threads.

Felyndiira
2010-01-20, 09:09 PM
Why would a CE (or any Evil) character expect reciprocity from his party members? He certainly wouldn't return the favor
Why wouldn't they? A (hypothetical) illegal substances dealer may use poor families to smuggle their goods across borders for minimum pay, even if the workers themselves know that the act is degrading to their own health. By doing this, the dealer (evil) is taking advantage of a tendency to care about one's family (good) to his advantage, requiring him to acknowledge that people are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their loved ones.

Just because an evil character does not feel the need to reciprocate good actions does not mean that he does not understand that others will do this. Even assuming that the evil character is completely off the deep end of the good-evil spectrum, the latter is simply a matter of observation: threaten to kill a person, and his friend comes up and risks his own life to defend his friend. Repeat a few times, notice a pattern, and ponder about it. Gain insight and utilize to your advantage.


This is why CE works poorly, but it extends in part to all Evil. Why? Because Evil does not play nice with others
Did you just place a character's alignment over his personality and character traits? Oo boy.

An alignment is a general category. It's like the political spectrum: being anywhere within a range of the north axis can get you defined as totalitarian; if you were to ask someone what it means to be totalitarian, they'll probably tell you "one person rule." What about the guy that believes in stricter government control over the economy/society, but still value a representative democracy? That person will still be pretty significantly leaning towards totalitarian, even though he does not really believe in the "one person rule" that is supposed to be representative of totalitarianism.

Now, I will present another example of a CE character that does not fit into the SRD's definition (and remember: the SRD is written mainly for campaigns comprised of good-neutral PCs, not evil ones, so its wordings require some discretion):

Chaotic - representative of freedom. Most elves and bards are considered examples of chaotic because they're free spirits unbound by rules and codes, preferring the freedom of traveling and new experiences; a journeyman who travels to explore the world would be an excellent example of a free spirited chaotic character.
Evil - representative of selfishness. Although most villains are evil, evil people are not always card-carrying villains. An unscrupulous merchant that makes bad deals, loans with high interest, and is willing to play black market and deal in illicit/dangerous items is evil, as he works primarily for the sake of money and cares very little about those he hurts in the process. He may not be a serial killer and dog-kicker, but nonetheless, he is evil.

Now, a wandering unscrupulous merchant would be a chaotic evil character. However, any such merchant would undoubtedly realize that they need bodyguards in order to thrive in a black market business, and attempting to screw over the bodyguards is a very, very bad idea once the crap actually hits the fan. Thus, he might be friendly with other strong people (even good people) and actually, sincerely reciprocate their kindness so that they'd be willing to protect him when he gets into trouble.

Chaotic evil, thus, is not chaotic stupid. With a bit of creativity (and an assurance that the other players aren't spoilsports) they can fit very well into a party - even a party of good characters - as long as you have the insight to not follow the SRD right down to the last comma.


I'll admit, it's nice when your character can have an intimate relationship with every other member of the party, but remember - such bonds are fragile. You love the party wizard, and then she rebuffs your advances? You're friendly with party fighter, but then he gets a disproportionate share of the credit for an adventure? Good and Neutral characters would not kill over such slights - if it is convenient, an Evil character will.
The party fighter gets a disproportionate share of the credit. So? If he becomes famous in metropolis X and you later get into a bit of trouble of the locals, he can probably save your butt without escalating the matter into a dangerous battle (a local hero vouching for you tends to do wonders, after all). A character does not have to possess excessive jealousy and seething hatred at the same time to be chaotic evil, after all.


The central point is that the Evil character is always looking for a better deal. Unless you're kicking over minor despots your whole life, you will run into a circumstance when you're fighting someone richer and more powerful than yourself. They will be in the position to offer you wealth and influence well beyond your current station, and all you have to do is off a drinking buddy or two? Your Good character needs to be pushed to great extremes to commit such an act; Evil, not so much.
Why would anyone be that much of a black-and-white character that they'd take any offer that seems tempting on the spot? A character who's goal is to eventually rule a small kingdom would scoff at an offer to be subservient to a local landlord, and in general, there are evil people who realize that having some advantages here! now! is not worth it in the long run.

Even the merchant that I described above have perfectly good reasons not to just turn on the party with one offer. For one, the party has already shown itself to be trustworthy, while working for an overlord brings risky orders and the completely plausibly fear that said overlord may one day turn on you. A merchant, especially, will likely be ordered to deliver dangerous items and place himself in harm's way for his lord's benefit, a deal that is definitely not the most pleasing thing in the world. If the offer is just money, that's even more laughable - a person with a reputation for backstabbing friends for money will probably have a hard time finding collaborators in the future, while money can always be earned. A "no," of course, suffices for an answer.


This is the problem - it is just far too easy for an Evil character to turn on the party. An entirely Evil party is worse overall, but a single Evil character in an otherwise normal party is going to create a split, sooner than later.
As I mentioned already, it shouldn't be. The character should always take precedent over alignment. A player that plays an evil backstabbing character is a player that wants to backstab others. A player that plays a evil character that works well with the party probably intends for his character to work well with the party. Saying "a evil character will always have rifts" is like saying that a player has no control over his own characters actions - which may be true if your DM places a programmed amnesia on you, but in that case, it would be a fault of the DM.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 09:20 PM
You're missing the point. Evil is very clearly defined:

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
. . .

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Are you debasing or destroying innocent life? No? What if the opportunity came up, and it was advantageous to you? Still no? Then you are not Evil.

"Personality" or what-have-you are irrelevant on this point - and this is the point that is central to my thesis. When dealing with an Objective Morality System (which the Nine Alignments certainly are) you must use the definition they provide. Otherwise, you're not using an Objective system - the system becomes Subjective.

Your hypothetical CE Merchant, for example, would be nice to people stronger than him to gain their favor - but he would also stab them in the back if he became stronger, and take their resources. The same is true of your Evil PC, and he is constantly faced with people stronger than himself and his allies; why doesn't he suck up to them instead of weaker powers? Or do you only fight people weaker than yourselves?

If your answer to all of this is "personality - he would never betray his friends or allies" or "he could always rationalize a way not to kill them" then you're not Evil, you're Neutral.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Emphasis mine.

Evil has no qualms about killing innocents when convenient; they live to oppress and kill others. If you have gone an entire level as an Evil character without finding a single time that oppressing or killing an innocent wasn't the easiest way out of a problem, then I don't know what to say.

Susano-wo
2010-01-20, 09:23 PM
Felyndiira: Yes to pretty much, if not completely, everything you have said in this thread.

Evil is not necessarily sociopathic, and alignment is an effect, not a cause.

To say a certain type of character is *difficult* to work into a, or even any, campaign, is within reason, on a theoretical level. To say that a character will definitely cause problems, aside from the most ridiculous 'character' examples, is ludicrous.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 09:28 PM
Evil is not necessarily sociopathic, and alignment is an effect, not a cause.
Nope - Alignment is the Cause; actions are merely an indirect way of evaluating it.

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment
One does not "become" Evil in the sense that they end up doing more "evil" acts than "good" acts - they were either always Evil or extremely powerful events caused them to have a radical change in their worldview.

This is an easy mistake to make, but treating Alignment as merely the sum of your actions to date, leaves it without much cause to exist. After all, how is something supposed to guide your decision-making if it can only be evaluated after you take an action?

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-20, 09:31 PM
You're missing the point. Evil is very clearly defined:


BY FLUFF, NOT HARD RULINGS ON THE SUBJECT.

Alignment is one of the most subjective topics in DnD because there's no concrete rules regarding how each of the alignments should act; only a handful of references even touch on the subject. There's a guideline for being:


A Paladin of 4 different alignments
Exalted (beyond normal Good).
Vile
Lawful Evil (FC2)


Notice how all but one of these is called "an exception to the normal standards" in the fluff? Only one of those can be considered a baseline for player characters to work off of (the FC2 rules on the matter). This is because the Devs never defined how the other alignments should act in a concrete manner.

As a DM, should you enforce the Pally of Freedom's moral code upon all CG characters because they are Chaotic Good? No. Pallys are exceptions to the norm.

sambo.
2010-01-20, 09:31 PM
1. This one is focused on Drider. Number one, why in god's green earth are THEY the exiles? Sure, they bombed the test. But aren't they worth 5 drow? and why do they, as a monster class, get the short stick? I mean a poison? a lot of useless SLAs? and are 4 levels under a human wizard? what's the point??????
dunno.


2. I get that drow use adamantine as their weapons, armor, and other stuff, and that it melts in sunlight. However, I've had DMs use this as a screw to get the economy. However, is this a viable means to remove powerful items from play?
yup, and a damn good one too. especially when the DM has a pretty powerful party he needs to find a chellenge for.

using Drow weapons that decompose away from the Underdark & are destroyed by sunlight is a great mechanism for DMs to give powerful parties a good stiff challenge without that party then gaining obscene amounts of wealth from the encounter.


3. This is more focused on szarkai. Szarkai are basically drow that don't look like drow. However, how can a PC tell a szarkai npc vs an elf pc
an Elf PC should be able to spot a Szarkai pretty easily. either via accent, mannerisms or suchlike.


4. This is based on Darkness as the Drow's SLA. This is a cool ability, however, a DM can quickly kill a game using several drow who cast it all at the same time, and give them all rogue levels and hypathetically cause a TPK at low levels. What can PCs do to stop this?

easy home-brew fix: make it so all Drow are immune to the effects of Drow SLA Darkness (but NOT from regular darkness spells cast by non-drow or by drow with appropriate caster levels.

i'm playing a Drow in a PbP campaign. the +2 LA is pretty borked and a grade-A PITA.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 09:33 PM
BY FLUFF, NOT HARD RULINGS ON THE SUBJECT.

Alignment is one of the most subjective topics in DnD because there's no concrete rules regarding how each of the alignments should act; only a handful of references even touch on the subject. There's a guideline for being:


A Paladin of 4 different alignments
Exalted (beyond normal Good).
Vile
Lawful Evil (FC2)


Notice how all but one of these is called "an exception to the normal standards" in the fluff? Only one of those can be considered a baseline for player characters to work off of (the FC2 rules on the matter). This is because the Devs never defined how the other alignments should act in a concrete manner.

As a DM, should you enforce the Pally of Freedom's moral code upon all CG characters because they are Chaotic Good? No. Pallys are exceptions to the norm.
Paladins also have specific, separate codes as part of their character class. Alignment is a general system for all classes.

I wish I had my 2nd Edition PHB handy - there is in fact an entire chapter devoted to "defining how the other alignments should act in a concrete manner." IMHO, WotC's failure to reproduce this chapter was an unforgivable error - it has certainly caused more confusion about the Alignment system than I could have imagined.

But more concretely - can anyone find text in the SRD to support their varying definitions of "evil." As far as I can see, the SRD lays out the Good-Evil Axis very clearly

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
I mean, where is the ambiguity here? :smallconfused:

jmbrown
2010-01-20, 09:44 PM
Felyndiira: Yes to pretty much, if not completely, everything you have said in this thread.

Evil is not necessarily sociopathic, and alignment is an effect, not a cause.

To say a certain type of character is *difficult* to work into a, or even any, campaign, is within reason, on a theoretical level. To say that a character will definitely cause problems, aside from the most ridiculous 'character' examples, is ludicrous.

The whole point of the evil alignment is to cause problems, that's why it's evil. A lot of the characters people associate with being evil are in actuality neutral. The evil alignment is reserved for people who actively and unequivocally seek to do as much harm to elevate their position. They cooperate only as long as their goals are being achieved and the party poses little threat to their position. Even then, chaotic evil always look for a means of betraying their higher ups because their very nature goes against being satisfied with your station.

If you play a realistic chaotic evil person in an adventuring party and you're not actively causing problems, then as DM I'd bump you up to neutral evil (which is what most male drow are; the female priestesses are the psychotic freaks). The entirety of Lolth's teachings revolve around killing those that pose a threat to you including the ones that rear you. If you don't do it, then they will. An adventuring drow raised in drow society is brought up knowing this. I'd be suspect of any drow born in the underdark that wasn't paranoid of other people with powers equal to his own regardless if he thinks cooperating with them will lead to him getting stronger (because it certainly means his allies will get stronger too and you can't have that).

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-20, 09:45 PM
Paladins also have specific, separate codes as part of their character class. Alignment is a general system for all classes.

I wish I had my 2nd Edition PHB handy - there is in fact an entire chapter devoted to "defining how the other alignments should act in a concrete manner." IMHO, WotC's failure to reproduce this chapter was an unforgivable error - it has certainly caused more confusion about the Alignment system than I could have imagined.

But more concretely - can anyone find text in the SRD to support their varying definitions of "evil." As far as I can see, the SRD lays out the Good-Evil Axis very clearly

I mean, where is the ambiguity here? :smallconfused:

And I wish you would sit down and look outside thew SRD. Exemplars of Evil gives several excellent definitions of other Evil alignments, many of which would be deemed Neutral if you used the PHB's fluff text. It's also present in some NPCs printed in later books (read Tome of Magic or Weapons of Legacy for some examples).

Furthermore, the abiguity comes from the Law/Chaos axis even more than the Good/Evil axis.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 09:55 PM
And I wish you would sit down and look outside thew SRD. Exemplars of Evil gives several excellent definitions of other Evil alignments, many of which would be deemed Neutral if you used the PHB's fluff text. It's also present in some NPCs printed in later books (read Tome of Magic or Weapons of Legacy for some examples).

Furthermore, the abiguity comes from the Law/Chaos axis even more than the Good/Evil axis.
The later books WotC published on Alignment are clearly suspect. There is no way that Mind Rape "respects the dignity of sentient beings," for example.

No, Alignment is designed to be broad - it is a system of labeling, not a moral code; it gives you boundaries to work within, without being as exhaustive as a Paladin's Code of Conduct. This is why it looks so sparse, and leaves a considerable middle-ground in Neutral. In a game of Good vs. Evil you have Saints and Sinners; the muddy middle ground will be filled by those who cannot decide.

This is why the choice of Evil is so telling - it means you have no qualms about taking Innocent Life; why, you actually enjoy doing it. It's there in black-and-white, and nobody has argued against it. That fact alone makes it difficult for Evil to get along with Good - Good wants to protect the very people Evil is so intent on oppressing.

I can understand people wanting to play Darker and Edgier (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkerAndEdgier) characters, but that is largely the world of the Neutral in D&D. Calling yourself "evil" just because you have ulterior motives or want to be selfish sometime doesn't make you Evil; if you won't kill without qualm, then you're not Evil.

EDIT:
I would also argue that Law/Chaos is actually pretty darn clear if you actually read the passage. Some characteristics are written in the imperative (command) form; others are written in the permissive form. Those written as imperative statements are the guideposts of Lawful and Chaotic - that's why they're written as commands.

Felyndiira
2010-01-20, 09:57 PM
You're missing the point. Evil is very clearly defined:

Are you debasing or destroying innocent life? No? What if the opportunity came up, and it was advantageous to you? Still no? Then you are not Evil.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
This would not be the first time the SRD does not define a gray area, wouldn't it? The merchant that buys and sells substances that bring harm and death to people probably has no compunctions against killing innocents, since, well, he wouldn't be trading in such substances otherwise.


"Personality" or what-have-you are irrelevant on this point - and this is the point that is central to my thesis. When dealing with an Objective Morality System (which the Nine Alignments certainly are) you must use the definition they provide. Otherwise, you're not using an Objective system - the system becomes Subjective.

Your hypothetical CE Merchant, for example, would be nice to people stronger than him to gain their favor - but he would also stab them in the back if he became stronger, and take their resources. The same is true of your Evil PC, and he is constantly faced with people stronger than himself and his allies; why doesn't he suck up to them instead of weaker powers? Or do you only fight people weaker than yourselves?
Incorrect. When dealing with an objective morality system, you must use the definition they provide up to a point where it is defined by the system in question. What about a character with compunctions against killing children, but would murder anyone else within the blink of an eye? Obviously he is not neutral, since he has no compunctions against killing innocents. According to your definition, he is not evil, since he has compunctions against killing children. Does this make him 'evutral"?

My point is simple: the D&D SRD is NOT written to suit an evil PC. In fact, closer scrutiny reveals that the description for neutral evil is itself utter crap, since a standard elf (chaotic) that is evil (evil) would fit into the neutral evil category, as would (surprise) pretty much every female drow. So much for chaotic evil drow, right? The sheer number of alignment debates that go on for all OOTS characters is quite significant support that the D&D alignment system is neither clear nor really trustworthy.

It's easy to use the alignment system to support pretty much anything. I've myself debated whether my drow character actually is CE (all else considered, she does not hesitate to kill an entire extended family to ensure that anyone who would take revenge on her is dead, innocent or not, and is ruthless when driven by the sake of sport or necessity), NE (she is out for herself but doesn't actively seek conflict in everything), CN (follows her own whims and rationale, resents restrictions, but doesn't actively challenge authority wherever it's found), N (doesn't actively pursue either alignment, prefers good allies to evil ones for own benefit, not personally committed to upholding either alignment), or for goodness's sake, some LN/LE (finds a system of order such as the drow matriarchy convenient at times, cares about loyalty as a personal benefit, values organization and understands their importance).

If nothing else, how would you classify a character with some traits of good and some traits of evil? Neutral? Is Redcloak not evil for respecting the hobgoblins as well, or Belkar not evil for becoming a team player instead of backstabbing the team? What if person X is a serial killer, but would never harm his love interest and would sacrifice himself to protect her (think: red dragon)?


If your answer to all of this is "personality - he would never betray his friends or allies" or "he could always rationalize a way not to kill them" then you're not Evil, you're Neutral.

Emphasis mine.
Fact: most people would consider a serial murderer that would never betray his friends and allies evil. If you consider him neutral, then fine; take note that there's many things in the D&D sourcebooks that would conflict with that view, as there exists many that conflict with mine.

Also fact: a good DM would not bring up a floating situation that would actively compel an otherwise evil party-player to backstab his party, just like a good DM would not hold the devoted father's children hostage in exchange for the party's death without another way out (without consulting the players, at least).


Evil has no qualms about killing innocents when convenient; they live to oppress and kill others. If you have gone an entire level as an Evil character without finding a single time that oppressing or killing an innocent wasn't the easiest way out of a problem, then I don't know what to say.
And once again, your definition of evil is a bit too rigid. Practically anyone except the most card-carrying villain would be neutral under such a definition.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-20, 10:01 PM
The later books WotC published on Alignment are clearly suspect. There is no way that Mind Rape "respects the dignity of sentient beings," for example.

No, Alignment is designed to be broad - it is a system of labeling, not a moral code; it gives you boundaries to work within, without being as exhaustive as a Paladin's Code of Conduct. This is why it looks so sparse, and leaves a considerable middle-ground in Neutral. In a game of Good vs. Evil you have Saints and Sinners; the muddy middle ground will be filled by those who cannot decide.

This is why the choice of Evil is so telling - it means you have no qualms about taking Innocent Life; why, you actually enjoy doing it. It's there in black-and-white, and nobody has argued against it. That fact alone makes it difficult for Evil to get along with Good - Good wants to protect the very people Evil is so intent on oppressing.

I can understand people wanting to play Darker and Edgier (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkerAndEdgier) characters, but that is largely the world of the Neutral in D&D. Calling yourself "evil" just because you have ulterior motives or want to be selfish sometime doesn't make you Evil; if you won't kill without qualm, then you're not Evil.

EDIT:
I would also argue that Law/Chaos is actually pretty darn clear if you actually read the passage. Some characteristics are written in the imperative (command) form; others are written in the permissive form. Those written as imperative statements are the guideposts of Lawful and Chaotic - that's why they're written as commands.

As of the bolded line, I'm done with this conversation. You are citing the 3.5 SRD as your argument, then denying ours by using a 3.0 publication and citing it as a later publication.

What's more, Mind Rape is explicitly a Vile spell.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-20, 10:07 PM
And once again, your definition of evil is a bit too rigid. Practically anyone except the most card-carrying villain would be neutral under such a definition.
Yes! A thousand times, Yes!

Evil in D&D is not "bad" or "immoral." Evil in D&D is Evil, like Sauron in LotR. This is Fantasy Evil, not the everyday petty "evils" you see.

Calling the indirect evil of your Merchant Evil debases the term. By the same token, any bartender is Evil because his liquor is slowly killing those who consume it. Being Evil is killing innocents either with your own hand or by your command - you must exert agency in killing the innocents, or you're just another Banally Evil Bureaucrat.

Hell, your "Evilneutral" person is even easier. Does he kill any Innocents without compunctions? Then he's Evil! Fullstop! You can't be "a little bit Evil" any more than you can be "a little bit pregnant."

Words. Have. Meaning.

I'm not going to re-re-quote the two sentences again, but they weren't just casually put together by some intern - they were written to mean exactly what they say. When some say X is Y they are stating a definition; if they're saying X implies Y then they are saying something entirely different. Being a vertebrate does not imply that you have a spine - a vertebrate has a spine.

EDIT:

As of the bolded line, I'm done with this conversation. You are citing the 3.5 SRD as your argument, then denying ours by using a 3.0 publication and citing it as a later publication.

What's more, Mind Rape is explicitly a Vile spell.
The devil are you talking about?

As far as I know, the 3.5 version of Exalted Deeds has a spell that forcibly converts someone to Good; if that is not the case, then I apologize. However, I will still treat any book that says "killing Innocents is sometimes Good" or "being Evil doesn't always mean killing Innocents" as suspect - later sources contradicting earlier ones shows either a desire to update (which is doubtful, considering how Good & Evil are defined identically (or nearly so) in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Editions OR a poorly drafted splatbook.

In any case, I understand why you'd want to end the conversation - these Alignment discussions never turn out to be productive. Yet, I always hope that quoting simple sentences may convince someone that they mean what they say.

Still, I highly recommend finding a 2nd Edition PHB and reading the chapter on Alignment. You should find it illuminating - or at least historically interesting :smallsmile:

Felyndiira
2010-01-20, 10:25 PM
Yes! A thousand times, Yes!

Evil in D&D is not "bad" or "immoral." Evil in D&D is Evil, like Sauron in LotR. This is Fantasy Evil, not the everyday petty "evils" you see.

Calling the indirect evil of your Merchant Evil debases the term. By the same token, any bartender is Evil because his liquor is slowly killing those who consume it. Being Evil is killing innocents either with your own hand or by your command - you must exert agency in killing the innocents, or you're just another Banally Evil Bureaucrat.

Now, before I say anything else on this matter, I would like to point out that my previous post did all of the following:


Showed an example of why the D&D alignment system conflicts with itself. Namely, Chaotic Evil is not more chaotic than neutral evil; it is more evil, putting it in direct conflict with the definition of the law-chaos spectrum.
Showed an example of why the D&D alignment system has holes. You'll note that using the wording that the SRD gives for evil, the person that kills all innocents except children has compassion for children. Thus, by the exact wording argument that you've been arguing for in all of your posts, he is not evil because he has compassion for something.
Showed an example of why the D&D alignment system conflicts with the definitions of some of its own races.


Now, let's address your current post:


Hell, your "Evilneutral" person is even easier. Does he kill any Innocents without compunctions? Then he's Evil! Fullstop! You can't be "a little bit Evil" any more than you can be "a little bit pregnant."
This statement is quite fun, since it neutralized everything else you've been arguing for the last X posts. A character can kill some innocent without compunctions is evil? Lo and behold, a character with actual devotion to some friends but is merciless otherwise is evil! Thus, evil people can have friends that they are not willing to backstab! Hey look, evil people do not have to be card-carrying villains; they can have people they care for who happens to be in their party and still be evil by having no compunctions against killing the other people that have wronged him!

Excuse the sarcasm (and I apologize if I went overboard), but I think you see what I'm saying here. If you define such a person as evil, you (aside from violating the SRD's definition of evil) open a loophole in your own definition of evil.


I'm not going to re-re-quote the two sentences again, but they weren't just casually put together by some intern - they were written to mean exactly what they say. When some say X is Y they are stating a definition; if they're saying X implies Y then they are saying something entirely different. Being a vertebrate does not imply that you have a spine - a vertebrate has a spine.
I assure you, polymorph any object is also not written by some intern. It is written to mean exactly what it says.

What, of course, matters is that the D&D definition leaves wide caping holes between its quite polar definitions of its alignment, to the point that if you define everything by the book, the neutrevil person I exemplified earlier has no alignment (by which I don't mean true neutral). It also conflicts itself with the definition of chaotic evil, and given the MANY, MANY by-the-book arguments that people have given in regard to the alignment of pretty much every OotS character, I think you can't argue that the D&D definition is either not clear or not all-encompassing (it's both).


Words. Have. Meaning.
Tell that to the WotC non-interns.

Zaydos
2010-01-20, 10:25 PM
Still, I highly recommend finding a 2nd Edition PHB and reading the chapter on Alignment. You should find it illuminating - or at least historically interesting :smallsmile:

Yeah I've been known to point my PCs to it for determining alignment before. I agree it's a much better source than the 3.X PHBs. Even by its definition LE is easily playable, NE will betray when they can win and have stuff to gain from it, and CE will betray when they can get away with it. LE and NE can work, CE makes parties fall apart (my two drow were LE and Unaligned respectively).

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-20, 11:00 PM
1) How did this turn into an alignment thread?
2) I find the 3.5 PHB section on alignment pleasantly vague. I like that vagueness; I've gotten used to it. I am consequently unfond of efforts to rigorously define it.

jmbrown
2010-01-20, 11:13 PM
This statement is quite fun, since it neutralized everything else you've been arguing for the last X posts. A character can kill some innocent without compunctions is evil? Lo and behold, a character with actual devotion to some friends but is merciless otherwise is evil! Thus, evil people can have friends that they are not willing to backstab! Hey look, evil people do not have to be card-carrying villains; they can have people they care for who happens to be in their party and still be evil by having no compunctions against killing the other people that have wronged him!

And if his friends show weakness? If his friends reveal a great secret of his? If his friend's foolhardy actions lead to the group's downfall? People make mistakes and evil people know this more than anyone else. He sleeps next to you, eats with you, knows your tactics, knows your tricks, knows your personality, knows your weapons inside and out, and knows you as a person.

Evil cannot have true friends (as in someone they wholly trust and respect) because evil is aware that their friend is their greatest and most dangerous enemy. They may have trusted associates, but any truly evil characters knows to keep their allies only as close as their longest weapon can reach them.

RebelRogue
2010-01-20, 11:49 PM
Did you just place a character's alignment over his personality and character traits? Oo boy.
I'm half with you here and half not: it irks me when people confuse alignment and ability score. Good is neither stupid nor wise. Evil isn't stupid. And (the one that irks me the most since so many people do it) Chaotic Neutral does not imply low Wisdom! More generally this applies equally to abstract personality traits. But! Alignment does imply some values for the individual. There are certain traits that do not make sense for an Evil character! I do think OracleHunter is being a little rigid, though. But still: while it is possible for Evil characters to make friends with certian individuals, I think the occurence of a fortified group of mutually Evil friends must be the rarest of things! Such alliances simply will not last in the long run! If every Evil adventuring group is played like this, it certainly strains my suspension of disbelief!

AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-20, 11:52 PM
This is all true

Sir Homeslice
2010-01-21, 12:41 AM
They ruled out every Drow but good ones. Again.

I must be blind. Point out to me the bullet point stating that in no way you can play an evil drow in any shape and form.

Jarveiyan
2010-01-21, 08:11 AM
dunno.

yup, and a damn good one too. especially when the DM has a pretty powerful party he needs to find a chellenge for.

using Drow weapons that decompose away from the Underdark & are destroyed by sunlight is a great mechanism for DMs to give powerful parties a good stiff challenge without that party then gaining obscene amounts of wealth from the encounter.

an Elf PC should be able to spot a Szarkai pretty easily. either via accent, mannerisms or suchlike.

easy home-brew fix: make it so all Drow are immune to the effects of Drow SLA Darkness (but NOT from regular darkness spells cast by non-drow or by drow with appropriate caster levels.

i'm playing a Drow in a PbP campaign. the +2 LA is pretty borked and a grade-A PITA.

Drowcraft from the Forgotten Realms Underdark book already deals with the items that get destroyed from taking them to the surface.

At Home in the Deep a feat from Drow of the Underdark already gives this the effect of being able to see in darkness with no % miss chance.

The only thing I can say in this case is either suck up the LA and drive on or ask your DM about LA buy off from the Unearthed Arcana.

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 08:17 AM
I must be blind. Point out to me the bullet point stating that in no way you can play an evil drow in any shape and form.

Who said anything about evil? Why can't they for once suggest playing a neutral drow? Must they always hype up the emo Salvatorean CG Rebel?

Kaiyanwang
2010-01-21, 09:39 AM
b. Follower of the Naked Drow god Estralliae (no seriously she makes her Priestess naked when praying to her).

How do you dare, sir, to complain about that?

Choco
2010-01-21, 09:56 AM
About 4e drow:

They ruled out every Drow but good ones. Again.

I have, that's why I play Genasi.

I don't think they ruled out the normal, evil drow. All the 4e books have this sort of theme in common: They actively discourage players from being evil without talking to the DM first and/or for evil campaigns. They only have a passing description of the evil gods in the PHB while their (somewhat more) full info is in the DMG, for instance. They repeatedly mention that Good or Lawful Good are the most common alignments for D&D player characters. That sort of thing.

They are not ruling out evil, they just discourage it because they know most groups play good and in a good party it takes a very good roleplayer and mature group to play an evil character without being disruptinve and ruining the fun for the rest of the group. To most people on these boards that is probably not worth anything, but it DOES make it a bit more friendly for the new(er) players. For the rest of us, the capability to be/play evil is there just as it was in 3.x.

As for the topic... I don't mind drow as an NPC race at all, and I don't mind drow as PC's as long as they are not just another Drizzt clone. That being said, even if it IS another Drizzt clone and I am the DM I just suck it up and let em play. If they are a good enough Drizzt clone they are predictable, which allows me to railroad without being accused of it :smallamused:.

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 10:54 AM
You're still missing my point. I'm not lamenting the loss of Evil drow. 4e has made the conscious decision to discourage evil parties of any race, and I have no problem with that.

My problem is that they immediately default to Good as the preferred alternative, despite the fact that an adventuring drow would make much more sense as Neutral/Unaligned. It's a false dichotomy for the race that has persisted since Salvatore.

I would argue that many adventuring Drow in 4e simply don't care about the reputation of their race - they neither subscribe to it, nor actively seek to change anyone's minds about it. Is that not a viable and realistic path for them to take? Yet it is one WotC seemingly refuses to support in their publications.

Choco
2010-01-21, 11:02 AM
You're still missing my point. I'm not lamenting the loss of Evil drow. 4e has made the conscious decision to discourage evil parties of any race, and I have no problem with that.

My problem is that they immediately default to Good as the preferred alternative, despite the fact that an adventuring drow would make much more sense as Neutral/Unaligned. It's a false dichotomy for the race that has persisted since Salvatore.

I would argue that many adventuring Drow in 4e simply don't care about the reputation of their race - they neither subscribe to it, nor actively seek to change anyone's minds about it. Is that not a viable and realistic path for them to take? Yet it is one WotC seemingly refuses to support in their publications.

That is the sort of thing for players and gaming groups to work out :smalltongue:

Anyway, this also fits what they are doing. WotC are pushing the players to play actual heroic characters, as opposed to a bunch of murderous psychotic hobos that go around killing things and taking their stuff just to make themselves more powerful.

What WotC does is give ideas (possibly based on their personal experiences) and create a framework. Nothing says you have to go by what they say, roleplayers don't need books to tell them how to roleplay. New players likely take what is written to heart to get them started, experienced players often ignore most of these suggestions.

I have heard people complaining about the "crappy" and "limited" selection of gods in 4e, yet all I can say as a response is "then work with your DM to make your own..."

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 11:05 AM
"Fix it yourself" is a valid response, but does not justify WotC's decisions.

The fact that I can repair their poorly-conceived fluff at my gaming table... makes it no less poorly-conceived.

Choco
2010-01-21, 11:11 AM
"Fix it yourself" is a valid response, but does not justify WotC's decisions.

The fact that I can repair their poorly-conceived fluff at my gaming table... makes it no less poorly-conceived.

It appears poorly conceived to many of us because we have been playing 3.x and older. They decided to go a new direction with 4e, making it MUCH less bogged down in the rules (not trying to create rules for EVERYTHING possible and simply letting the DM do it was the best decision they made yet) and easier to get into. They are purposely trying to get new players by making the game easier to manage and play, so the simple cookie-cutter stuff you get out of the box (book?) is all you need to jump in and start playing right away. Experienced players will ignore/repair this fluff, and it will still be faster than dealing with the bogged-down rulefest that was 3.x.

For full disclosure, I am very biased in this regard because I enjoy making my own homebrew settings (which basically involves rewriting ALL the WotC fluff) as a DM and as a player the DM's I play with are lenient with what they let me do even if they are playin with offical WotC fluff.

Kyeudo
2010-01-21, 11:15 AM
Drow have Faerie Fire as a Spell-like ability as well as Darkness. Hit your targets with Faerie Fire while hiding in the Darkness. Now they have a miss chance and you don't.

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 11:31 AM
It appears poorly conceived to many of us because we have been playing 3.x and older. They decided to go a new direction with 4e, making it MUCH less bogged down in the rules (not trying to create rules for EVERYTHING possible and simply letting the DM do it was the best decision they made yet) and easier to get into. They are purposely trying to get new players by making the game easier to manage and play, so the simple cookie-cutter stuff you get out of the box (book?) is all you need to jump in and start playing right away. Experienced players will ignore/repair this fluff, and it will still be faster than dealing with the bogged-down rulefest that was 3.x.

1) I have no issue with 4e rules. I'm discussing the default flavor that they've supplied.

2) They're applying this "new direction" inconsistently.
Lets look at Warlocks in the PHB - and ignore 4e's linear alignment system for the moment. They say you could be:

A "libram-toting scholar" (Lawful);
A "foot-loose wanderer" (Chaotic);
A "devil touched hunter eliminating evil" (Good);
A "mercenary discouraging unwanted attention" (Neutral);
A "true diabolist, tyrannizing the weak" (Evil).

This is MUCH more open than 3.x Warlock flavor, which boiled down to one of two options - either "your ancestor was Charlie Daniels and beat Asmodeus in a fiddle contest," or "A faerie sprayed pixie dust all over your crib, and you caught the eldritch" with no other option.

So to conclude, I disagree with you on a fundamental point: more flavor text confers more options, not less. By covering every base in 4e (as they did with Warlocks above), they eliminate the question of "How can my Warlock be LG?" Any alignment-based flavor issue a player would have trouble wrapping his head around has been taken care of.

Now my question is - why didn't they apply that same approach to Drow?



For full disclosure, I am very biased in this regard because I enjoy making my own homebrew settings (which basically involves rewriting ALL the WotC fluff) as a DM and as a player the DM's I play with are lenient with what they let me do even if they are playin with offical WotC fluff.

I'm all for muting WotC fluff where necessary, but some guidelines still come in handy. For instance, in 3.x I could say "sorcerers never get their magic from dragons in my setting." That would then require me to veto or refluff every dragon-related feat, spell or other feature for sorcerers that my players could think of. In 4e, All I have to say is "All sorcerers are storm/wild source" and leave it at that.

Choco
2010-01-21, 12:01 PM
Now my question is - why didn't they apply that same approach to Drow?

If I were to guess, I would say because they are giving people (read: the majority) what they want. Seriously, give it some time and in 4.5e or 5e vampires will be refluffed to be more like in Twilight :smalleek:.

As anyone who has been in a game with a Drow PC knows, chances are VERY high that this character is played like Drizzt, so WotC specifically wrote that in their book. That is probably all there is to it.

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 12:33 PM
If I were to guess, I would say because they are giving people (read: the majority) what they want. Seriously, give it some time and in 4.5e or 5e vampires will be refluffed to be more like in Twilight :smalleek:.

As anyone who has been in a game with a Drow PC knows, chances are VERY high that this character is played like Drizzt, so WotC specifically wrote that in their book. That is probably all there is to it.

And that is my problem. They are subscribing to the issue (Drizzt clones) instead of giving the players any other idea of how to play a non-jerkwad Drow.

Drow PCs being personified wangst was a problem created by WotC - yet they are exacerbating it, rather than supplying their fanbase with ideas.

AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-21, 12:44 PM
Seriously, give it some time and in 4.5e or 5e vampires will be refluffed to be more like in Twilight :smalleek:.


that is like the most horrible thing ever. Should that happen, I will gouge my eyes out and cut my tongue from my mouth in anguish.

And plus, Drow aren't all drizzt clones. Take my idea of the "Necroperv" (see page 1) or my DM's drow demilich sorcerer (yes, he's a god) and even others who are CN or LN. Sure, drizzt do'urden ruined drow pcs forever by making the drow pc a stereotype for the outcast. So what?

Zaydos
2010-01-21, 12:50 PM
I've read one book with Drizzt because my older brother suggested it. Never had heard of him before, and it did 2 things: 1) made me realize, hey playing a drow or other monstrous race could be fun (I was a kid and had only played B/X and 1e, the idea of playing a monster had never occurred to me before) and 2) I don't really see what Drizzt has going for him except he's a monstrous race.

I do want to read one of the better books with him to get an idea of whether he's actually a decent character or not, but from what I saw I didn't like him. I've never wanted to play a drow that angsted and wielded 2 scimitars. I've thought the knightly follower of Estralliae who attempts to heal elf-drow relations might be cool; the drow raised outside of his home culture seeking to learn what he truly is; the drow mercenary who decided he didn't want to be around a bunch of psychotic maniacs who would kill him for jollies (his siblings) and that the surface was safer; the drow assassin who serves only his own purposes who seeks power on the surface to overthrow the matriarchy of Lolth's priestesses and replace it with his own iron-fisted rule.

Playing a Drizzt clone angsty rebel... no. The closest is the idealistic knightly follower of Estralliae that believes that with the help of their elven brethren drow can be redeemed, at least once the priesthood of Lolth is removed. My normal is closer to the last two, I want power to either protect myself from my own family and kin or I want power to conquer my family and kin. One might make friends with surface dwellers after they've been put into life or death situations and if they show they are willing to risk themselves to protect him, the other will keep things mostly professional and would have no problems betraying them if the price was right and he could do it without breaking his oath (no the BBEG offering him a job is not the right price, he'd not trust the offer).

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 12:59 PM
Sure, drizzt do'urden ruined drow pcs forever by making the drow pc a stereotype for the outcast. So what?

So, WotC had the perfect opportunity to fix or expand it - a brand new edition where everything (like Warlocks, and Planetouched) was getting reskinned anyway. Rather than do that, however, they effectively copy-pasted "misunderstood CG rebel" and moved on. I consider that a disservice, especially when you consider how popular and clamored-for Drow PCs were, going into 4e.

AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-21, 01:41 PM
So, WotC had the perfect opportunity to fix or expand it - a brand new edition where everything (like Warlocks, and Planetouched) was getting reskinned anyway. Rather than do that, however, they effectively copy-pasted "misunderstood CG rebel" and moved on. I consider that a disservice, especially when you consider how popular and clamored-for Drow PCs were, going into 4e.

To a degree, they reskinned drow. However, it almost seems as if Drow are incouraged to be Drizzt clones.

That said, the Drow are still the coolest (in my opinion) elf subspecies, love em or hate em, and d&d wouldn't be the same without everyone's most/least fave dark-skinned underdark-dwelling spider-worshipping elf subspecies

Matthew
2010-01-21, 06:37 PM
So, WotC had the perfect opportunity to fix or expand it - a brand new edition where everything (like Warlocks, and Planetouched) was getting reskinned anyway. Rather than do that, however, they effectively copy-pasted "misunderstood CG rebel" and moved on. I consider that a disservice, especially when you consider how popular and clamored-for Drow PCs were, going into 4e.

I dunno; I mean, I get what you are saying, but when it comes down to it we are just butting one conception of what dark elves should be up against another. That Wizards of the Coast decided to go with the most overused cliché of all time in D&D is entirely in keeping with their market strategy, which is targeting new players who are unfamiliar with the concept, like it, and then feel "good" about themselves when they realise how bad it is and graduate to veteran D&Ders.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-21, 06:50 PM
If I were to guess, I would say because they are giving people (read: the majority) what they want. Seriously, give it some time and in 4.5e or 5e vampires will be refluffed to be more like in Twilight :smalleek:.

As anyone who has been in a game with a Drow PC knows, chances are VERY high that this character is played like Drizzt, so WotC specifically wrote that in their book. That is probably all there is to it.

Did you read the quote it was tongue in cheek. They were having a laugh: Designers do this.

Plus, Twilight vampires sparkle aside: they are pretty beefy when it comes down to it in a fight. Every one of them has psychic powers (only 1 power though except Bella's future Daughter has 2).

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 06:59 PM
To a degree, they reskinned drow. However, it almost seems as if Drow are incouraged to be Drizzt clones.

Exactly, and this saddens me.


That said, the Drow are still the coolest (in my opinion) elf subspecies, love em or hate em, and d&d wouldn't be the same without everyone's most/least fave dark-skinned underdark-dwelling spider-worshipping elf subspecies

I like them a lot more in this edition (i.e. without the LA and crappy SR), so I'm definitely on board with that. Certainly they beat regular elves in my eyes; but Eladrin are more of a toss-up (due to actually deserving the "snooty elves" moniker.)


I dunno; I mean, I get what you are saying, but when it comes down to it we are just butting one conception of what dark elves should be up against another. That Wizards of the Coast decided to go with the most overused cliché of all time in D&D is entirely in keeping with their market strategy, which is targeting new players who are unfamiliar with the concept, like it, and then feel "good" about themselves when they realise how bad it is and graduate to veteran D&Ders.

Is there any reason they couldn't cater to both? I see room on that page for more text. I'm not saying they can't push us toward "CG," but they can push us elsewhere too.

Susano-wo
2010-01-21, 10:28 PM
"I wish I had my 2nd Edition PHB handy - there is in fact an entire chapter devoted to "defining how the other alignments should act in a concrete manner." IMHO, WotC's failure to reproduce this chapter was an unforgivable error - it has certainly caused more confusion about the Alignment system than I could have imagined."
That's nice. 1st off, that's second edition., not third. You can't tell me that on one hand, they mean what they say and say what they mean, and then on the other hand tell me that what they really meant was how it worked in 2nd.
2nd, RE later rules: the general policy is newer versions supercede previous versions (IE 3.5 versions of 3.0 feats, RUles COmpendium, etc,) so these later sources can be as suspect as OJ Simpson, they are actually, if anything, more authoritive.
FInally, and perhaps I should have stated this up front: good and evil are real concepts, and hard to define in reality somtimes. So yeah, I am going to talk about them in real terms, suich as a person does not murder because he is evil, he is evil because he murders. Saying an Evil Character does this is simply describing what an evil character can be like. Tigers are Yellow. Oh hey, except that's just the typical tiger--some are white.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-21, 10:35 PM
FInally, and perhaps I should have stated this up front: good and evil are real concepts, and hard to define in reality somtimes. So yeah, I am going to talk about them in real terms, suich as a person does not murder because he is evil, he is evil because he murders. Saying an Evil Character does this is simply describing what an evil character can be like. Tigers are Yellow. Oh hey, except that's just the typical tiger--some are white.
Then you miss the point of the Alignment System entirely, I'm afraid. They didn't write the alignment definition for kicks, you know.

Oh, and if you do read the 2nd Edition PHB you will see that the Alignments are very much the same - True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are the only exceptions. And yes, in both editions "killing innocents" is a Necessary and Sufficient condition for being Evil.

Dacia Brabant
2010-01-21, 11:00 PM
I think you should point out that True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are not only "exceptions," they are absolutely retarded and completely unplayable as written in the 2nd Edition PHB.

Really, Chaotic Neutral characters are just as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it? Insanity is an alignment and not a status effect now? True Neutral characters are supposed to fight for whoever's on the losing side? Quick, someone tell Switzerland!

I'll grant that the other alignments are pretty well defined, but those two were just silly and I'm happy WotC changed them since LN, TN and CN are the ones I usually play.


(Sorry, I've nothing to say about Drow. They're just not very interesting to me. Although just intersting enough to click on this thread I suppose.)

chiasaur11
2010-01-21, 11:37 PM
Thing that bugs me about Drow?

The way they're treated as the real threat in the Underdark. The same Underdark that has Mindflayers and Aboleths.

Yeah.

Hawriel
2010-01-22, 12:25 AM
Pathfinder Drow.

They are vile demon worshipping twisted bastards! Its in the rules. Pathfind went the extra mile to put in books about the drow (well not the players guid the adventure campaine that intros them) that they KILL any child who even looks like he/she might be soft (read good). They would make Lolth cry.

Not only are they so wicked but no one knows about them. Not even most elves. The 'good' elves who do know dont talk about it. Its like admitting your cousin is ted bundy.

Nai_Calus
2010-01-22, 01:22 AM
I've made two Drow characters.

One was Kerazt Vareth, CN-leaning-E Cleric of Vhaeraun. He'd stab you a moment's notice if he thought it was necessary, but otherwise, meh. Drow belonged on the surface, damn it, and needed to be reunited with their surface cousins, and he was the one who was going to do it, damn it. He wound up as an NPC in a campaign I ran, where he lead a settlement on the surface of mostly-neutral Vhaeraunite Drow who lived on the outskirts of a mildly shady human town and traded normally with others, worked clandestinely with the surface elves and were probably the best behaved people there.

The other was Isri Arellan, CG Cleric of Corellon Larethian. He'd wound up helping a captured surface elf priestess escape when he'd only meant to ask her questions, and wound up going to the surface with her and living there, eventually becoming a priest because he felt that Corellon had intervened the night it had happened and given him a chance to take his pointless, futureless existence and do something with it.
No angst, no trying to throw off the horrible reputation of his people. Just an elf with black skin and white hair who was simply glad to have been given a chance. Actually got to play him for a bit. Good fun, not to mention the utter confusion on the part of everyone capable of recognizing both a drow and a priest of Corellon.
I used him as an NPC too, where he had after 400+ years become the high priest of the largest, most important temple to Corellon in his world, and saw it as his sacred duty to visit the underdark on occasion in search of other drow like himself who hated the system and didn't want to be a part of it and lead them back home to the surface and to Corellon.

(Isri is a good example of exactly why I hate Eilistraee and didn't use her in my world despite using her brother. Isri in my campaign was someone who had used his natural talents to become a great priest who had saved dozens of souls who would otherwise have gone to Lolth. Gods forbid Eilistraeeans had gotten their hands on him and his potential had gone to waste. Gender equality my ass. At least Vhaeraun is openly evil and biased. Hell, he even has a few female priestesses who play both sides of the coin and serve Lolth even as they betray her.)

Screw whiny, emo Drizzt. You're worried about the omgeval and omgoppression? Baww, deal with it. Do something about it.

-

Also it's worth noting that the reason Lolth got banished was because, in the process of trying to overthrow Corellon, she got together a group of other elf-hating gods, had them storm Arvandor, and attempted to murder Corellon by altering the flight path of an arrow shot by her own daughter, after she had corrupted her son into her schemes, and then when the arrow failed to kill him outright, tried to poison him with poison she'd had her daughter develop with her for hunting, and was only stopped from doing it by the timely arrival of Sehanine Moonbow, who Vhaeraun had trapped as part of the scheme he'd been brought into.

Yeah, she deserved it. No sympathy. And I can't blame Corellon, you want mental trauma, look at him. The woman he'd been completely, madly in love with to the point of utter blindness had just tried to murder him and pass it off as their daughter's doing, and had corrupted their son into helping her. Because she wanted more power and wanted to rule. When he would have given her anything in his power to give her if she'd simply asked. And she'd apparently never loved him in the first place. *Damn*. I would've just outright killed the witch, but Corellon couldn't bring himself to do it. Poor Corellon.

Choco
2010-01-22, 09:28 AM
Also it's worth noting that the reason Lolth got banished was because, in the process of trying to overthrow Corellon, she got together a group of other elf-hating gods, had them storm Arvandor, and attempted to murder Corellon by altering the flight path of an arrow shot by her own daughter, after she had corrupted her son into her schemes, and then when the arrow failed to kill him outright, tried to poison him with poison she'd had her daughter develop with her for hunting, and was only stopped from doing it by the timely arrival of Sehanine Moonbow, who Vhaeraun had trapped as part of the scheme he'd been brought into.

Yeah, she deserved it. No sympathy. And I can't blame Corellon, you want mental trauma, look at him. The woman he'd been completely, madly in love with to the point of utter blindness had just tried to murder him and pass it off as their daughter's doing, and had corrupted their son into helping her. Because she wanted more power and wanted to rule. When he would have given her anything in his power to give her if she'd simply asked. And she'd apparently never loved him in the first place. *Damn*. I would've just outright killed the witch, but Corellon couldn't bring himself to do it. Poor Corellon.

I am glad I wasnt the only one thinking that.

If y'all want a truly sympathetic turned-to-evil goddess, read up on Mortis, the goddess of Undead in the Disciples video games. The entire Disciples series was odd in that the villains were much more sympathetic than the heroes (the gods anyway, the mortals weren't alive when the "good" gods screwed everyone over so they can't be held responsible).

AslanCross
2010-01-22, 10:30 AM
So far only one post has mentioned Eberron's different take on Drow.

See, Elves in general were once slaves of the giant empire on the continent of Xen'Drik. When the empire collapsed, many of the elves migrated to Aerenal and formed their own civilization there. Eventually, some of them moved to the central continent of Khorvaire and either became Mongols Valenar elves or got integrated into human society and became cosmopolitan.

The Drow largely remained on Xen'Drik. Instead of dwelling underground, they dwell deep in the jungles. They like boomerangs, sniping, and poison. They venerate all arachnids, but their favorite is the white scorpion, which they see as a symbol of their god Vulkoor (believed to be an aspect of the Mockery, the god of dishonorable combat and unjust war).

They can cooperate with other races if they feel like it, but are far more likely to fill one's hide with poisoned blowgun darts.

Roderick_BR
2010-01-22, 11:12 AM
1. It's a punishment. You are some inhuman (indrow?) beast, unable to reach your true potential. THAT is the point.
2. If drow equipment is making it's constant way into human economy, someone must do something. And no, giving items and taking them back (assuming the players are unaware of it's properties/nature) just causes ressentment against the DM.
3. Never heard about it, sorry.
4. Kill them first. Seriously, one the reasons drows are dangerous is because they are cunning cheaters and backstabers. If you find out a place if full of drows, get ready to run.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-22, 11:16 AM
4. Kill them first. Seriously, one the reasons drows are dangerous is because they are cunning cheaters and backstabers. If you find out a place if full of drows, get ready to run.

Or bust out the floodlights and gank them all. Seriously, being a Drow sucks...

Choco
2010-01-22, 11:26 AM
Or bust out the floodlights and gank them all. Seriously, being a Drow sucks...

Yeah, putting them out of their misery might not even be considered an evil act :smallamused:

Drakyn
2010-01-22, 11:30 AM
Thing that bugs me about Drow?

The way they're treated as the real threat in the Underdark. The same Underdark that has Mindflayers and Aboleths.

Yeah.

Seconded. It's Elves Are Just Better crossed over with the fact that bad guys have to be threatening, so they don't have any of that inexplicable "regressing power" crap that tends to get tacked onto most elves. And for some reason, they never have to worry about the low birthrate, despite probably having the highest mortality rate in the entire damned pointy-eared family tree.

Set
2010-01-22, 12:00 PM
And for some reason, they never have to worry about the low birthrate, despite probably having the highest mortality rate in the entire damned pointy-eared family tree.

That *does* bug me. Elves all over the world are in decline, barely ever have kids, etc. and Drow murder a half-dozen of their own kids for every one that grows up, and then enslaves the vast majority of their own race anyway, since there are apparently tens of thousands of them, crammed into cities like Menzoberranzan, that are fed by the herd of Rothe that grow on an island about 120 ft. across in the middle of a lake. Wow. That's, uh, a single whiff of wet Rothe fart about every six years, if every Drow gets a share...

My 'kludge' for that was that the Drow matron mothers have dealt with their declining elven birthrate by interbreeding with the always-fecund fiends that they summon, and that thier spell resistance, spell like abilities, etc. are all the result of partial fiendish heritage. The most 'noble' of drow are the ones with the most fiendish blood, the best SLAs and the actual spell resistance, while the vast, vast numbers of Drow 'commoners' are those with thin fiendish blood, few or no SLAs and only a +2 saving throw bonus vs. magic instead of Spell Resistance (making them suitable LA+0 PC options, unlike Noble Drow). The increased Drow fertility, from the fiendish blood, is the only trait that remains true from Commoner to Noble, explaining why the Drow are not in decline, even if they are becoming less and less 'elf' and more and more 'tiefling / half-fiend' with every generation.

I never liked Eilistraee, or most of the other second-rate Drow gods. Lolth and 'other demon lords' were listed as the Drow focusses of worship back in their original presentation, and that's what I've always gone with. There are Drow in service to Demogorgon, Drow in serve to Kotschtchie, Drow in service to Yeenoghu, Drow in service to Orcus, Drow in service to Graz'zt, and, most commonly of all, Drow in service to Lolth. The Drow in service to other Demon Lords are *radically* different in culture and nature, with the Drow of Kotschtchie acting more like the vampires from 30 Days of Night, screaming out of the snow to leave fire and blood behind and the Drow of Yeenoghu serving as mysterious masked advisors to uncannily coordinated and well-equipped tribes of Gnolls.

About the only Realms-lore I've used involving Drow is the notion that Lolth was kinda/sorta once an elven goddess. Corellon was chaotic and wild, the elven goddess of magic and fate was lawful and ordered. She grew tangled up in her own webs of destiny, spending more time trying to manipulate a tangled pattern of events and individual choices, and was influenced by whispers that came to her through time. She was manipulated *by her future self,* who had been tainted by a hitherto unremarkable Demon Queen of Spiders and Manipulation, and the godess and the demon-queen slowly became one and the same, the darkness gestating within the body and soul of the elven goddess of fate, whose followers, tainted by her own churchs new dogma of elven superiority and 'manifest destiny,' began oppressing the 'lesser races,' leading to terrible wars. By the time Correllon accepted that his lady-love was lost to the darkness, and had to fight her, it was too late to save her. At the end of their fight for the soul of the elven people, Correllon tore into her body and ripped out everything that had been the goddess he loved, leaving behind only the monster Lolth, bloated on stolen power and worship, to flee into the darkness with her followers, whom she mated with her own demonic servants to give them the strength and fertility they would need to survive in a domain of Mind Flayers and worse.

Correllon, formerly masculine, and a god of physical matters, absorbed what remained of his former mate, becoming more androgynous, with mismatched eyes (one his own bright, one his lady's dark), and assumed her portfolios of dominion over elven magic, as well as elven martial skills. The mother of the elven gods is gone, and Correllon contains what remains of her essence, serving as sole parent to the pantheon.

Sehanine Moonbow didn't exist, in this version, obviously. She really can't, given that her 'history' conflicts with the whole Realms bit about Araushalnee (Sehanine can't have been Correllon's wife and co-creator of the elves, when the Realms describes Arashaulnee as Correllon's wife long after Sehanine's supposed appearance.). Much like Elistraee, I'm not a fan of Sehanine anyway. None of the 'new' demihuman dieties seemed to have as much traction with me as the original Roger Moore creations.

Matthew
2010-01-22, 07:06 PM
Is there any reason they couldn't cater to both? I see room on that page for more text. I'm not saying they can't push us toward "CG," but they can push us elsewhere too.

Presumably for the same reason that the dragon born have a very obvious niche to fill (we're a warrior race, noble and proud, Klingons, essentially...), they are pushing archetypes on the audience in order to give them strong concepts to identify with. The drow are problematic because they are elves, except they are evil, dark skinned, and live underground, so you already have a major identity crisis.

Susano-wo
2010-01-24, 04:11 PM
All right, one more and I'll stop beating this horse.

The Alignment system is to have a person's morality mechanically reflected. Its essentially there for all those smite and detect spells. Some people have then decided that this means morality is/might be different in the Dnd World. This is patently absurd.

So yeah, ESPECIALLY since they can't agree on what does or does not constitute good/evil between source books, and combined with the basic fact that morality isn't some arbitrary standard (people differ about what they think is moral, but the truth is still there, and was always there, regardless of who was right, or even if neither person is right), I refer you to my previous point :P

Optimator
2010-01-24, 05:00 PM
...Showed an example of why the D&D alignment system conflicts with itself. Namely, Chaotic Evil is not more chaotic than neutral evil; it is more evil, putting it in direct conflict with the definition of the law-chaos spectrum.


Well, in real life being chaotic is considered... 'more bad' than being lawful, in very general terms. I think this subconscious bias skews the moral and ethical axis. IMO

Zaydos
2010-01-24, 08:34 PM
Well, in real life being chaotic is considered... 'more bad' than being lawful, in very general terms. I think this subconscious bias skews the moral and ethical axis. IMO

Not just IRL. In the Red Box, or at least the copy I grew up with, there was only 3 alignments Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. These actually boiled down to Good, Neutral, and Evil. So the bias was built into the game at one point. Look at 4e too Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil. The game is pretty much built on the premise that Lawful is more good (or less evil) than Chaotic in every edition (hence thieves couldn't be Lawful Good, and paladins had to be). They steered away a bit in 3.X but even then the bias still existed.

Doug Lampert
2010-01-24, 09:35 PM
Yes! A thousand times, Yes!

Evil in D&D is not "bad" or "immoral." Evil in D&D is Evil, like Sauron in LotR. This is Fantasy Evil, not the everyday petty "evils" you see.

SRD:
"Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."

Note: The creature described doesn't kill for jollies, or even in preference to other methods, he simply has no compunctions against it.

But if he's Lawful Evil he can EXPLICITELY have compunctions against killing children or other similar groups.

No need for Suaron here. You're not playing by your own cited source.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-24, 10:13 PM
SRD:
"Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."

Note: The creature described doesn't kill for jollies, or even in preference to other methods, he simply has no compunctions against it.

But if he's Lawful Evil he can EXPLICITELY have compunctions against killing children or other similar groups.

No need for Suaron here. You're not playing by your own cited source.
It's not a compunction about killing Innocents if it is a compunction about killing children. There are non-children Innocents - and if you're non-Evil, you have compunctions about killing all Innocents because they are Innocence. Mr. "I don't kill children" doesn't care about whether the child is Innocent or not - he just doesn't kill children, ever.

I appreciate that "you're a hypocrite" is a fine rhetorical tool, but I'm really making a very simple point. Evil people don't have compunctions about killing Innocents and will therefore do it when it is convenient.

The easy test is: if you could get something you want by killing someone, and you wouldn't suffer any negative consequences for killing them, would you do it? Evil people would, without question. Everyone else would be morally conflicted.

And no, this doesn't mean "I would kill him, but it would ruin our friendship" is how Evil people think either. Taking someone's life is like cutting in line for an Evil person.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-24, 10:32 PM
1. This one is focused on Drider. Number one, why in god's green earth are THEY the exiles? Sure, they bombed the test. But aren't they worth 5 drow? and why do they, as a monster class, get the short stick? I mean a poison? a lot of useless SLAs? and are 4 levels under a human wizard? what's the point??????

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but in 4e they changed this. Now the driders are the ones who actually SUCCEEDED in the Test, and thus they're considered living embodiments of Lolth's will. Drow society uses driders as high priestesses, or something. I think the Lolthian version of the Pope(ss) might be a drider.

Reverent-One
2010-01-24, 10:42 PM
Is there any reason they couldn't cater to both? I see room on that page for more text. I'm not saying they can't push us toward "CG," but they can push us elsewhere too.

You're quoting a one sentence general idea and saying that WoTC thinks that all players should do this. Those one sentence blurbs don't have space for every possible idea for members of the race. What about the example adventurers from the Drow entry? I don't have the FR book, but I assume they follow the standard "give 3 example adventurers for this race" pattern they do in the other books. Are all of them CG Dritz clones?

RebelRogue
2010-01-24, 10:51 PM
I don't have the FR book, but I assume they follow the standard "give 3 example adventurers for this race" pattern they do in the other books. Are all of them CG Dritz clones?
Yes and no. The first one is a ranger very much akin to Drizzt. The other two have obviously fled to the surface too for one reason or another. There's a noble rogue who was about to be sacrificed to Lolth and a Feylock that values the beauty of forests. So while the latter two need not be CG, they're all fleeing from something, but maybe that's unavaoidable?

Reverent-One
2010-01-24, 10:58 PM
Yes and no. The first one is a ranger very much akin to Drizzt. The other two have obviously fled to the surface too for one reason or another. There's a noble rogue who was about to be sacrificed to Lolth and a Feylock that values the beauty of forests. So while the latter two need not be CG, they're all fleeing from something, but maybe that's unavaoidable?

Well, one can flee and be any alignment. And Optimystik's complaint seemed to be that WoTC supported nothing but the "CG rebel, redeeming his species" type of character for the Drow, but from the other examples, it sounds like they did.

Ashiel
2010-01-25, 12:33 AM
It's not a compunction about killing Innocents if it is a compunction about killing children. There are non-children Innocents - and if you're non-Evil, you have compunctions about killing all Innocents because they are Innocence. Mr. "I don't kill children" doesn't care about whether the child is Innocent or not - he just doesn't kill children, ever.

I appreciate that "you're a hypocrite" is a fine rhetorical tool, but I'm really making a very simple point. Evil people don't have compunctions about killing Innocents and will therefore do it when it is convenient.

The easy test is: if you could get something you want by killing someone, and you wouldn't suffer any negative consequences for killing them, would you do it? Evil people would, without question. Everyone else would be morally conflicted.

And no, this doesn't mean "I would kill him, but it would ruin our friendship" is how Evil people think either. Taking someone's life is like cutting in line for an Evil person.

Considering I have been reading this thread for a while, and pretty much disagree with everything you have said, and don't believe I could myself change any opinions on the topic, I would like to just post this article that I believe sums up my opinions of what a well played evil is. Sorry. Insanely homicidal is just dumb, and I'm sorry but you can be a horribly evil person without murdering for the hell of it, or being well and ready to stab your momma for a gold piece. What frightens me the most about your stance on the subject is the sort of hideous monsters you seem to think neutral reflects just fine. :smallyuk:

Evil Article - 3rd Edition.org (http://www.3rdedition.org/articles/viewer.asp?ID=56)


This is not hard to reconcile even if one foolishly insists that D&D has an absolute alignment system (it is, rather Objective, but too few understand the differences). After all, no human being is wholly evil, absolute or not. As the saying goes, "Mussolini made the trains run on time."

WARNING: The following spoiler could be seen as inflammatory, opinionated, and reflects the personal views of this poster on the subject of the 2E alignments. If you are offended by either A) Bluntness or B) anything negatively said about anything related to 2E, then do not click the spoiler button.
Also, if you're following the 2E explanations of alignment as a word of law, then yeah, you're going to have problems convincing other people that your opinion of evil is even valid. That junk is all trash, and always has been. It was trash in 2E, it was trash on Baldur's Gate, and it's still trash today.

It is the antithesis of role-playing, and as you have so clearly defined is incapable of being nothing more than a set of rigid rules by which to make a highly specific character, leaving you with the option for all of 9 characters, two of which are insane and/or stupid.

The idea that being a particular alignment means you must exemplify the traits of that alignment at all times is irrational. That junk is reserved for creatures like demons and devils, and even then they can act out of alignment and they're MADE OF ALIGNMENT (as noted by several official sources). Even the DMG says that no single actions dictate alignment, but a pattern of behavior over time determine general alignment.

One of the best pieces of D&D artwork I've ever seen (as found in the Years of Adventure book) depicts a male drow elf cradling a wounded or dead maralith in his arms, as battle rages around them, with his head turned towards the sky in what appears to be grief.

The reason that images speaks to me, is because one is a drow. One is a demon. And even then, it seems as if there is room to mourn a loss. :smallfrown:

YMMV. :smallsigh:

Tiki Snakes
2010-01-25, 08:17 AM
One of the best pieces of D&D artwork I've ever seen (as found in the Years of Adventure book) depicts a male drow elf cradling a wounded or dead maralith in his arms, as battle rages around them, with his head turned towards the sky in what appears to be grief.

The reason that images speaks to me, is because one is a drow. One is a demon. And even then, it seems as if there is room to mourn a loss. :smallfrown:

YMMV. :smallsigh:

I'd be interested in seeing this. Link if you've got one? :smallsmile:

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 08:24 AM
You're quoting a one sentence general idea and saying that WoTC thinks that all players should do this. Those one sentence blurbs don't have space for every possible idea for members of the race. What about the example adventurers from the Drow entry? I don't have the FR book, but I assume they follow the standard "give 3 example adventurers for this race" pattern they do in the other books. Are all of them CG Dritz clones?

How I wish you were right, but the answer is ironically YES, and thank you for reminding me of that entry. Every single one of the three has turned against Lloth and now fights for a surface world that hates and fears them.

Maybe they can all get together and form the D-Men? :smallsigh:

(Please note however - there is no CG alignment in 4e.)

Choco
2010-01-25, 09:33 AM
How I wish you were right, but the answer is ironically YES, and thank you for reminding me of that entry. Every single one of the three has turned against Lloth and now fights for a surface world that hates and fears them.

Maybe they can all get together and form the D-Men? :smallsigh:

(Please note however - there is no CG alignment in 4e.)

Of course that will be the case. Drow are an evil society, and 4e actively encourages the PC's to be good. The Warlock example you gave was the exception, not the rule, and was likely aimed more at the DM for making evil warlock NPC's than at PC's. But almost everything else specifically aimed at the PC's assumes they are going to be Lawful Good or Good and advises accordingly. If the PC's want to be an evil Drow, they can read all about Drow society and get their ideas from there.

And just cause there is no CG alignment in 4e doesn't mean you can't play your Good character as if they were CG :smalltongue:

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 09:56 AM
You're making the same mistake they are - misunderstood Good and baby-eating Evil are not the only options for PCs.

Even without considering the fact that there might be Neutral Drow (i.e. those that disagree with Lloth's extremism, without seeing fit to wage all-out war on the Underdark), there are also Drow who can be good, without being race activists. They are assuming that a Drow PC's race will always be their primary motivation. It's rather like assuming every black person is a member of the Panthers, or that every gay person is in PFLAG. In other words, I find it rather two-dimensional and disappointing.

Ashiel
2010-01-25, 10:15 AM
I'd be interested in seeing this. Link if you've got one? :smallsmile:

Dude I was trying to find the link to the picture when I was writing my previous post 'cause I wanted to hotlink it in the message. It's a really crazy sweet pic. Looks like it was drawn by Borris or a similar airbrush artist. Classic stuff, and it's awesome.

If you can find a copy of the Years of Adventure book in your local bookstore, it's in the planescape chapter. If I had a working scanner, I'd be hookin' ya up ASAP. :smallsmile:

Choco
2010-01-25, 10:21 AM
You're making the same mistake they are - misunderstood Good and baby-eating Evil are not the only options for PCs.

Even without considering the fact that there might be Neutral Drow (i.e. those that disagree with Lloth's extremism, without seeing fit to wage all-out war on the Underdark), there are also Drow who can be good, without being race activists. They are assuming that a Drow PC's race will always be their primary motivation. It's rather like assuming every black person is a member of the Panthers, or that every gay person is in PFLAG. In other words, I find it rather two-dimensional and disappointing.

I am not making any mistake, I am pointing out that the books SPECIFICALLY push players into Good. These are just examples, nothing is stopping anyone from making characters that are not like the ones mentioned there.

When it comes to race, it IS a big deal in D&D. A good Drow will probably have an even harder time than a good Hobgoblin would. If you belong to a race that is univerally accepted as being evil incarnate then race WILL be your primary motivation if you are trying to make a living among the good/unaligned populations of the world. The good races hate you and some will attempt to kill you on sight, your own race hates you and likely doesn't take kindly to traitors and is actively hunting you, neutral parties know of both of the above and want nothing to do with you, all 3 of those just because of your race. What that means is you gotta be damn loud in your opposition to your race for even a chance of acceptance among the good races.

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 10:28 AM
I am not making any mistake, I am pointing out that the books SPECIFICALLY push players into Good. These are just examples, nothing is stopping anyone from making characters that are not like the ones mentioned there.

Of course not; but nothing is forcing WotC to pigeonhole the players into just one type of Good by example, either.


When it comes to race, it IS a big deal in D&D. A good Drow will probably have an even harder time than a good Hobgoblin would. If you belong to a race that is univerally accepted as being evil incarnate then race WILL be your primary motivation if you are trying to make a living among the good/unaligned populations of the world. The good races hate you and some will attempt to kill you on sight, your own race hates you and likely doesn't take kindly to traitors and is actively hunting you, neutral parties know of both of the above and want nothing to do with you, all 3 of those just because of your race. What that means is you gotta be damn loud in your opposition to your race for even a chance of acceptance among the good races.

All the more reason to be Neutral then. If everyone on both sides thinks you're a bastard (the surface for your appearance, your people for betraying Lloth,) then isn't "to hell with both of you!" a reasonable response?

Choco
2010-01-25, 10:41 AM
Of course not; but nothing is forcing WotC to pigeonhole the players into just one type of Good by example, either.

Suggestions are not forcing you to do anything. WotC is not forcing all PC's to be good and heroic (as opposed to psychopathic muredrous hobos that go around killing things and stealing their stuff...) for instance.


All the more reason to be Neutral then. If everyone on both sides thinks you're a bastard (the surface for your appearance, your people for betraying Lloth,) then isn't "to hell with both of you!" a reasonable response?

I agree with you on that, I always have. My point is simply that this does not fit with WotC's "theme" in 4e of strongly suggesting players to play good and heroic characters (see above) :smalltongue:. The example you just gave could still easily work within a PC party without being disruptive, but that type of character isn't all that heroic.

Omegonthesane
2010-01-25, 10:50 AM
All the more reason to be Neutral then. If everyone on both sides thinks you're a bastard (the surface for your appearance, your people for betraying Lloth,) then isn't "to hell with both of you!" a reasonable response?

If everyone, everywhere, thinks you're a bastard, and you aren't going to do a damn thing to change that or to prove that, what are you fighting for?

The concept you are giving here is viable for someone who's settled down in the woods, or maybe a whole drow colony of exiles. Not for the kind of person who risks their life adventuring.

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 10:52 AM
Suggestions are not forcing you to do anything. WotC is not forcing all PC's to be good and heroic (as opposed to psychopathic muredrous hobos that go around killing things and stealing their stuff...) for instance.

I didn't say they were forcing. I said they were pigeonholing.

Isn't the whole point of 4e to open D&D to a new audience? So they're dealing with people who might need that extra bit of text to help them develop a character concept, and they're not providing it.


I agree with you on that, I always have. My point is simply that this does not fit with WotC's "theme" in 4e of strongly suggesting players to play good and heroic characters (see above) :smalltongue:. The example you just gave could still easily work within a PC party without being disruptive, but that type of character isn't all that heroic.

But it's possible to be a heroic character of another race, without having racially charged motivations. The other races do it all the time - why not Drow?

Example PCs from other races:

Dragonborn - Harann is obsessed with perfecting his sword skills. Nothing about his draconic nature in there.
Dwarves - Travok is devoted to Kord (not even a dwarven deity) and everything he does is patterned around that devotion.
Eladrin - Quarion is a rogue that considers combat to be a dance. The only mention of the Feywild is that he feels equally at home there and in the material world.
Elves - Lia is a rogue that sought adventure after the wide world outside her dirty slum enticed her. She grew up in the city because her forest burned down.

Meanwhile, every single sample Drow mentions hating Lloth. Not "disliking Lloth" or even "not caring about Lloth" - active hatred. Yay?

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 10:58 AM
If everyone, everywhere, thinks you're a bastard, and you aren't going to do a damn thing to change that or to prove that, what are you fighting for?

Gee, I don't know, anything else, maybe?

Maybe I love the surface world, with its strange breezes and funky sunshine, etc. Lloth might have the right idea (i.e. "The strongest will survive") but maybe my Drow would rather prove it topside, rubbing the other races' faces in it (especially those pansy Elves and Eladrin), rather than hunkering down below ground. I can thus disagree with my people without hating our way of life.

Naturally I can do this, but I'd better not expect help from WotC with this concept. That's what irritates me - to break the Salvatore mold, I have to go it alone.


The concept you are giving here is viable for someone who's settled down in the woods, or maybe a whole drow colony of exiles. Not for the kind of person who risks their life adventuring.

Except one of the two samples provided HAS "settled down in the woods" (Vorgryn) and the other IS part of a "colony of exiles" (Quarfein.) So yeah.

Devils_Advocate
2010-01-25, 11:17 AM
The easy test is: if you could get something you want by killing someone, and you wouldn't suffer any negative consequences for killing them, would you do it? Evil people would, without question.
What if it depends on who I'd have to kill? As in the case of a villain unwilling to kill children.

What if the group that you're willing to harm, rather than the group you're unwilling to harm, is relatively small? What if you're even willing to make sacrifices to help a larger group?


Everyone else would be morally conflicted.
Well, a non-Evil character needn't be morally conflicted about killing the red dragon who terrorizes a nearby village in order to get all its treasure. This sort of thing is why you specifically talk about "innocents", no?


And no, this doesn't mean "I would kill him, but it would ruin our friendship" is how Evil people think either. Taking someone's life is like cutting in line for an Evil person.
There are plenty of characters who value specific other people but lack compunctions against harming innocents in general. Are you calling these characters Evil or non-Evil?

Omegonthesane
2010-01-25, 12:24 PM
Gee, I don't know, anything else, maybe?
If you're fighting for something, you're automatically affecting people's opinions of your bastardy, just by fighting. You can't be a drow in a Stock D&D Land and not have your race deeply affect you, any more than you can be a Jew in Nazi Germany and not have your race affect you.


Maybe I love the surface world, with its strange breezes and funky sunshine, etc. Lloth might have the right idea (i.e. "The strongest will survive") but maybe my Drow would rather prove it topside, rubbing the other races' faces in it (especially those pansy Elves and Eladrin), rather than hunkering down below ground. I can thus disagree with my people without hating our way of life.
But here's the thing - if you aren't bending over backwards to show how you aren't inimical to your neighbours, and you're a Drow, then in many places you are literally going to be executed for being an enemy of whatever kingdom you are in. The reason Drow are such a big exception is because they're the only player race in Stock D&D who have always been Always/Usually/Often Evil in the fluff, and there aren't really any character concepts other than "Race traitor of an evil race" which can't be done by just playing an Eladrin or Elf or Half-Elf instead of a Drow.

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 01:14 PM
If you're fighting for something, you're automatically affecting people's opinions of your bastardy, just by fighting.

Ah, but that's my point exactly. So my cause doesn't have to be "Death to Lloth!!!!11!" in order for me to influence people - particularly if all I care about is their opinion of me, and not Drow in general.


You can't be a drow in a Stock D&D Land and not have your race deeply affect you, any more than you can be a Jew in Nazi Germany and not have your race affect you.

"Affect you" and "motivate your entire character" are two different concepts.
I won't touch the real-world discussion.


But here's the thing - if you aren't bending over backwards to show how you aren't inimical to your neighbours, and you're a Drow, then in many places you are literally going to be executed for being an enemy of whatever kingdom you are in. The reason Drow are such a big exception is because they're the only player race in Stock D&D who have always been Always/Usually/Often Evil in the fluff, and there aren't really any character concepts other than "Race traitor of an evil race" which can't be done by just playing an Eladrin or Elf or Half-Elf instead of a Drow.

I'm not denying that most Drow PC's have to deal with such prejudices. My problem is with WotC's default assumption is that every Drow PC has to "bend over backwards" to earn everyone's trust. There are open-minded communities on the surface, even in Faerun - FRPG mentions "trade consortiums" and "mercenary companies" both founded by, and accepting of Drow. A Drow PC hired blade from one of these organizations wouldn't necessarily feel the need to exemplify his trustworthiness every minute of every day, nor would he necessarily be carrying a torch to lead an expedition back down into the Underdark and depose his hated Queen. Expecting every Drow PC to behave this way without variation is two-dimensional.

Omegonthesane
2010-01-25, 01:22 PM
Ah, but that's my point exactly. So my cause doesn't have to be "Death to Lloth!!!!11!" in order for me to influence people - particularly if all I care about is their opinion of me, and not Drow in general.
In that case, OK, I concede the point.


"Affect you" and "motivate your entire character" are two different concepts.
I won't touch the real-world discussion.
Wasn't intending to start one.


I'm not denying that most Drow PC's have to deal with such prejudices. My problem is with WotC's default assumption is that every Drow PC has to "bend over backwards" to earn everyone's trust. There are open-minded communities on the surface, even in Faerun - FRPG mentions "trade consortiums" and "mercenary companies" both founded by, and accepting of Drow. A Drow PC hired blade from one of these organizations wouldn't necessarily feel the need to exemplify his trustworthiness every minute of every day, nor would he necessarily be carrying a torch to lead an expedition back down into the Underdark and depose his hated Queen. Expecting every Drow PC to behave this way without variation is two-dimensional.

WotC aren't exactly saints at anything about game design, mind. Also, bear in mind that they get money by attracting newbies more than by satisfying regulars, and they probably decided "Eh, all noob drow are Drizz'l clones anyway".

Which could be why the LARP group I'm in specifies as a universe detail that being a drow on the surface merits an automatic IC death sentence which you cannot mitigate in any way...

It isn't really right, but it's good business sense, and hey, fluff is easier to come up with than semi-balanced rules.

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 02:13 PM
WotC aren't exactly saints at anything about game design, mind. Also, bear in mind that they get money by attracting newbies more than by satisfying regulars, and they probably decided "Eh, all noob drow are Drizz'l clones anyway".

I recognize that was their intention... hence, I was griping about it.

I can understand perfectly why they do something, without agreeing that it is necessary or even justified. It smacks of Executive Meddling and Viewers (Players?) Are Morons to me.

I have no issue with their initiative to make all PCs default to good (though I have a feeling there's an "Evil Party!" sourcebook on the horizon as a result); my problem is that they chose one very narrow expression of that drive for Drow, which they did for no other race. You had a very good point in that Drow face challenges the other races don't, but it still stretches credulity to its breaking point for every Good Drow to react to that pressure in exactly the same way.


Which could be why the LARP group I'm in specifies as a universe detail that being a drow on the surface merits an automatic IC death sentence which you cannot mitigate in any way...

Again, I point out that there are Drow that live healthy lives on the surface even in FR. Mercenary bands, trade consortiums. That's a bit far from "kill on sight."


It isn't really right, but it's good business sense, and hey, fluff is easier to come up with than semi-balanced rules.

Unfortunately, fluff is what sells the books, not crunch. If all I wanted was crunch, I could easily rely on the Character Builder, or even ask on a forum "Hey, what stat bonuses do Drow get in 4e again?" But finding someone to repost the entirety of the Drow Adventurers section on a message board is much more difficult. And of course, the art has nothing to do with the crunch at all.

So if they're going to be slapdash with the very quality that moves their books off the shelves, is that really good business sense?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-25, 04:31 PM
What if it depends on who I'd have to kill? As in the case of a villain unwilling to kill children.
This is a case of fighting the hypothetical.

The individual has two qualities:
(1) They are Innocent
(2) Their death will give you something good.

If you would either not kill them, or be morally conflicted over it, then you are Not-Evil. Otherwise - Evil.

And before you say "but nobody fits that hypothetical" then I'd like to point out it doesn't matter. Of course "real" world situations are going to be more complicated - and yet, every Evil character must answer an unqualified Yes to this hypothetical or, well, not be following the simplest part of the Evil alignment. This is why it is a litmus test - you either show as Evil or you don't.


There are plenty of characters who value specific other people but lack compunctions against harming innocents in general. Are you calling these characters Evil or non-Evil?
Yes, they're Evil. Why is this so hard to see?


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

. . .

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
If you are committed others solely by personal relationships, you are Not-Good - Good people make sacrifices for total strangers.

If you would also kill Innocents without compunction, then you are Evil.

Otherwise - Neutral.

hamishspence
2010-01-25, 05:01 PM
If you would either not kill them, or be morally conflicted over it, then you are Not-Evil. Otherwise - Evil.

Personally I figure that the person who agonizes over the evil they do, but do it anyway, is Evil rather than Neutral. The Operative in Firefly, for example.

"Being morally conflicted" is not a barrier to being evil, if the person consistantly chooses the morally wrong decision.

A person who kills innocents on a large scale with compunction, isn't that much better than someone who does it without.

Conversely, a person who hurts others, routinely, for their own personal gratification, isn't Neutral merely because they dislike the idea of actually killing anybody.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-25, 05:05 PM
The Operative didn't antagonize. He knew he was doing evil. He just thought evil was the best course to make the world (his world) a better place. Once all the other evil men are dead he shall + must die.

hamishspence
2010-01-25, 05:09 PM
Calling himself a monster, and his acts evil, seems a bit more like "agonizing over his evil deeds"

than the sort of character who says "because of why I do them, my deeds are not evil" and believes themselves to be a good guy, and has no qualms of conscience.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-25, 05:18 PM
Personally I figure that the person who agonizes over the evil they do, but do it anyway, is Evil rather than Neutral. The Operative in Firefly, for example.

"Being morally conflicted" is not a barrier to being evil, if the person consistantly chooses the morally wrong decision.

A person who kills innocents on a large scale with compunction, isn't that much better than someone who does it without.

Conversely, a person who hurts others, routinely, for their own personal gratification, isn't Neutral merely because they dislike the idea of actually killing anybody.
Well, that's where the secondary elements of the Alignments come in - "respect for life" for example. Also, remember that Evil also likes to "harm and degrade" Innocent life - someone who tortures folks to the brink of death but never kills them is still going to be Evil.

To be honest, I can't really imagine someone refusing to kill an Innocent life because they were Innocent - but was completely fine with torturing them for no good reason. Having a personal issue with taking life, period, is not the same as being morally opposed to taking Innocent lives - and being wary of wholesale killing to boot.

I was merely trying to advance a litmus test because, to my surprise, the concept that being Evil means you kill without qualm was controversial in this here thread. To bring things back to my original point - Evil PCs have an unacceptably high risk of breaking up the party because they place no inherent value on life, much less the lives of Innocents. This makes them unusually susceptible to betraying their party members - barring cases where they are parties of Lawful, blood-bonded killers and such extraordinary measures.

Think of it like this: Evil people treat their allies as pets, rather than people - objects of affection, to be sure, but you shed few tears when you spay or neuter them :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-01-25, 05:25 PM
PHB suggests that the villain with a code of honor that causes them to refuse to kill innocents, may be Lawful Evil.

That said, there is a wide spectrum of Evil characters in D&D- not all, or even most, are going to be the sort who are willing to murder.

Some villains might have a strong distaste for violence of any kind, but have no qualms about being responsible for suffering.

Or conversely, they might hate what they do, but do it anyway- the soldier serving an evil lord who believes his oath of loyalty matters more than the lives he destroys on the lord's orders. But still hates carrying them out.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-25, 05:27 PM
PHB suggests that the villain with a code of honor that causes them to refuse to kill innocents, may be Lawful Evil.

That said, there is a wide spectrum of Evil characters in D&D- not all, or even most, are going to be the sort who are willing to murder.

Some villains might have a strong distaste for violence of any kind, but have no qualms about being responsible for suffering.
Well, I'm pretty sure the Drow PC isn't going to be one of the "not willing to kill" types :smalltongue:

BTW - the LE Knight is still going to be willing to oppress and otherwise harm the innocent peasants under his control. And something tells me he's also going to be willing to define "innocents" very narrowly indeed.

"And what is his crime"
"Jaywalking, m'lord"
"Off with his head!"

hamishspence
2010-01-25, 05:33 PM
Or, for that matter, the ruler who reserves his ruthlessness only for the worst trangressors, but has them treated with exceptional cruelty- to the delight of the populace.

A ruler who is kind and generous to citizens under most circumstances, but whose methods of execution for murderers, rapists, etc would impress even Dexter.

Come to think of it, a Drow PC who would never hurt the "innocent, ordinary citizen" but who is ruthless and cruel in his or her pursuit of perceived "evil oppressors" would not be implausible.

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 05:39 PM
A ruler who is kind and generous to citizens under most circumstances, but whose methods of execution for murderers, rapists, etc would impress even Dexter.

Did... did the Marut just make a funny? :smallconfused:


Come to think of it, a Drow PC who would never hurt the "innocent, ordinary citizen" but who is ruthless and cruel in his or her pursuit of perceived "evil oppressors" would not be implausible.

Very plausible, especially in 4e.

hamishspence
2010-01-25, 05:46 PM
Dexter is pretty much the textbook example of taking "pay evil unto evil" to the edge of what viewers/readers will agree with.

"Evil alignment" is one of those things that can be done in many ways.

It could be a person who is just generally horrible to most people they deal with, but aren't necessarily monstrously so.

It could be a person "driven to it" in pursuit of protecting others and destroying evil, whose methods have crossed the line too many times.

Or a person whose evil consists primarily of keeping their mouth shut, and consenting to the acts, as per the "evil teacher" in BoVD.

It is very varied in D&D.

Optimystik
2010-01-25, 05:50 PM
I know who Dexter is. I just got a little tickled imagining him playing D&D. :smalltongue:

Concerning "keeping your mouth shut and consenting" - another example in BoVD is the witness to the poisoning of the town water supply, even when told that the entire town is a front for demons or somesuch. So I agree.

hamishspence
2010-01-25, 05:55 PM
Might be interesting to imagine a D&D character modelled on Dexter.

(Unless its been done too many times already, usually with the player insisting their character is CG :smallannoyed:)

Though the idea of various fictional characters settling down to a game (and just for kicks, trying to play a character completely different from them), is intriguing :smallamused:

Susano-wo
2010-01-25, 06:07 PM
Ok, I lied.
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."

^beginning of the d20 SRD on alignment.

oh and here's to intellectual dishonesty!
"Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient"

Funny how you've been lopping that first word off to support your quite false claims.
Now if it was an honest oversight, then I apologize for the harshness of my criticism. But I have a hard time believing that you did not double check the veracity of your claims when they were so repeatedly rebuffed.

Oh, and Ashiel, that picture sounds so awesome. I hope someone can find it ^ ^ (also good, for illustration of grey areas in DnD morality, the picture in Book of Exalted Deeds that shows a Paladin stuck in a quandary of killing two demon/devil lovers (since they are showing love, a good quality, but they are evil, since they are demons/devils)

hamishspence
2010-01-25, 06:12 PM
The notion of an Evil guy who is absolutely dedicated to "harming, degrading, torturing, killing" guilty life, has been mentioned a few times.

And also, the many shades of "harm" the possibility that the Evil character only does one or two of these, or is kind and compassionate most of the time, but cruel to a particular group, etc, etc.

So, you could have Evil guys who never kill anybody but harm them in other ways, for various reasons, or who reserve their evil deeds for those they believe are "deserving" or many more variants.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-25, 06:48 PM
^beginning of the d20 SRD on alignment.

oh and here's to intellectual dishonesty!
"Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient"

Funny how you've been lopping that first word off to support your quite false claims.

Now if it was an honest oversight, then I apologize for the harshness of my criticism. But I have a hard time believing that you did not double check the veracity of your claims when they were so repeatedly rebuffed.
Now I love a good game of "gotcha, hypocrite" as much as the next fellow, but surely you jest.
Below is the entire quoted section from the SRD (and link!)
From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil)

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

I consistently quoted the following passage

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

You quote this other passage

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Interesting points
(1) I quoted an imperative passage, because I wanted there to be no ambiguity. It is not "some" Evil characters debase or destroy innocent life, it is Evil Creatures = Creatures that debase or destroy innocent life.

(2) Your quoted passage is cited out of context. Not only is it in the middle of a paragraph, but the very next sentence reads "Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." Or, to be read in full - "Some Evil creatures kill because of X. Other Evil creatures kill because of Y."
I'm very much uninterested in further defending my "intellectual honesty" - I have always cited fully and transparently. If I do not quote the entire friggin' "Good vs. Evil" section it is because I want to make clear and concise arguments. As an example, I never bothered quoting the "animals" passage because it is wholly irrelevant to any discussion we have had to date.

If there is continued interest in trying to find a "gotcha" clause within a single sentence, then please refer to the information in the above spoiler. If, on the other hand, you wish to engage in a discussion of the actual alignments (like hamishspence) I'd be more than happy to respond.

@hamishspence
While I agree (and have never disagreed) that Evil can be played in many ways, the one irreducible quality is the approach of Evil to the lives of others. In all of your examples, the Evil character has (rightly) decided that taking life is no longer a moral concern; it is not really a question of "being horrible to others" (Good can be rude too) or watching others die (Neutral is all about that).

To clarify, Mr. Horrible would need to be abusive, domineering, and unwilling to consider the needs of others above his own to be considered Evil. For him, killing someone else for his own convenience - while something he may never have the opportunity to do - would be perfectly acceptable. His only considerations would be whether he'd get caught and any other external negative consequences for his actions - whether it is "right to do" is not exactly on his mind.

Mr. Silent Witness would have to do a lot more than just keep quiet. He would have to witness the monstrous crime and delight in its action - he would have been happy to have done it himself, all things being equal. Whether or not he testifies is a largely separate matter - Neutral people refuse to act all the time because it is dangerous or "it wouldn't really help anything," but they are never going to glory in a monstrous crime.

Umael
2010-01-25, 06:52 PM
Huh.

Apparently, I can be evil without being Evil.

Learn something new every day.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-25, 07:06 PM
Huh.

Apparently, I can be evil without being Evil.

Learn something new every day.
Well yes.

"evil" is a Subjective term. Any of us could be considered "evil" by someone else. Why, I'm sure at least a plurality of the forum considers me "evil" by now :smalltongue:

Evil is an Objective term, formally defined by TSR (and later, by WotC) as part of their Nine Alignments System. You can no more be Evil without meeting the formal definition than you can be a vertebrate without a spine.

Grumman
2010-01-25, 07:13 PM
Well yes.

"evil" is a Subjective term. Any of us could be considered "evil" by someone else. Why, I'm sure at least a plurality of the forum considers me "evil" by now :smalltongue:
No, just stubborn and wrong.


Evil is an Objective term, formally defined by TSR (and later, by WotC) as part of their Nine Alignments System. You can no more be Evil without meeting the formal definition than you can be a vertebrate without a spine.
I agree with that but feel you are using the wrong definition, one that makes no bloody sense.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-25, 07:30 PM
I agree with that but feel you are using the wrong definition, one that makes no bloody sense.
Then please, what definition should I be using? As far as I can see, I've been citing the exact text provided by WotC - and for a relatively minor point at that.


Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life.
What does this mean, if not "Evil creatures debase or destroy innocent life?" :smallconfused:

Susano-wo
2010-01-25, 07:55 PM
First off, I apologize. I was confusing the tone of your arguments with the language used in your quotes. I should have looked back to make sure I was remembering right.:smallfrown:

Its not so much that i think you are being a hypocrite, as you are engaging in cognitive dissonance. You want to quote PHB to show that your arguments are as intended by the rules, yet you go on to defend things that aren't. The beginning statement I quoted is a statement of intent, not a gotcha statement, and the second part still holds. Your argument is that in order to be evil, you have to have no compunctions against killing. Period. The PHB says Some, not All evil characters exhibit this. Ergo (yes, yes, Phoenicians, I know :D), your argument is false, according the the PHB alignment guidelines.

The you have to be EEEEVIL to be Dnd Evil I can handle, (and honestly prefer to the oh, you are kinda selfish, well, have fun reeling from my full-power Holy Smite idea of Evil Alignments) its the idea that all evil characters must have X attitude about Y, where X in this case is no qualms and Y is killing innocents.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-25, 08:21 PM
The beginning statement I quoted is a statement of intent, not a gotcha statement, and the second part still holds. Your argument is that in order to be evil, you have to have no compunctions against killing. Period. The PHB says Some, not All evil characters exhibit this. Ergo (yes, yes, Phoenicians, I know :D), your argument is false, according the the PHB alignment guidelines.
I think you're misreading the context.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
The first sentence is a statement of fact: Evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing others.

The second sentence gives one set of motivations for why Evil creatures hurt/oppress/kill others. Some of them simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

The third sentences gives another set of motivations. While some kill whenever it is convenient, others actively pursue the definition of Evil - hurting/oppressing/killing - and kill for sport or out of duty to some higher power.

This paragraph does not say "some kill without qualms, others do not kill without qualms." It says "Being Evil means hurting/oppressing/killing others. Some hurt/oppress/kill without qualms, others hurt/oppress/kill to serve a higher power" - yet all hurt/oppress/kill others as their day-to-day business.

The you have to be EEEEVIL to be Dnd Evil I can handle, (and honestly prefer to the oh, you are kinda selfish, well, have fun reeling from my full-power Holy Smite idea of Evil Alignments) its the idea that all evil characters must have X attitude about Y, where X in this case is no qualms and Y is killing innocents.
At some level, having an Alignment must mean sharing certain ideals. It is meaningless to call someone "Good" if they share no set of principles with other "Good" beings. While Alignment is meant to be broad and inclusive, it does have boundaries.

This is stated in the very first sentence of the "Good vs. Evil" entry

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
All Good creatures protect innocent life. All Evil creatures debase/destroy innocent life. If you object to this statement, consider what that implies - that being Good doesn't mean you have to protect innocent life. If that is true, then what good is being Good? :smallconfused:

BladeSingerXIV
2010-01-26, 12:52 AM
Well, I've lurked around here for a long time, but this thread prompted me to get an account of my own and start contributing. Way to go, alignment discussion!


All Good creatures protect innocent life. All Evil creatures debase/destroy innocent life. If you object to this statement, consider what that implies - that being Good doesn't mean you have to protect innocent life. If that is true, then what good is being Good? :smallconfused:

This I agree with completely. Good, in order to be good, must be willing to protect innocent stranger; evil, in order to be evil, must not have any qualms about killing innocents, and so on. However, I disagree with you very strongly back where all of this came from, the idea that an evil character cannot function in a good party.

The merchant in the example from earlier, who sells illegal, dangerous things to get ahead is evil, yes. He probably hasn't any problems with killing people to get ahead, or with stabbings someone in the back and leaving them to die. However, there is no need for him to do that to his bodyguards. He can do things to get in good with them, so that they will protect him when the going gets tough.

Similarly with the Drow PC who practically started all of this, the woman who went to the surface to acquire allies and backstab her mother. Sure, she is evil and has no problems with killing people any time it's convenient. But when she's in a good adventuring party, she is perfectly free to suppress her instincts and help the party take the harder road, for no other reason than to not get the party Cleric of Pelor to smite her for killing an innocent.

The thing I'm getting at here is that alignment is a set of principles, a unifying characteristic that is at the core of a character's philosophy. It is at no point a compulsion. An evil character does not have to, at any opportunity, kill merchants, steal sacred relics, and eat babies. There is no reason that an evil character should not be able to make a close friend, just because they are willing to kill someone when it's easy and gainful. These examples are not in a vacuum. There are consequences to the evil character in a good party killing the troublesome town guard, and not just from the authorities. They still have to answer for their actions with the rest of the party.

I see no reason why an evil character, done intelligently, and human(oid)ly, should not be able to function well in a good party.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 03:55 AM
The first sentence is a statement of fact: Evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing others.

The second sentence gives one set of motivations for why Evil creatures hurt/oppress/kill others.


First- they are generalizations. Second, they don't necessarily do all 3.

BoVD's "evil teacher" who is part of a kidnapping ring (his job is basically to "put on report" the targets for kidnapping, and to keep quiet about it and take the money) is not described as the sort of person who delights in his evil, but simply as the "misguided fool" who does not admit that he himself is doing evil just by participating.

Champions of Ruin emphasises that it is committing evil acts routinely, that defines an evil alignment. Those acts might only be committed against evil people, or might be committed with the motivation of "protecting the innocent", or might all be very minor evil acts- it doesn't matter.

An evil guy who only "Pays evil unto evil" can still be of evil alignment, even if they never "debase or destroy innocent life"

And a good guy may not have the skill set to "protect innocent life" but by helping others, even if they are not powerful enough to protect others, they are Good. The "ordinary Good person" as opposed to the "Good hero" will qualify.

Though, when they see Evil beings attacking the innocent, they are likely to try and protect them.

Ashiel
2010-01-26, 06:18 AM
All Good creatures protect innocent life. All Evil creatures debase/destroy innocent life. If you object to this statement, consider what that implies - that being Good doesn't mean you have to protect innocent life. If that is true, then what good is being Good?

Oh crap. You're absolutely right! I've thought about it, and how could this be anything but the way it is? I realize I'm a horrible person! Look at the laundry list of innocent life I've never bothered to protect, and I have also taken part in myself from time to time! In fact, it's likely that there are no good people anywhere - except maybe the monks from The Next Karate Kid...


A few nights ago, my family had steak.
My sister killed a fly and I didn't bother to grapple her for the weapon!
My mother put down rat poison for some mice in our house.
We had a pet who was innocent and dying in pain, and the vet couldn't do anything. We killed it because we couldn't stand to see it suffering.
We also ate chicken.
And fish.
And once or twice octopus.
Did you know that deer meat isn't half bad?
Or bear? Bear steak is awesome. My uncle murders them sometimes.
We're all going to hell, and we'll probably stumble over all the good rapists who never actually killed innocents.


We can also determine that Hitler wasn't evil either, since well, he didn't kill everyone all the time. I mean, he had lots of people he worked with, and y'know, since he wasn't actively killing everyone all the time and could work with others to further his own evil activities like genocide we can assume he was neutral at worst.

Also, there's a lot of serial killers out there who only kill people based on race/sex/religion/age etc. Yeah, they don't actually qualify for your definition of evil either 'cause a number of them don't kill just anyone, and might spare people they deem innocent or clean. They're totally 100% neutral too. No evil alignment there.

There's lots of rapists who don't actually kill everyone, or even their victims. Let's give 'em a gold star for not being evil, right?

:smallyuk:

I just want to know one thing. How in the name of the D&D pantheon does anyone not be neutral by your standards? Assuming you had a paladin, what the heck are they going to smite? Also, how do orcs and such get "usually evil" when they should be killing everyone 'cause they can't even work together in war-bands to raid with each other - and would therefor quickly go the way of the dinosaur being all alone and evil in such a big world. I guess they'll all be "usually evil" for about a week, then switch to "always neutral" since only the population who wasn't evil could survive.

Please, explain it to me.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-26, 06:29 AM
Also, there's a lot of serial killers out there who only kill people based on race/sex/religion/age etc. Yeah, they don't actually qualify for your definition of evil either 'cause a number of them don't kill just anyone, and might spare people they deem innocent or clean. They're totally 100% neutral too. No evil alignment there.

There's lots of rapists who don't actually kill everyone, or even their victims. Let's give 'em a gold star for not being evil, right?

No serial killers kill it is kinda in the name.

Rapers debase life.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 07:24 AM
But the lines being cited as "definitive for Good and evil" are

"Good protects innocent life"

"Evil debases/destroys innocent life"

with "evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" being assumed to only apply to innocent others, and to be context-sensitive (otherwise PCs could not kill anything at all)

The problem with the assumption that "if its not innocent, its fair game" is that some things (according to BoVD and BoED) are evil no matter how "deserving" or "non-evil" the victim is.

Thus, even if torture as a punishment for serious crimes, is common in a setting, it remains evil.

To sum up- it is possible to have the Good trait "protects innocent life" and lack the evil trait "destroys/debases innocent life" and still be evil, if the methods are sufficiently evil.

If Dexter was translated to D&D, he'd probably fit the bill pretty well.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 11:10 AM
Similarly with the Drow PC who practically started all of this, the woman who went to the surface to acquire allies and backstab her mother. Sure, she is evil and has no problems with killing people any time it's convenient. But when she's in a good adventuring party, she is perfectly free to suppress her instincts and help the party take the harder road, for no other reason than to not get the party Cleric of Pelor to smite her for killing an innocent.

The thing I'm getting at here is that alignment is a set of principles, a unifying characteristic that is at the core of a character's philosophy. It is at no point a compulsion. An evil character does not have to, at any opportunity, kill merchants, steal sacred relics, and eat babies. There is no reason that an evil character should not be able to make a close friend, just because they are willing to kill someone when it's easy and gainful. These examples are not in a vacuum. There are consequences to the evil character in a good party killing the troublesome town guard, and not just from the authorities. They still have to answer for their actions with the rest of the party.

I see no reason why an evil character, done intelligently, and human(oid)ly, should not be able to function well in a good party.
The main risk is that even the most "principled" Evil PC (which would almost have to be LE) is not going to view his allies as more than pets. I mean, useful pets all the same, but not "people" in the sense that their lives are worth as much (or nearly so) as the Evil PC. Sure, a LE PC may be willing to die to protect his sworn brothers, but he's also going to make sure those "sworn brothers" live up to his Code - there's that whole "judging those who fall short of their duties" part of Lawful. In essence, the Evil PC is going to be willing to trade in his party members in case of emergency - when they are too weak to aid him, or when a superior foe demands one of their deaths for the life of the PC. A Neutral PC might make the same decision, but only after lengthy debate - they are committed to others through personal connections; the Evil PC is going to sacrifice others as quickly as a Good PC would leap to defend others.

It is this quality - not some sort of sociopathic compulsion - that makes Evil PCs inherently destabilizing in parties. By not considering the lives of others to be worth as much as your own, you will constantly be focused on your internal motivations - why should you sacrifice your interests for the interests of others? Maybe not in the first adventure, but eventually, this quality should come out, even in the most "intelligently" played Evil PC.

@hamishspence - Just so, though I would like to note that "societal norms" don't matter in a world of Objective Alignments. Torture degrades life - innocent or otherwise - and so its practitioners are (at the very least) not-Good. This assertion is by no means as strong as the absolute "Good protects innocent life, Evil destroys innocent life" but it is still fairly firm:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Note that these are not tied to Innocent life - just people in general. This is why it is Not-Good to torture others or summarily kill prisoners - it treats life as cheap.

And of course, the "help others" doesn't say whom the Good character must help - just that they are generally willing to help out strangers, and make sacrifices to do so. But it is by no means as mandatory as protecting innocents.

BladeSingerXIV
2010-01-26, 11:15 AM
The thing is, Ashiel, that you're taking this to an extreme and using a tone that this conversation doesn't warrant.

Yes, maybe Hitler himself can't be proven to have killed people. However, do you think for a minute that he wouldn't have? And further, eating meat isn't the same as killing someone for your own gain and you know it. Bad though it sounds, humans just don't ascribe the same worth to non-human beings. Yes, maybe the cow didn't do anything to deserve being eaten (then again, maybe it was a rapist cow), but it was still necessary for it to die for people to survive. That is not the same as killing someone because you want their TV, or kicking puppies because you think it's funny.

By the same token, hamishspence, it's possible to do evil acts without being evil. The torturer as punishment for justice goes home, plays with his dog, eats dinner with his family, and makes a donation to the law-abiding poor. He did an evil thing, torturing someone, but maybe he hates doing it and needs the paycheck and is an otherwise good persons. Actions do not the alignment make, motivations do. Sure, too many evil acts and your alignment changes, but that presumably reflects the fact that your character has developed a taste for the evil, or the motivations that drive your character to do evil (like delighting in the torture of the evil because they "deserve it") have become sufficiently evil to cause the general change in their behavior.

EDIT: I'll have to respond to you later, Oracle_Hunter. You posted while I was making mine, and I don't have time to come up with a decent response at the moment. Sorry.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 11:20 AM
By the same token, hamishspence, it's possible to do evil acts without being evil. The torturer as punishment for justice goes home, plays with his dog, eats dinner with his family, and makes a donation to the law-abiding poor. He did an evil thing, torturing someone, but maybe he hates doing it and needs the paycheck and is an otherwise good persons. Actions do not the alignment make, motivations do. Sure, too many evil acts and your alignment changes, but that presumably reflects the fact that your character has developed a taste for the evil, or the motivations that drive your character to do evil (like delighting in the torture of the evil because they "deserve it") have become sufficiently evil to cause the general change in their behavior.
Bolded for emphasis.

I'd still hold that a torturer must be Not-Good at the very least; I find it hard to imagine an actual Good person consenting to regularly torture anyone. That said - yes, Not-Evil people can do Evil things, just like Not-Good people can do Good things. It's just that they don't make a habit of it :smalltongue:

Drakyn
2010-01-26, 11:22 AM
There are so many alignment threads, and so few why-drow-suck threads. You are diminishing the unique and special snowflakeosity of this one with your every exchange! Won"t someone THINK OF THE SNOWFLAKES?!??!

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 11:29 AM
There are so many alignment threads, and so few why-drow-suck threads. You are diminishing the unique and special snowflakeosity of this one with your every exchange! Won"t someone THINK OF THE SNOWFLAKES?!??!
It does not snow in the Underdark.

This would make the Drow very emo, were it not for Lolthmas (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/12/21/).

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 11:53 AM
By the same token, hamishspence, it's possible to do evil acts without being evil.

Only up to a point.



Actions do not the alignment make, motivations do.

Again- books like Champions of Ruin, in particular, contradict this.


Sure, too many evil acts and your alignment changes, but that presumably reflects the fact that your character has developed a taste for the evil, or the motivations that drive your character to do evil (like delighting in the torture of the evil because they "deserve it") have become sufficiently evil to cause the general change in their behavior.

Or, the acts are so vile, and so common, that "it's for the greater good" doesn't hold water any more.

The assassin in Tom Clancy's Executive Orders, who has committed many atrocities over a period of years- with the motivation of getting close to, and destroying, a tyrant. In a D&D context, a multi-year career of rape, torture, and murder, even for "infiltrating the bad guy's group" should change the alignment of the character to Evil.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 12:42 PM
Again- books like Champions of Ruin, in particular, contradict this.
This always boggles me.

If Alignment is just the sum of your actions, then why pick an Alignment at all? Wouldn't it vary depending on whether you decided to donate to the poor that day?

No, regardless of WotC's later mangling in splatbooks, the traditional approach from TSR (and in the SRD) is as follows:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment
Actions are merely the way with which a DM can judge whether a PC is following a particular Alignment - they are not the Alignment themselves.

This is why few acts are definitively Good or Evil in and of themselves. Context is very important, particularly the motivations of the individual.

N.B. This does not mean that Alignment is subjective. Just because someone thinks they are doing Good does not make them Good. If you are slaughtering creatures wholesale, it's not going to be Good - yes, even exterminating goblin women and children is Not-Good. Killing their raiders and even attacking their stronghold may be - but Good people do not keep on killing after the need for killing has passed.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 12:54 PM
"general moral and personal attitudes" might be the starting point, but from then on, the acts are what track it.

Under most circumstances, its behaviour over time, but sufficiently major actions, can cause a sudden change- the DMG does mention this.

Motivations are important, but acts can, and do end up overriding them, for the purposes of determining a character's actual alignment.

Can a character remain nonevil by committing a few, fairly minor evil acts, for Good reasons? Yes.

Can a character remain nonevil by committing a lot of minor evil acts, or a few major evil acts, for good reasons? No.

TSR, in both the DMG and PHB, made it clear that utilitarian morality simply does not hold for mass murder. Even if the character is genuinely doing it "for the good of the many" their alignment will change.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 01:02 PM
"general moral and personal attitudes" might be the starting point, but from then on, the acts are what track it.

Under most circumstances, its behaviour over time, but sufficiently major actions, can cause a sudden change- the DMG does mention this.

Motivations are important, but acts can, and do end up overriding them, for the purposes of determining a character's actual alignment.
This is absolutely the case. My apologies for reading your sentiments otherwise.

For whatever reason, I often see people take the view that "actions determine alignment" is the whole of the rule. Generally speaking, Alignment "drifts" indicate a player who is not wholly at peace with their chosen Alignment; in some cases prolonged stress (such as going undercover in an Evil organization) can cause this drift - but there it is a case of character development. Dramatic actions usually signify epiphanies, and therefore justify a sudden change in Alignment.

In short, Motivations are far more important than Actions in conveying Alignment - but as the DM is not privy to those Motivations (usually), he is forced to rely on Actions.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 01:11 PM
Even when they DM is privy, if the character's record of atrocities (no matter how much they say they're doing it "to protect people- by putting an end to X evil organization") is bad enough,

"motivation remained the same" stops becoming an excuse.

Even if the character succeeds at destroying the evil organization wholesale, protecting people from it for all time, their alignment will have changed in the process.

"good ends successfully achieved" + "sufficiently vile atrocities" = evil alignment.

In D&D, anyway.

Might work like this.

DM: "How do you plan on dealing with Evil Organization X"
Player: "Infiltrate it from within, and when I have won their trust and gained enough control in it, destroy it"
DM: "You do realize the group won't let the PC in unless they perform Evil act Y, and if they don't keep performing evil acts, the group will not let the PC gain any power?"
Player: "Saving the many from this scourge, necessities a few sacrifices"
DM: "OK- but be aware the character's alignment will change, in the process"

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 01:24 PM
Even when they DM is privy, if the character's record of atrocities (no matter how much they say they're doing it "to protect people- by putting an end to X evil organization") is bad enough,

"motivation remained the same" stops becoming an excuse.
Absolutely.

I'm just tired of seeing people say "well, character A did a Good act here, but then he did an Evil act here - I guess we can't figure out his Alignment!" :smalltongue:

Optimystik
2010-01-26, 01:29 PM
Oracle, I fail to see the dichotomy. Both actions and intent matter for alignment, this is plain as day. Trying to argue for just
one or the other doesn't make sense.

The trouble with intent - it ceases to matter if you don't take any actions at all. But actions always matter. Therefore, actions get the greater weight.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 01:31 PM
Absolutely.

I'm just tired of seeing people say "well, character A did a Good act here, but then he did an Evil act here - I guess we can't figure out his Alignment!" :smalltongue:

To be fair given only that info you actually cant figure it out.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 01:32 PM
Which is one of the reasons I prefer the expanded alignment sources- which make it clear that if a character is routinely doing serious evil (no matter that they are routinely doing serious good as well) their actual alignment will be Evil.

None of the "Evil acts half the time + Good acts half the time = Neutral"

One Champions of Ruin example- evil lycanthrope.

A character can be evil and yet not seem to be evil; he can be evil yet consider himself the epitome of goodness, or his evil might only show itself under certain conditions. A character who has contracted lycanthropy, for example, might donate treasure to widows and orphans, build temples, slay dragons, and help old ladies across the street- but on the night of the full moon, he hunts down and slaughters those widows and orphans and feeds the same old ladies to the dragon. Most of the time he is good, but his curse wipes out all the good he does.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 01:38 PM
Oracle, I fail to see the dichotomy. Both actions and intent matter for alignment, this is plain as day. Trying to argue for just one or the other doesn't make sense.

The trouble with intent - it ceases to matter if you don't take any actions at all. But actions always matter. Therefore, actions get the greater weight.
I guess I can see where you're coming from - it is true that someone who says "oh, I'd like to save those orphans" but never does is not going to be Good.

Anyhoo, it's too fiddly a point to push on. My central contention (here) was that Actions alone cannot determine Alignment - someone who says "I kill things but love babies" (and an exhaustive list of "good" and "evil" actions) isn't giving enough information to accurately determine Alignment.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 01:53 PM
A character can be evil and yet not seem to be evil; he can be evil yet consider himself the epitome of goodness, or his evil might only show itself under certain conditions. A character who has contracted lycanthropy, for example, might donate treasure to widows and orphans, build temples, slay dragons, and help old ladies across the street- but on the night of the full moon, he hunts down and slaughters those widows and orphans and feeds the same old ladies to the dragon. Most of the time he is good, but his curse wipes out all the good he does.

That example is stupid. That guys not Evil. He is cursed. I mean really? What kind of bad example is that? Does that mean that the Were-Bear Rapist is on his way to good (Okay so evil acts>good ones for determining alignment so it's a no but still?) I mean I can see maybe saying that spells that target evil work on him but personally I'd just say that when he IS transformed he is Evil and when he isn't he isn't. Stupid Champions of Ruin.

Optimystik
2010-01-26, 01:56 PM
I think the point is to show exactly what you said, Xeno - he becomes Evil while the curse is active, because it overrides all the good he has done during daylight hours, rather than cancelling it out as NWN morality would dictate. The point is to show that even Lycanthropes can't possibly do enough good during the daytime to "default to Neutral."

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 01:57 PM
That example is stupid. That guys not Evil. He is cursed. I mean really? What kind of bad example is that? Does that mean that the Were-Bear Rapist is on his way to good (Okay so evil acts>good ones for determining alignment so it's a no but still?) I mean I can see maybe saying that spells that target evil work on him but personally I'd just say that when he IS transformed he is Evil and when he isn't he isn't. Stupid Champions of Ruin.
Well, I didn't want to say anything, but yeah - it is pretty stupid.

Alignment requires voluntary actions / actual decisionmaking, after all - only Paladins fall for involuntary Evil acts. This is exactly why I distrust these "alignment" splatbooks.

EDIT:
@Optimystik - if your point is that, while in Wereform, the character pings as Evil, then I agree. If your point is that the guy, when in his ordinary form (and with his ordinary mind) could not ping as Good, I would disagree.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 02:09 PM
As written in MM, before a voluntary transformation,

or (once the character is aware of their condition) before the character fails a will save on transforming (save DC increases with every transformation)

their alignment in human form will be the same as it was before getting afflicted.

After they fail the save, or transform voluntarily, their alignment will change to that of the base lycanthrope.

But (going by CoR) even after their alignment changes, most of their personality will be the same, and they will act as they always did, doing good acts, if they were good- and only "act evil" at the full moon.

Maybe its a case of "once you know whats happened, you are morally obliged to inform people, so they can be protected from you- failure to do so, is placing your needs ahead of their lives"


An interesting question might be- if a "good-aligned afflicted werewolf" character becomes aware of condition, chains himself up at every full moon, and finally fails the save, what happens?

if their alignment has (because of the curse) magically changed, but they keep taking precautions to ensure they don't do evil even after it changes, they would be a bit odd for Evil alignment.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 02:13 PM
Maybe its a case of "once you know whats happened, you are morally obliged to inform people, so they can be protected from you- failure to do so, is placing your needs ahead of their lives"
Sure, I can buy that.

But the acts alone don't change his Alignment - he needs to make a voluntary decision before that can happen. Even if that decision is not to act.

Optimystik
2010-01-26, 02:22 PM
EDIT:
@Optimystik - if your point is that, while in Wereform, the character pings as Evil, then I agree. If your point is that the guy, when in his ordinary form (and with his ordinary mind) could not ping as Good, I would disagree.

My point was the former: Good in the morning, Bad at night. The idea behind that passage is to show that even if he is GOOD in the morning, he will still be Evil (not Neutral) at night, which is what Neverwinter Nights morality would conclude.

In other words, the evil of his transformed state does not stop him from being good at other times, but neither does his good at other times override the evil of his transformed state. He is two personalities (and thus, two alignments) inhabiting one body.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 02:23 PM
True- as written, you don't have to start making Will saves to avoid changing alignment, until after you become aware of the condition.

being "magically cursed to be evil" does seem to be possible in D&D though- Helm of Opposite Alignment, for example.

in these sort of cases "evil personality" becomes more important than "evil acts"- a just-cursed person will have an Evil alignment, even if they have never committed an evil act.

When it comes to afterlife, Fiendish Codex 2 in particular takes acts as more important than personality- "thinking bad thoughts is not enough" as it puts it.

So, if a villain were to ambush a CG hero, put the helm on their head, check that it worked, then kill them, in the hope of sending their soul to Hell, guess what?

It wouldn't work. Regardless of your actual alignment, Hell won't let you in without evil acts.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 02:25 PM
Maybe its a case of "once you know whats happened, you are morally obliged to inform people, so they can be protected from you- failure to do so, is placing your needs ahead of their lives"

From The SRD: "The character remembers nothing about the entire episode (or subsequent episodes) unless he succeeds on a DC 15 Wisdom check, in which case he becomes aware of his lycanthropic condition."

So for an average human there is a fair chance that the character doesn't know about it. I mean thats a 3 in 4 chance of not knowing every month. And thats assuming the commoner doesn't have a negative Wis Mod.

That was just a terrible example given. I mean I can see in some circumstances where they would be evil (knowing about it but doing nothing to prevent) but not this one without more info given.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 02:36 PM
I figured that the example given was supposed to be "evil that only shows itself under certain conditions"

So, once he's aware, and he has transformed voluntarily once (or failed that increasing Will save) his alignment changes- but he still tries to do good the rest of the time.

But this is not enough to change his alignment back.

(Though, I like the notion of an ex-CE afflicted werewolf who, through restraining himself at the full moon, and acts of heroism, has finally won his way back to Good alignment).

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 02:41 PM
(Though, I like the notion of an ex-CE afflicted werewolf who, through restraining himself at the full moon, and acts of heroism, has finally won his way back to Good alignment).

I'd rather have a CE guy debate whether or not to embrace the power of the Were-bear or keep his alignment.

Optimystik
2010-01-26, 02:45 PM
I'd rather have a CE guy debate whether or not to embrace the power of the Were-bear or keep his alignment.

He'll probably wake up covered in bruises, from all the rockslides he pushed orphans out of the way of during the night. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 02:45 PM
Interesting thought.

Might depend on how much the CE guy knows about it, and what kind of CE they are- if they are really attached to their worldview, they might fight it, or even hire somebody to change their alignment back magically the moment they "succumb" :smallamused:

its worth remember that CE might be any shade of Chaotic + Evil. They might be a Chaotic anti-authoritarian, plus an Evil Well Intentioned Extremist- a bit like a slightly more ruthless V, from V for Vendetta.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 02:49 PM
He'll probably wake up covered in bruises, from all the rockslides he pushed orphans out of the way of during the night. :smallbiggrin:

It'd make a great character. PC's go to a town where the populace is protected by a "noble bear" every night. He destroys the thieves guild every time they rebuild. Too bad the head of the Thieves Guild is the WereBear and he is desperately trying to find a way of preventing his transformations without losing his power.

Umael
2010-01-26, 03:09 PM
Well yes.

"evil" is a Subjective term. Any of us could be considered "evil" by someone else. Why, I'm sure at least a plurality of the forum considers me "evil" by now :smalltongue:

Evil is an Objective term, formally defined by TSR (and later, by WotC) as part of their Nine Alignments System. You can no more be Evil without meeting the formal definition than you can be a vertebrate without a spine.

That explains why I prefer games without the alignment system.

Why use something that's broken?

In the context of the game, TSR/WotC gave the game an objective term. The trouble is, from viewing it from the other side, TSR/WotC gave their definition, i.e., evil as defined by TSR/WotC. Hence, when we look at alignment from outside of the game, we see that it is a subjective term as it applies to real life.

A lot of posters are saying, "This is what I consider to be evil," which doesn't fit with the official definition (assuming you have it correct). And I have to agree with them. If Evil was something so horrible and elitism that only a narrow few can obtain it, that your "evil" PC is really just Neutral with Evil tendencies, then why did we bother with the concept of Vile? Isn't Evil enough? No, apparently, the evil of an orc isn't as bad as the evil of a drow isn't as bad as the evil of a lich isn't as bad as the evil of a demon.

Personally, I reject the official definition (as well as most of the alignment system). Having a game book tell me what is right and wrong, what is good and evil, is, frankly, insulting. And unbelievable.

I can easily imagine a society based on your stereotypical drow - the fallen of the elves, seduced, manipulated, controlled, and "pruned" by a mad, psychotic, twisted Evil Elven Goddess, now Demon Goddess. I can see them, as people who are often evil, as a society that is evil - but I cannot see them as a society which is Evil, as constantly churning out Evil individuals, as fitting the definition.

It makes more sense that they are an evil society, with many evil individuals - but also a few individuals who are neutral, or evil but with goals that allow them to work with others.

If evil and Evil aren't the same, I'll take my evil and reject your atavist Alignment System. You can have it.

Susano-wo
2010-01-26, 03:53 PM
hmm, shouldn't this thread have ended when Hitler was invoked? :P

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 04:03 PM
A lot of posters are saying, "This is what I consider to be evil," which doesn't fit with the official definition (assuming you have it correct). And I have to agree with them. If Evil was something so horrible and elitism that only a narrow few can obtain it, that your "evil" PC is really just Neutral with Evil tendencies, then why did we bother with the concept of Vile? Isn't Evil enough?

The "official definition" actually does seem to fall along looser lines- most of the sourcebooks seem to make the assumption that an Evil NPC does not have to be murderous.

In Waterdeep, the most notorious "malicious gossip" is evil-aligned- their evil alignment is much more about spite and malice, than brutality.

In the Eberron Campaign Setting, it emphasises that evil characters aren't necessarily monstrously evil, and killing beings the detect as evil on sight, is not appropriate for heroes.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 04:37 PM
The "official definition" actually does seem to fall along looser lines- most of the sourcebooks seem to make the assumption that an Evil NPC does not have to be murderous.

In Waterdeep, the most notorious "malicious gossip" is evil-aligned- their evil alignment is much more about spite and malice, than brutality.

In the Eberron Campaign Setting, it emphasises that evil characters aren't necessarily monstrously evil, and killing beings the detect as evil on sight, is not appropriate for heroes.
Again, you don't have to actually kill - but you do have to treat loss of life as no big deal. Ultimately, other people aren't worth anything to an Evil person, outside of whatever pleasure or utility they can get out of them.

Honestly, I don't find killing to be such a huge bar to pass in a Fantasy setting. I mean, even the Good people are running around killing things - death is part of everyday life.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 04:47 PM
Even in a fantasy setting, most people aren't going to be killing other people- adventurers are the exception, not the rule.

The PHB's generalizations tend to fall a bit flat,

hence to make Evil more realistic, we get things like Savage Species, which stresses that Evil characters can value life- especially if it is part of their in-group- and "lack of respect for life" might be confined to a small subgrouping of people, considered "The Enemy"

And The Giant's commentaries in the gaming section- it is possible for an evil character to have a real friendship with another evil character.

an "antihero" evil character, might be very similar to a Good one- but their attitude to "The Enemy" is no-holds-barred, and so on.

In a big city, will all the characters in that city of Evil alignment be sociopathic in the way you suggest?

Or will it depend on the type of evil?

"Even Evil Has Loved Ones" so to speak.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-26, 05:10 PM
hmm, shouldn't this thread have ended when Hitler was invoked? :P

Nope, we rolled a D20 and Hitler fialed his save or die.

Ashiel
2010-01-26, 05:11 PM
The thing is, Ashiel, that you're taking this to an extreme and using a tone that this conversation doesn't warrant.

Yes, maybe Hitler himself can't be proven to have killed people. However, do you think for a minute that he wouldn't have? And further, eating meat isn't the same as killing someone for your own gain and you know it. Bad though it sounds, humans just don't ascribe the same worth to non-human beings. Yes, maybe the cow didn't do anything to deserve being eaten (then again, maybe it was a rapist cow), but it was still necessary for it to die for people to survive. That is not the same as killing someone because you want their TV, or kicking puppies because you think it's funny.

By the same token, hamishspence, it's possible to do evil acts without being evil. The torturer as punishment for justice goes home, plays with his dog, eats dinner with his family, and makes a donation to the law-abiding poor. He did an evil thing, torturing someone, but maybe he hates doing it and needs the paycheck and is an otherwise good persons. Actions do not the alignment make, motivations do. Sure, too many evil acts and your alignment changes, but that presumably reflects the fact that your character has developed a taste for the evil, or the motivations that drive your character to do evil (like delighting in the torture of the evil because they "deserve it") have become sufficiently evil to cause the general change in their behavior.

EDIT: I'll have to respond to you later, Oracle_Hunter. You posted while I was making mine, and I don't have time to come up with a decent response at the moment. Sorry.

First: I'm showing what Hunter Oracle's overly literal interpretation presents. It has already been taken to extremes. He's suggesting that unless it is in fact extreme then it's not law/chaos/good/evil, and is thus neutral. My post was intentionally drawing attention to the craziness of this idea.

Second: Yeah. I actually do think that Hitler probably wouldn't have killed his own mother, or maybe even his family, or his niece he was theoretically having relations with. There's lots of examples where Hitler didn't kill people just because he could. In Nazi Germany he could have had virtually anyone gagged, bagged, and brought to him to shoot in the face (just to keep up his evil alignment so he could could qualify for Evil Mastermind prestige class, for the charisma and leadership benefits - j/k). The thing is, to my knowledge, he didn't. Do I still think Hitler, his ideals, and his methods are evil? You'd better believe it.

As to the cow. Some humans do. Some humans don't. There's a pretty good chance that taking the SRD literally (such as trying to suggest that the SRD descriptions of alignment are absolute rules) that it's considered innocent life. In fact, it's highly arguable that unless that cow attacked you first then it was probably innocent life and you killed it for your own convenience.

Do I think this is a bit extreme? Yes, yes I do...but that's what you get when you're being literal and rigidly extreme. I was attempting to illustrate this.

Third: I actually agree with you. This character might not be evil because he really doesn't want to do what he's doing, and he's doing it only as a means to do good (caring for his family). I would ask what the rest of his life is like. I believe that's it's possible to do evil acts without being evil (in other words, I agree with you). I just also believe that it's possible to be evil without having to do evil acts continuously and excessively. The drow from an earlier post (who was in my opinion very well conceived, good job!) who didn't slaughter her own party members at every opportunity could still be quite evil (and sounded like it) without being clinically insane.


No serial killers kill it is kinda in the name.

Rapers debase life.

But, according to what Oracle Hunter has been saying, unless they're doing it to everyone every chance you could have, then they're not evil. Merely neutral. The point is, the idea that all evil creatures somehow must commit evil at every conceivable opportunity is insane, and I don't really believe that; which is why I was pointing out the silliness of such a thing.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 05:43 PM
Third: I actually agree with you. This character might not be evil because he really doesn't want to do what he's doing, and he's doing it only as a means to do good (caring for his family). I would ask what the rest of his life is like. I believe that's it's possible to do evil acts without being evil (in other words, I agree with you). I just also believe that it's possible to be evil without having to do evil acts continuously and excessively.

What happens when the character combines "really doesn't want to do what he's doing" with "does evil acts continously and excessively"?

For a given value of "continuously" of course.

The infiltrator of a very evil organization committing the acts to keep up his cover, the person doing it because they've been coerced into doing it, or to feed their family, or for some other sympathetic reason?

I'd say, in the context of D&D, no matter how sympathetic, such characters would probably have an evil alignment.

Especially if the setting takes "humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral" literally, with the proportion of evil-aligned humans being about 1/3 or so.

However, in such a setting "those who are evil can be redeemed- forgiven, etc" in BoED should probably be played up. After all, if someone is Driven to Evil, I suspect a lot of players will prefer to show mercy in this case.

Similarly, in such a setting, Detect Evil means "it might be a good idea to investigate" not "kill this person".

Starbuck_II
2010-01-26, 05:52 PM
Second: Yeah. I actually do think that Hitler probably wouldn't have killed his own mother, or maybe even his family, or his niece he was theoretically having relations with. There's lots of examples where Hitler didn't kill people just because he could. In Nazi Germany he could have had virtually anyone gagged, bagged, and brought to him to shoot in the face (just to keep up his evil alignment so he could could qualify for Evil Mastermind prestige class, for the charisma and leadership benefits - j/k). The thing is, to my knowledge, he didn't. Do I still think Hitler, his ideals, and his methods are evil? You'd better believe it.


Um, yeah he did. He sent his parents (jews) to concentration camps. Leading to their deaths.

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 05:54 PM
Incorrect- the fact that his dad died while he was an adolescent is pretty well-known, and was a major plot point in The Boys from Brazil.

And can we please get off the real-world issue? I'd rather the thread not be locked.

Optimystik
2010-01-26, 06:04 PM
Well, it hasn't been about Drow in quite some time...

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 06:10 PM
true- I think the main point was "is a Evil character (such as a drow) who actually values his allies as persons, and is friends with them, feasible?"

I'd say it is.

Maybe it's just me, but I found characters like Jarlaxle and Liriel Baenre, somewhat more interesting than Drizzt or most of the Eilistraee-worshippers.

In the first couple of books in the Starlight and Shadows trilogy. (Daughter of the Drow, Windwalker) Liriel seemed to balance between Neutral and Evil in a quite interesting way.

(According to both the 3.0 FRCS, and the 4th ed one, Jarlaxle is evil-aligned).

Optimystik
2010-01-26, 06:12 PM
Though he wasn't a Drow, Elaith Craulnober could have passed for one admirably, I think. Vile as a viper, maddeningly superior... but he had no problems with teamwork and respected skilled company (albeit, grudgingly) e.g. Danilo Thann.

Fhaolan
2010-01-26, 06:14 PM
I find several things amusing in this thread, so I thought I'd just point them out:

1) I now have visions of people running around in pastures taunting cows to attack them first so they can have steak without being subject to bovine paladin smites...

2) I also like the idea of the Thieves Guildmaster being a werebear unknowingly, and trying to thwart himself.

3) Think of the SNOWFLAKES!

As to how a werewolf could change your alignment: I believe the original D&D version of this 'rule' was based on the Victorian/Puritan concept that Evil is corrosive and addictive. The unconcious Evil wolf 'personality' would slowly change the conscious mind of the person without realizing it, until the creature was one single Evil personality again. Basically everyone is Evil unless they take conscious and deliberate steps to be Good. Everyone fights against their inner Evil nature, but werewolves' inner Evil is just that much more powerful and is harder to fight against, and you *will* give in to it.

Ashiel
2010-01-26, 06:16 PM
What happens when the character combines "really doesn't want to do what he's doing" with "does evil acts continously and excessively"?

For a given value of "continuously" of course.

The infiltrator of a very evil organization committing the acts to keep up his cover, the person doing it because they've been coerced into doing it, or to feed their family, or for some other sympathetic reason?

I'd say, in the context of D&D, no matter how sympathetic, such characters would probably have an evil alignment.

Especially if the setting takes "humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral" literally, with the proportion of evil-aligned humans being about 1/3 or so.

However, in such a setting "those who are evil can be redeemed- forgiven, etc" in BoED should probably be played up. After all, if someone is Driven to Evil, I suspect a lot of players will prefer to show mercy in this case.

Similarly, in such a setting, Detect Evil means "it might be a good idea to investigate" not "kill this person".

Ok, good points all around I suppose. I don't really have an argument to this. Maybe the torturer is pretty evil, or at least far from being good, and I can buy that. I also believe that being "evil" alignment isn't a ticket to a free smite (the smite comment in my earlier post was a concern about how there's nothing that could be hit with smite evil, even in self defense, unless it had the evil descriptor because nothing except maybe fiends can even exist logically under such extremes). I agree there as well.

My entire post was, at its core, an attempt to show the ridiculousness of Oracle Hunter's laws of evil, and his definition of what an evil character MUST do to be considered evil. I give his posts about the drow-elf working in a party as my evidence of this.


Um, yeah he did. He sent his parents (jews) to concentration camps. Leading to their deaths.
To avoid going off topic / getting the thread locked, my response is within the spoiler.

Klara Hitler was a devout[4] Roman Catholic and attended church regularly with her children. When her husband died in 1903 he left her a government pension along with some property. As a result she was adequately provided for financially, as were her children. However, four years after the death of her husband, Klara died from iodoform poisoning from the treatment of breast cancer, aged 47, in Linz, Austria, with her children, Adolf and Paula, at her side.[5] She is buried in Leonding near Linz.[6]
For more info, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klara_Hitler and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Family.

Would you like some tartar sauce with your foot? :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-01-26, 06:18 PM
Though he wasn't a Drow, Elaith Craulnober could have passed for one admirably, I think. Vile as a viper, maddeningly superior... but he had no problems with teamwork and respected skilled company (albeit, grudgingly) e.g. Danilo Thann.

Especially in some of the later books/short stories, he has an element of "willing to commit necessary evils to save others"- he isn't just self-centred.

The short story Redemption, in Realms of War, showcases this rather nicely.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-26, 06:21 PM
As to how a werewolf could change your alignment: I believe the original D&D version of this 'rule' was based on the Victorian/Puritan concept that Evil is corrosive and addictive. The unconcious Evil wolf 'personality' would slowly change the conscious mind of the person without realizing it, until the creature was one single Evil personality again. Basically everyone is Evil unless they take conscious and deliberate steps to be Good. Everyone fights against their inner Evil nature, but werewolves' inner Evil is just that much more powerful and is harder to fight against, and you *will* give in to it.

Explain Werebear? Is good corrupting?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 07:19 PM
true- I think the main point was "is a Evil character (such as a drow) who actually values his allies as persons, and is friends with them, feasible?"

I'd say it is.
But why? Why bother writing "Evil" on your sheet if you don't plan on actually doing any Evil acts?

I mean, that's what we're talking about, right? Being "Evil" but never betraying your friends, killing or oppressing innocents, or doing any of the things that being Evil supposedly entails?

I mean, look at the actual Alignment descriptions

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Do any of those sound like the sort of "evil" Drow that have been mentioned? Or any so-called "reasonable" Evil character presented?

IMHO if you pick an Alignment, you should at least try to stay somewhere within its boundaries. I understand lots of people don't like the Alignment System, but that's no reason to just ignore the words on the page.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 07:24 PM
Explain Werebear? Is good corrupting?

For that matter why is the bear a paladin? I mean really?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-26, 07:28 PM
For that matter why is the bear a paladin? I mean really?
It's because, like bears, Paladins are really fond of hugs :smallbiggrin:

Ashiel
2010-01-26, 09:20 PM
But why? Why bother writing "Evil" on your sheet if you don't plan on actually doing any Evil acts?

I mean, that's what we're talking about, right? Being "Evil" but never betraying your friends, killing or oppressing innocents, or doing any of the things that being Evil supposedly entails?

I mean, look at the actual Alignment descriptions

Do any of those sound like the sort of "evil" Drow that have been mentioned? Or any so-called "reasonable" Evil character presented?

IMHO if you pick an Alignment, you should at least try to stay somewhere within its boundaries. I understand lots of people don't like the Alignment System, but that's no reason to just ignore the words on the page.

Emphasis mine.

Actually yes, yes it does. In the drow mentioned actually sounds like at least two of the evil alignments you posted, so maybe she's actually neutral evil or closer to lawful evil (but then again, so are all drow, really).

For example, the drow in question could quickly be defined by the LE:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
As well as the NE:

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
And is actually farthest from CE:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

I would pose that drow in general are actually LE with a twisted set of laws and rules, but the point is, the drow fits those descriptions quite well. She follows the rules as they are set to her (in the underdark it might be don't kill people and get caught, on the surface it's don't kill people or it's your ass). She's capable of working with others for her own benefit and relies on teamwork and the stability and comfort that provides. She sees many others as weak or inferior, and is likely to comment on this, but doesn't make every attempt to kill them. She desires to acquire power to go back and murder her mother and higher ranking family and take control, as per the rules drow play by. If she kills anyone, she doesn't loose sleep over it.

Either way, it sounds awesome, IMO.

Optimystik
2010-01-26, 09:24 PM
I too question the Drow's classification as CE - the Houses, the strict hierarchy with a place for everyone, only women (except for rare cases) can be priestesses, etc. - point to a Lawful society to me.

Perhaps the CE part was just because Lloth is CE (though I question why on that front also) or because of all the backstabbing (which happens in LE society just as often.) Ultimately, I think it's because Tiamat had LE covered and Shar had NE.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 09:39 PM
I too question the Drow's classification as CE - the Houses, the strict hierarchy with a place for everyone, only women (except for rare cases) can be priestesses, etc. - point to a Lawful society to me.

Perhaps the CE part was just because Lloth is CE (though I question why on that front also) or because of all the backstabbing (which happens in LE society just as often.) Ultimately, I think it's because Tiamat had LE covered and Shar had NE.

Ironically Tiamet seems more in line with CE to me than LE. Dragons are all about individuality and random destruction after all.

Sholos
2010-01-26, 10:19 PM
The CE-ness of drow might be in the part where it's perfectly acceptable to break what laws exist as long as no one can (or is willing to) prove you did it. It's very much a "the law only protects those in power" situation, which, ironically, isn't very Lawful at all.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 10:25 PM
The CE-ness of drow might be in the part where it's perfectly acceptable to break what laws exist as long as no one can (or is willing to) prove you did it. It's very much a "the law only protects those in power" situation, which, ironically, isn't very Lawful at all.

But they have a very complex system of laws. You can raid and kill a rival house and even though everyone knows you did it its not illegal unless the nobles of that house are alive enough to rat you out. So basically only failure is punished. Sounds like LE (and the sith....) to me.

Ashiel
2010-01-26, 10:49 PM
I too question the Drow's classification as CE - the Houses, the strict hierarchy with a place for everyone, only women (except for rare cases) can be priestesses, etc. - point to a Lawful society to me.

Perhaps the CE part was just because Lloth is CE (though I question why on that front also) or because of all the backstabbing (which happens in LE society just as often.) Ultimately, I think it's because Tiamat had LE covered and Shar had NE.


Ironically Tiamet seems more in line with CE to me than LE. Dragons are all about individuality and random destruction after all.

Agreed all 'round. The chaotic evil alignment really doesn't fit the society of the drow at all. In fact, the backstabbing part is actually expected, and part of the society's laws (such as the fact there is a set of rules concerning breaking certain laws, such as destroying a rival house). Where those who would kill you for failing to follow the rules would commend you on your success in breaking those rules the correct way. :smalltongue:

In regards to the OP, I actually find a large amount of love for the drow in my circles. Most of them like to read the various Forgotten Realms books, and one particularly respects R.A. Salvatore. I do as well. Homeland kept my attention through the whole thing. I like how his descriptions of things in that book spark the mind's eye brightly.

As for making challenging enemies, the strength of drow is - to me - much less based on their "dissolving weapons", and more on their ability to ambush enemies effectively and work effectively. In an underground environment their elf traits serve them well and they sport one of the longest darkvision ranges of any non-dragon creatures (120ft) which can be killer in vast dark expanses like the underdark. Their spell-like abilities are helpful as well, for reasons other posters have mentioned. In a low-level encounter, a drow adept (priestess) + drow warriors with crossbows is a scary proposition when you're in the dark, especially with them armed with poisoned bolts. Should someone illuminate the area, any one of them can cast darkness and faerie fire to reclaim advantages against their targets.

A lot of people do seem to believe they're amazingly powerful, which isn't really the case in 3.x. They're not going to brute-force their way through an encounter. Any hate for drow for their "overpowered" state has little place in 3.x.

Dryder are pretty awesome however, if not for their LA. That being said they make fun encounters. They're all spellcasters (cleric, wizard, or sorcerer) of their HD, so you can get a lot of diversity with them, so people never know exactly what to expect. Their level adjustments tend to kill it a bit.

Personally, I'd lower the LA for drow and drider to +1 and +3 respectively, or maybe +2 for the drider, considering their 6 racial HD. This would allow you to eventually buy off your LA at high levels, whereas LA +3 and +4 you can't.

Either way. Food for thought. :smallsmile:

Devils_Advocate
2010-01-26, 11:31 PM
Um, drow were made Usually Neutral Evil in 3.5. The 4E PHB mentions that Lolth's priestesses are a constant force of disruption in what would otherwise be a fairly stable society. Really, Lolth keeps the drow at each other's throats 'cuz she likes it that way, and they go along with it because the benefits of sucking up to Lolth outweigh the costs on an individual level, even though most drow would benefit if they all suddenly said "Hey, screw you, Lolth". One of those Prisoner's Dilemma sort of deals.

In 3.5, it's orcs who are all "We're racist and sexist and theocratic and hierarchical BUT WE'RE TOTALLY CHAOTIC I SWEAR". Which is odd, since I understand that they were Lawful Evil in some earlier edition, and this is why Gruumsh lives on Acheron.


Ironically Tiamet seems more in line with CE to me than LE. Dragons are all about individuality and random destruction after all.
Tiamat isn't about random destruction at all. I mean, sure, she razes the occasional village for fun, but most of all she plots to increase the wealth and power of chromatic dragons and thus herself. Though like the drow and the orcs, she seems more Neutral Evil than anything else to me.

The drow are too opportunistic to be very Lawful, though. Rather appropriately, they're very Black, as Magic: The Gathering would put it, seeking to acquire power through any means. This means that their adherence to any code will be entirely situational; they'll act loyal and obedient for precisely as long as it appears to be in their best interest to do so.

Fhaolan
2010-01-27, 12:58 AM
Explain Werebear? Is good corrupting?

Nah, they just tried to jam Beorn (and the other Celtic/Nordic shapeshifters that inspired Tolkien to create that character) into lycanthropy without thinking too hard about the side-effects. Most D&D rule problems are due to carelessness, or overenthusiam, not deliberate malice. Heck most werebears outside of Beorn are just as bloodthirsty and viscious as the werewolves. Mainly because in the older myths there's no real distinction between them. They're just 'men turned into beasts', they don't *specify* the species of animal.

It's even right in the various edition of D&D's description of lycanthropy as a 'curse', and all the horrible and dangerous stuff you have to do to be cured of it. How the heck do you curse someone with Goodness? Buh?

You can see where they *tried* to use mythological and fokelore basis, and then you can see the 90-degree turns where someone tried to be creative, and go pretty far off the deep end. Heck, just try to read 1st edition DMG. It's an exercise in and of itself.

Zaydos
2010-01-27, 01:04 AM
As stated above the major cause is Beorn. Also his likely Nordic origin in Bodvar Bjarki (from Hrolf Kralki's saga) a noble bear-like warrior that only questionably turns into a bear once (in one translation I've read he's presented as being in a trance and projecting the bear form, in the other he took the form), whose father was a noble prince cursed with the form of a bear by his evil step mother because he wouldn't have an affair with her.

Thane of Fife
2010-01-27, 07:12 AM
Nah, they just tried to jam Beorn (and the other Celtic/Nordic shapeshifters that inspired Tolkien to create that character) into lycanthropy without thinking too hard about the side-effects. Most D&D rule problems are due to carelessness, or overenthusiam, not deliberate malice. Heck most werebears outside of Beorn are just as bloodthirsty and viscious as the werewolves. Mainly because in the older myths there's no real distinction between them. They're just 'men turned into beasts', they don't *specify* the species of animal.

It's even right in the various edition of D&D's description of lycanthropy as a 'curse', and all the horrible and dangerous stuff you have to do to be cured of it. How the heck do you curse someone with Goodness? Buh?

It's noteworthy that, in 2e at least, all infected lycanthropes were bloodthirsty and liable to slaughter their friends while changed. Only true lycanthropes had the particular alignments.

Xenogears
2010-01-27, 08:55 AM
Tiamat isn't about random destruction at all. I mean, sure, she razes the occasional village for fun, but most of all she plots to increase the wealth and power of chromatic dragons and thus herself. Though like the drow and the orcs, she seems more Neutral Evil than anything else to me.

So her whole plan is get money, get money, kill bahamut, get money, oh and destroy that village for the lulz. Sounds like CE to me...

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 08:56 AM
So her whole plan is get money, get money, kill bahamut, get money, oh and destroy that village for the lulz. Sounds like CE to me...

I really need to make room in my sig.

I think she's primarily LE because of Dragonlance, myself.

Xenogears
2010-01-27, 09:28 AM
Hmmm. Never read Dragonlance so no idea how that impacts it. Good thing the alignment system is so crazy she can act in any way possible and still be called LE...

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 09:31 AM
Tiamat is known as Queen Takhisis in Dragonlance, and definitely acts in a more LE fashion there.

http://meat.meatguild.org/pictures/Takhisis.jpg

Bahamut (Paladine) is largely unchanged - i.e. stick up his rectum as a salient divine ability.

hamishspence
2010-01-27, 09:53 AM
When undercover though, he is decidedly not like most paladin deities.

Often coming across as almost like Shojo in his "senile old man" guise.

Early editions of D&D tended to explain the mixture of Chaotic and Lawful traits of drow society as "its the Underdark- even Chaotic societies need to be disciplined to survive."

Xenogears
2010-01-27, 11:38 AM
Early editions of D&D tended to explain the mixture of Chaotic and Lawful traits of drow society as "its the Underdark- even Chaotic societies need to be disciplined to survive."

That seems like a wierd thing to say. I mean if they act lawful all the time doesn't that make them lawful? Or even Nuetral if they act chaotic a lot too. That would be like saying that that group of paladins trapped in the Abyss hafta act evil to survive but see they just act that way so they are totally still good. Yeah. Totally. Hamishpence why do you keep presenting examples of bad DnD fluff writing? Although I suppose anthing written about aligment tends to be bad...

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 11:47 AM
When undercover though, he is decidedly not like most paladin deities.

Often coming across as almost like Shojo in his "senile old man" guise.

Agreed - Fizban is most certainly Chaotic.


Early editions of D&D tended to explain the mixture of Chaotic and Lawful traits of drow society as "its the Underdark- even Chaotic societies need to be disciplined to survive."

Oh joy. :smallsigh:

I used to think they should try and explain inconsistencies, but if that's what they choose to come up with, maybe they're better off making it look like a mistake.

hamishspence
2010-01-27, 01:05 PM
Hamishpence why do you keep presenting examples of bad DnD fluff writing? Although I suppose anthing written about aligment tends to be bad...

I got the impression that "Discipline = Lawful" was one of the main things disliked about the 3.0-3.5 Alignment system- especially when applied to monks.

For the source of "Underdark races are always disciplined":

AD&D Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (by Douglas Niles)

page 67: Nature of the Underground Environment and its Denizens

section: Philosophy


Every underground culture has developed distinct philosophies. Each culture has several things in common with other races living under the surface, however.
...
Many of these races are chaotic in nature, but this alignment is reflected mainly in large-group organization and coordination. The individuals of each race, whether lawful or chaotic, tend to be very disciplined in their personal habits and social lives. No doubt the scarcity of many resources taken for granted on the surface- most notably air- has forced these creatures to adopt a more careful approach to life.
...
Waste, whether of food, material, or energy, is deplored and often punished severely. Again, the constraints of the environment can easily explain this value. Air is a valuable resource, and the control of its use, particularly regarding fires, is a common feature of underground law.
...
Creatures raised in the underground are usually very stubborn and resistant to change. The most conservative of the surface governments would seem to fluctuate radically and whimsically by comparison. Perhaps this narrow-mindedness arises also from the environment- with solid rock all around, the options available when a decision is required are often seriously limited.

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 01:13 PM
It's not their discipline in a hostile environment I disagree with though. I agree that you need to be vigilant in such a dangerous place, regardless of alignment.

What I find irritating is how utterly rigid their society is - to the point that they even have rules governing betrayal! - yet they are not LE. :smallyuk:

hamishspence
2010-01-27, 01:19 PM
The rule governing betrayal "Thou Shalt Not Get Caught"

The societal rule might be that if they're caught wreaking that much destruction, and clumsy enough to leave survivors, they're a danger to the group as a whole.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-27, 01:23 PM
The rule governing betrayal "Thou Shalt Not Get Caught"

The societal rule might be that if they're caught wreaking that much destruction, and clumsy enough to leave survivors, they're a danger to the group as a whole.
Plus, the sort of "law" that the Drow follow is imposed by a supremely powerful being to preserve Her power. If she kills anyone who screws up, the Drow are going to be extremely self-disciplined while she's watching - not so much when they get out and about :smalltongue:

Xenogears
2010-01-27, 09:18 PM
The CE-ness of drow might be in the part where it's perfectly acceptable to break what laws exist as long as no one can (or is willing to) prove you did it. It's very much a "the law only protects those in power" situation, which, ironically, isn't very Lawful at all.

But the Law says who can and cannot rat you out. The law protects anyone who can get away with it. Everyone knows this. It is built into their legal system. Your not breaking the law at all. The law says "oh and if no one catches you it's all good." Kinda like how killing someone is illegal unless your doing it as an official execution. It's an exception to the law. There's is just an exception that is easy to invoke.

Ashiel
2010-01-28, 12:16 AM
But the Law says who can and cannot rat you out. The law protects anyone who can get away with it. Everyone knows this. It is built into their legal system. Your not breaking the law at all. The law says "oh and if no one catches you it's all good." Kinda like how killing someone is illegal unless your doing it as an official execution. It's an exception to the law. There's is just an exception that is easy to invoke.

Agreed. In Homeland, the authority figures even congratulate the Do'urden house for their excellent slaughter of their rivals, because they made sure that none of them got away to invoke the law to have them punished. It's not only legal, but it's incredibly formal in its execution.